e6400 slower than fx-55??

[lodmdma]

my brother computer is fx55 with 2 gigs of ram
my computer is e6400 with 1 gig or ddr2 800

i used dvdshrink on both computers to encode dvd and the fx 55 is at least twice as fast..... why??
e6400 is stock speed
doe sthe 1 gig make it slower??

 

[lodmdma]

anyone?

 

[n7]

Something is wrong.

Are you encoding already ripped video?

Or ripping it also?

 

[Markfw]

Is ultra dma enabled ?

 

[lodmdma]

n7 im encoding only

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Is ultra dma enabled ?

wheres that setting??

 

[Duvie]

Well I can tell you it shouldn't be, and it points to something set up incorrectly or not comparing equally.

Remember different DVD drives rip at different speeds.

I suggest for a good comparison you need to rip the DVD to the HDD first with like dvd-decryptor and the run DVDshrink off of the folder on the hDD...it is trult the only way to isolate the cpu. Then slight difference in hDDs will be minimal.

In my testing extrapolating the data I would say an E6400 should be waaaaayyyy faster ....almost double the speed. A E6400 would and should be equal to 2 cores at 2.6ghz or basically 5200+ X2....FX55 is single core and dvdshrink will use both cores of the dual core.

 

[Diogenes2]

Good points already made ..

Try encoding only.. While the FX55 is finishing up, see if you can find out why the ripping is slowing you down...

 

[rasczak]

but there is a large difference in ram. I believe if you awnt to truly test the machine. take out one stick of ram so the are both on equal grounds

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: jpbelauskas
but there is a large difference in ram. I believe if you awnt to truly test the machine. take out one stick of ram so the are both on equal grounds

This doesn't do crap! (amount of ram that is) I have tested it thoroughly with 2gb and 1gb and the hit on the ram will not make this a difference unless he is doing something else taking 250-300mb more of ram and he starts pagefiling...Eeven then it doesn't explain why he is 2x slower when he should be 2x faster.

While I agree apples and apples, but I dont think this is the reason

 

[lodmdma]

edit : i was only encoding....not ripping

the conroe rig is using 18x dvd ram and the fx rig is using 16x dvdrw.....

fx - 7 min 3 sec to encode nacho libre
conroe 9 min and 3 sec to encode nacho libre

i dont get it.....thought stock e6400 would be faster

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Is dvdshrink using both cores?

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

I just compared my old Sempron 64 2800+ (s754) @ 2.32 GHz (1GB DDR-387) to my new Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 2.90 GHz (1GB DDR2-828). I performed three benchmarks, based on tasks I perform regularly.

My first test was a simple audio encoding test. I converted 54:33 of CD-quality WAV audio to FLAC level 8 using DMC 10. Then I compressed a 696MB CloneCD image using WinRAR 3 at the "best," or most compressed, setting. Finally, I converted a 42:02 DivX video to DVD-compatible 1850 kbps MPEG-2 using TMPGEnc Plus at "normal" quality. Here are my results:

Sempron 64 @ 2.32 GHz
FLAC-8: 4:11
WinRAR: 7:56
TMPGEnc: 22:34

E6300 @ 2.90 GHz
FLAC-8 2:40 (56.9% faster)
WinRAR 6:24 (24.0% faster)
TMPGEnc 13:54 (62.4% faster)

We're talking about a $36 processor stacked up against a $192 chip. At this time, given the meager performance gains offered by the Core 2 Duo platform weighed against its hefty price, I cannot recommend it at this time for mainstream buyers.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
I just compared my old Sempron 64 2800+ (s754) @ 2.32 GHz (1GB DDR-387) to my new Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 2.90 GHz (1GB DDR2-828). I performed three benchmarks, based on tasks I perform regularly.

My first test was a simple audio encoding test. I converted 54:33 of CD-quality WAV audio to FLAC level 8 using DMC 10. Then I compressed a 696MB CloneCD image using WinRAR 3 at the "best," or most compressed, setting. Finally, I converted a 42:02 DivX video to DVD-compatible 1850 kbps MPEG-2 using TMPGEnc Plus at "normal" quality. Here are my results:

Sempron 64 @ 2.32 GHz
FLAC-8: 4:11
WinRAR: 7:56
TMPGEnc: 22:34

E6300 @ 2.90 GHz
FLAC-8 2:40 (56.9% faster)
WinRAR 6:24 (24.0% faster)
TMPGEnc 13:54 (62.4% faster)

We're talking about a $36 processor stacked up against a $192 chip. At this time, given the meager performance gains offered by the Core 2 Duo platform weighed against its hefty price, I cannot recommend it at this time for mainstream buyers.

