Buy the ARP T-Shirt! BIOS Optimization Guide Money Savers!

 30 November 2008
 Dr. Adrian Wong
 Discuss here !
Desktop Graphics Card Comparison Guide Rev. 33.0
Covering 628 desktop graphics cards, this comprehensive comparison allows you ... Read here
BIOS Option Of The Week - Virtualization Technology
Since 1999, we have been developing the BIOS Optimization Guide, affectionately known... Read here
Buy The BOG Book Subscribe To The BOG! Latest Money Savers!
Intel Core 2 Processor Performance Comparison Guide Rev. 2.7
Digg! Reddit!Add to Reddit | Bookmark this article:

x264 Benchmark

The x264 Benchmark is the work of graysky here at Tech ARP. It basically measures how fast the processor can encode a short DVD-quality MPEG-2 video clip into a high-quality x264 video clip. This is a two-pass encoding process and hence, the results will show the encoding speed (in frames per second) for each pass.

To download and try x264 Benchmark yourself, head over to the x264 Benchmark page. You can also take a look at the more comprehensive processor comparisons there.


Render Time

The x264 encoder supports multi-core processors. Hence, there is a huge performance difference between the quad-core and dual-core Core 2 processors. The quad-core Q6600, which ran at the same clock speed as the dual-core E6600, was 85.8% faster in Pass 1 and exactly twice as fast in Pass 2. Similarly, the quad-core QX6850, running at the same speed as the dual-core E8650, was 82% faster in Pass 1 and 98.6% faster in Pass 2.

The 45nm quad-core QX9650, similar to the QX6850 except for the larger L2 cache, was the fastest processor in the comparison. It was faster than the QX6850 by 5.5% in Pass 1 and 7.2% in Pass 2, and the E6850 by 92.1% in Pass 1 and just over 113% in Pass 2. The much cheaper Q9550 was a tad faster than the QX6850 even with a 9.2% slower clock speed. The Q9450 was halfway between the QX6700 and the QX6800 in performance.

The fastest dual-core Core 2 processor in the comparison was now the new 45nm E8600. It was faster than the older 65nm E6850 by 14% (Pass 1) and 18% (Pass 2). But it was much slower than the quad-core processors. Even the slowest quad-core processor in this comparison, the Q6600 was 35.4% faster in Pass 1 and 37.1% faster in Pass 2.


Aggregated Results

To make it easier to compare the results, we colour-coded the chart.

In the following comparison, we colour-coded the results for easy comparison. Yellow would denote the rendering speed of the first pass. The colour orange would denote the rendering speed of the second pass.


Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support out work by visiting our sponsors, participate in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donate to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

The Performance Comparison

The Processors

Benchmark Details & Settings

The Testbed
Testing Methodology
Game Settings


Supreme Commander

Crysis CPU Test 2 (Ice)

3D Rendering


Media Encoding

x264 Benchmark

Math Calculations

Super PI Mod



<<< CINEBENCH R10 : Previous Page   |   Next Page : Super PI Mod >>>

Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 G3 USB 3.0 Flash Drive Review
Western Digital Caviar Green (WD30EZRX) 3 TB Desktop Hard Disk Drive Review
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Overclocking Guide
Intel's Desktop Chipset Roadmap @ October, 2008
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Overclocking Guide
Func sUrface1030 Archetype Mouse Pad Review
ASUS PEG Link Mode Guide Rev. 2.0
Chenming ATX-602 Aluminium Case Review Rev. 1.1
Jetart Xpanel DT5000 Multi-Purpose Display Panel Review
Modded Radeon 9800SE Vs. GeForce FX 5950 Ultra Comparison


Copyright © Tech All rights reserved.