 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi, everybody!
who has some experience in the field of CPUs and has the time to share his
or her wisdom?
Which of the following is the fastest for encoding / editing video and
having some fun with PovRay? Which one would you buy? Or something entirely
different?
(The Pov-Benchmark group does not seem to do much benchmarking at all, at
least I did not find anything useful there...)
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
- Intel Core i7-920 Box 8192Kb
- AMD Phenom II X4 945
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For starters: Find out if your software is multi core capable. Especially the
video software.
I know DixX supports multithreading but don't know how effective it is.
For fun with povray I'd go for the i7 or the Phenom.
Probably the Phenom because it has double the L1 and L2 cache of the i7.
But to be sure what is best for you you'd have to run actual benchmarks on the
different CPUs
just my 2ct
Aydan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, the Q9550 comes with 2x6MB L2 cache at 2.83 GHz, the i7-920 has 8
MB-L3 cache at 2.66 GHz and the AMD has 4x512kB L1 + 6MB L2 at 3.0 GHz.
And this is my problem - Q9550 is quite fast with plenty of cache, the AMD
seems to be fastest with 3 GHz but has less cache, the i7 has least GHz but
newest architecture... and frankly I have no idea how these factors balance.
"Aydan" <hes### [at] hendrik-sachse net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:web.4a4b2f858664afcc1ccf29180@news.povray.org...
> For starters: Find out if your software is multi core capable. Especially
> the
> video software.
> I know DixX supports multithreading but don't know how effective it is.
> For fun with povray I'd go for the i7 or the Phenom.
> Probably the Phenom because it has double the L1 and L2 cache of the i7.
> But to be sure what is best for you you'd have to run actual benchmarks on
> the
> different CPUs
>
> just my 2ct
> Aydan
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> Well, the Q9550 comes with 2x6MB L2 cache at 2.83 GHz, the i7-920 has 8
> MB-L3 cache at 2.66 GHz and the AMD has 4x512kB L1 + 6MB L2 at 3.0 GHz.
>
> And this is my problem - Q9550 is quite fast with plenty of cache, the
> AMD seems to be fastest with 3 GHz but has less cache, the i7 has least
> GHz but newest architecture... and frankly I have no idea how these
> factors balance.
Buy the Q9550.
Currently Core 2 is faster than Phenom at the same clock speeds, and
Core i7 is still absurdly expensive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, the Q9550 comes with 2x6MB L2 cache at 2.83 GHz, the i7-920 has 8
> MB-L3 cache at 2.66 GHz and the AMD has 4x512kB L1 + 6MB L2 at 3.0 GHz.
>
> And this is my problem - Q9550 is quite fast with plenty of cache, the AMD
> seems to be fastest with 3 GHz but has less cache, the i7 has least GHz
> but newest architecture... and frankly I have no idea how these factors
> balance.
Check out:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:4a4b4643$1@news.povray.org...
> > Well, the Q9550 comes with 2x6MB L2 cache at 2.83 GHz, the i7-920 has 8
> > MB-L3 cache at 2.66 GHz and the AMD has 4x512kB L1 + 6MB L2 at 3.0 GHz.
> >
> > And this is my problem - Q9550 is quite fast with plenty of cache, the
AMD
> > seems to be fastest with 3 GHz but has less cache, the i7 has least GHz
> > but newest architecture... and frankly I have no idea how these factors
> > balance.
>
> Check out:
>
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
That doesn't look very, well, reliable, judging by the top entry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I concur - the Dual Core cannot be twice as fast as a Quadcore - I really
doubt this.
That's my problem (one of many ;-) - to find a reliable source of
benchmarks. I do not need something telling me how fast Quake runs - it's
more a function of the graphics-card anyway - I would like to have a
reliable source showing the performance of the respective CPUs. So I tried
here - raytracing is a task that consumes CPU power.
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4a4b6d6c@news.povray.org...
>
> "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
> news:4a4b4643$1@news.povray.org...
>> > Well, the Q9550 comes with 2x6MB L2 cache at 2.83 GHz, the i7-920 has 8
>> > MB-L3 cache at 2.66 GHz and the AMD has 4x512kB L1 + 6MB L2 at 3.0 GHz.
>> >
>> > And this is my problem - Q9550 is quite fast with plenty of cache, the
> AMD
>> > seems to be fastest with 3 GHz but has less cache, the i7 has least GHz
>> > but newest architecture... and frankly I have no idea how these factors
>> > balance.
>>
>> Check out:
>>
>> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
>
> That doesn't look very, well, reliable, judging by the top entry.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> I concur - the Dual Core cannot be twice as fast as a Quadcore - I
> really doubt this.
Well, for a task that only uses 1 thread, a multicore CPU can be slower
than a single core.
But yes, I think this particular data point is erroneous somehow.
> That's my problem (one of many ;-) - to find a reliable source of
> benchmarks. I do not need something telling me how fast Quake runs -
> it's more a function of the graphics-card anyway - I would like to have
> a reliable source showing the performance of the respective CPUs. So I
> tried here - raytracing is a task that consumes CPU power.
On all the benchmarks I've seen on Tom's Hardware, Core 2 is the
architecture to aim for. (Although I'll admit to having not studied Core
i7 too strongly yet. It's still too expensive.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
>
> That doesn't look very, well, reliable, judging by the top entry.
Seems to have been fixed now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> Hi, everybody!
>
> who has some experience in the field of CPUs and has the time to share his
> or her wisdom?
>
> Which of the following is the fastest for encoding / editing video and
> having some fun with PovRay? Which one would you buy? Or something entirely
> different?
>
> (The Pov-Benchmark group does not seem to do much benchmarking at all, at
> least I did not find anything useful there...)
>
> - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
>
> - Intel Core i7-920 Box 8192Kb
>
> - AMD Phenom II X4 945
ExtremeTech.com has a review of the i7 from Nov. 2008. It benchmarks 3 i7 and 3
quad core cpus. One of the benchmarks is povray 3.7 beta 29.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2333773,00.asp
Isaac.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