I dont know how to even respond to this but say some people dont know what they are doing...

I can tell you my X2 at 2.6ghz was nearly 2x as fast as my A64 3000+@2.6ghz and my C2D at 3.2ghz is nearly twice as fast as my X2 was...

Did you turn multithreading on in TMPGenc? When you run that test take a screen shot of the task manager to see how much of the cpu is being used.


A C2D is generally recognized by all legit test site as being about 20% faster clock for clock....so that would need a 3.4ghz A64 to equal that. 3.4ghz versus 2.3ghz sempron which lacks cache and should take a hit for that is about 50%....

So your lame results tell me you are not using applications that are multithreaded or multithreaded well....

TMPGenc is highly multithreaded if configured correctly....for 2 cores at least....less so for 4 cores...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1954416&enterthread=y

here is some test.....

Single core sempron at 2.3ghz would be about equal to a 2.2ghz A64. A 2.2ghz A64 would be beat by just one core of a E6300....

It isn't just me just go look at tomshardware.

I dont know how your borked your test, but please dont pass your measly test as a definitive result, becuase you are not even in the ballpark...May not even be in the parking lot...

 

[Duvie]

I chose a 2.93ghz C2D versus a 3800+ A64....which is being generous comparing it to the sempron....

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=501&chart=175

Notice something????? WINRAR IS NOT MULTITHREADED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Still the C2d is 100%+ faster

So again I dont know how you borked your test....


http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=501&chart=177

C2D is 168% faster....

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=501&chart=182

C2D is 164% faster

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=501&chart=182

C2D is 111% faster


I would guess unless you didn't have multi cpus enabled in tmpgenc you likely are IO limited on the C2D box and most likely not holding 100%. IN my Tmpgenc test I was doing a simple Xvid AVI convert to mpeg2 and look at how c2D @ 3.2ghz was faster then 2 cores of the A64 at 2ghz (equivalent to a 3800+ but with 1mb of cache per core). Also notice it was nearly twice as fast. I can tell you my test holds full load on 2cores so one core of the Athlon 64 at 2ghz would likley been 2x slower thus 4x slower then the C2D...

 

[IntelUser2000]

I dont know how to even respond to this but say some people dont know what they are doing...

I can tell you my X2 at 2.6ghz was nearly 2x as fast as my A64 3000+@2.6ghz and my C2D at 3.2ghz is nearly twice as fast as my X2 was...

Did you turn multithreading on in TMPGenc? When you run that test take a screen shot of the task manager to see how much of the cpu is being used.


A C2D is generally recognized by all legit test site as being about 20% faster clock for clock....so that would need a 3.4ghz A64 to equal that. 3.4ghz versus 2.3ghz sempron which lacks cache and should take a hit for that is about 50%....

So your lame results tell me you are not using applications that are multithreaded or multithreaded well....

TMPGenc is highly multithreaded if configured correctly....for 2 cores at least....less so for 4 cores...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1954416&enterthread=y

here is some test.....

Single core sempron at 2.3ghz would be about equal to a 2.2ghz A64. A 2.2ghz A64 would be beat by just one core of a E6300....

It isn't just me just go look at tomshardware.

I dont know how your borked your test, but please dont pass your measly test as a definitive result, becuase you are not even in the ballpark...May not even be in the parking lot...

Umm, QFT.

I don't know what's wrong with hurtstotalktoyou/lodmdma systems, but you guys can check some things. Check that TMPG Encoder/DVD Shrink is taking advantage of dual cores. Also check you have the chipset installation utility properly installed if you have an Intel chipset system. Not having the chipset installation utility is known to drop performance substantially(order of 30-40% in average).

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Duvie

I dont know how to even respond to this but say some people dont know what they are doing...

I can tell you my X2 at 2.6ghz was nearly 2x as fast as my A64 3000+@2.6ghz and my C2D at 3.2ghz is nearly twice as fast as my X2 was...

What can I say? The numbers are real. I was careful during the tests and I fudged nothing. If anything, the Sempron had a disadvantage due to the fact it was paired with a slower hard disk (WD400EB v. Seagate 7200.7).

Did you turn multithreading on in TMPGenc? When you run that test take a screen shot of the task manager to see how much of the cpu is being used.

Yes. That's probably why it showed the most gain over the single-core setup compared to the other two tests.

A C2D is generally recognized by all legit test site as being about 20% faster clock for clock....so that would need a 3.4ghz A64 to equal that. 3.4ghz versus 2.3ghz sempron which lacks cache and should take a hit for that is about 50%....

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I've never seen any benchmarks comparing a C2D at 2.8-3.0 and a Sempron at 2.2-2.4. In fact, C2D to single-core benchmarks are fairly uncommon, as far as I can tell.

So your lame results tell me you are not using applications that are multithreaded or multithreaded well....

Why are they lame? They're real benchmarks run under extremely similar conditions, though admittedly not all non-CPU/mobo/RAM components were identical, as would be ideal. But like I said, it was the Sempron system which had the component disadvantage, so it hardly matters in this context. And TMPGEnc was indeed multi-threaded. As for WinRAR and DMC 10, I doubt they were dual-core aware--but that's the whole point! If the two cores are not being used by your software, that's a very practical concern.

TMPGenc is highly multithreaded if configured correctly....for 2 cores at least....less so for 4 cores...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1954416&enterthread=y

Those benchmarks compare quad-core to dual-core, not C2D to Sempron.

here is some test.....

Single core sempron at 2.3ghz would be about equal to a 2.2ghz A64. A 2.2ghz A64 would be beat by just one core of a E6300....

It isn't just me just go look at tomshardware.

I dont know how your borked your test, but please dont pass your measly test as a definitive result, becuase you are not even in the ballpark...May not even be in the parking lot...

I can't find any THG benches that closely resemble mine. You're welcome to point them out if you can. In the mean time, I would ask that you dispense with telling me that I "don't know what [I'm] doing," when you could not possibly have any idea what you're talking about (given that you haven't seen my test setup).

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Umm, QFT.

I don't know what's wrong with hurtstotalktoyou/lodmdma systems, but you guys can check some things. Check that TMPG Encoder/DVD Shrink is taking advantage of dual cores.

It is.

Also check you have the chipset installation utility properly installed if you have an Intel chipset system. Not having the chipset installation utility is known to drop performance substantially(order of 30-40% in average).

I have a Gigabyte GA-965P-S3. I installed the drivers from the CD-ROM, and everything looks good from Device Manager. Am I missing something else?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: Duvie

I dont know how to even respond to this but say some people dont know what they are doing...

I can tell you my X2 at 2.6ghz was nearly 2x as fast as my A64 3000+@2.6ghz and my C2D at 3.2ghz is nearly twice as fast as my X2 was...

What can I say? The numbers are real. I was careful during the tests and I fudged nothing. If anything, the Sempron had a disadvantage due to the fact it was paired with a slower hard disk (WD400EB v. Seagate 7200.7).

Did you turn multithreading on in TMPGenc? When you run that test take a screen shot of the task manager to see how much of the cpu is being used.

Yes. That's probably why it showed the most gain over the single-core setup compared to the other two tests.

NO....I already pointed out the % difference is purely based on cpu speed. Dual core should have had a major difference. In my other testing one core versus 2 cores almost scaled perfectly 100%. So yes you are doing something wrong

A C2D is generally recognized by all legit test site as being about 20% faster clock for clock....so that would need a 3.4ghz A64 to equal that. 3.4ghz versus 2.3ghz sempron which lacks cache and should take a hit for that is about 50%....

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I've never seen any benchmarks comparing a C2D at 2.8-3.0 and a Sempron at 2.2-2.4. In fact, C2D to single-core benchmarks are fairly uncommon, as far as I can tell.

What dont you get? I am saying a C2D is 20% faster clock per clock. Meaning if you had a C2D sore at 2.9ghz, a mojority of test show it would take an A64 core of 20% of higher speed to equal it. meaning it would need about 3.4ghz to equal it. A 3.4ghz A64 core (lets forget dual core and just think speed of one single core) versus the sempron at 2.3ghz (a sempron is slower then a standard 2.3ghz A64 core due to the fact it has less cache on the core) is 50%. So commonsense says that 50% would be in line comparing single core processors. however you are comparing to a dual core. this tell me it is not very multithreaded. if I wasn't familiar with this app I could possibly buy. However I am familar with it and it scles very well from 1 core to dual core.

So your lame results tell me you are not using applications that are multithreaded or multithreaded well....

Why are they lame? They're real benchmarks run under extremely similar conditions, though admittedly not all non-CPU/mobo/RAM components were identical, as would be ideal. But like I said, it was the Sempron system which had the component disadvantage, so it hardly matters in this context. And TMPGEnc was indeed multi-threaded. As for WinRAR and DMC 10, I doubt they were dual-core aware--but that's the whole point! If the two cores are not being used by your software, that's a very practical concern.

They are lame cause they do not match common reality. You may not find sempron versus C2D in reviews but there are several reviews of single core A64s versus dual core INtels and AMDs. You could for sake of arguement just pick an A64 single core between the 2.2-2.4ghz for a comparison. looking at that, not one has shown anything as close as you suggest.

TMPGenc is highly multithreaded if configured correctly....for 2 cores at least....less so for 4 cores...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1954416&enterthread=y

Those benchmarks compare quad-core to dual-core, not C2D to Sempron.

Again commonsense. I pointed out the dual cores of the opteron 270 versus the C2D. Notice how much faster the C2D was. I didn't tell you to look at the quad cores. It doesn't scale well with 4 cores due to IO limitation. I will go run the test with just one core on and I bet you I will show the test scales well. I know my one core of my C2D at even stock 2.4ghz would easily beat your sempron at 2.3ghz. that is just one core and 500mhz slower then the 2.9ghz you state. You test defies logic and my years of using it.

here is some test.....

Single core sempron at 2.3ghz would be about equal to a 2.2ghz A64. A 2.2ghz A64 would be beat by just one core of a E6300....

It isn't just me just go look at tomshardware.

I dont know how your borked your test, but please dont pass your measly test as a definitive result, becuase you are not even in the ballpark...May not even be in the parking lot...

I can't find any THG benches that closely resemble mine. You're welcome to point them out if you can. In the mean time, I would ask that you dispense with telling me that I "don't know what [I'm] doing," when you could not possibly have any idea what you're talking about (given that you haven't seen my test setup).

Well what can I say to results that defy logic. Defy many reviews over the internet (again look at single core A64 for comparison of your sempron). Defy my years of experience using a particular app. not to mention 2 of the 3 test you used are only single threaded apps and are just useless when comparing to dual core cpus and thus only skew any reasonable outcome you would suggest

I am sorry if I come off rash, but your results are simply misleading whether intended or not and I cannot allow such information to go unrefuted

 

[IntelUser2000]

Yes. That's probably why it showed the most gain over the single-core setup compared to the other two tests.

It's weird since you should see such performance increase by going from single to dual core alone(if not greater), so Sempron to Core 2 Duo should be over twice as faster.

I can't find any THG benches that closely resemble mine. You're welcome to point them out if you can. In the mean time, I would ask that you dispense with telling me that I "don't know what [I'm] doing," when you could not possibly have any idea what you're talking about (given that you haven't seen my test setup).

You are right. THG doesn't have the exact benchmark. But if you extrapolate single to dual core scaling, compare Sempron to A64, then X2 to Core 2 Duo, you can find out what you should get.

(I hate the errors computers can create. They sometimes just don't make sense, and it could be anything. I found out my computer booting up really slowly(WinXP loading bar passed 14!! times, before it would boot), and in general anything that relied on HDD performance was noticeably slow. I've found out I was getting 5-6MB/s for HDD transfer rate, when I was supposed to be getting 50MB/s+. After struggles to fix it, and multiple checks to ensure my hard drive is working(WD360 Raptor, so its no way a slow drive), I've found out its the motherboard. Somehow I fried the SATA connections(was using a used one, and I guess it broke). After a new mobo came, BOOM I've got the expected results at ~54MB/s)

It could be anything, tell us what your test system is, test basics things like memory bandwidth etc, WinRAR is memory bandwidth sensitive btw(you should be 40-50% faster not 25%). BIOS settings, whatever.

Chill Duvie .

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

I am well aware my results fly in the face of what you would expect based on professional benchmarks. Indeed, I wonder if perhaps either my board or my CPU is in some way defective. Or, it could be that with 1GB RAM the differences fade. Or it could be that I have misconfigured some sort of system setting or settings. Or maybe my turbocache video card is stealing memory from my C2D setup.

But whatever the case, it gives you no cause to be so uncivil. If you think there's a problem, let's explore.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Okay, here's what I've got...

Core 2 Duo E6300 retail (w/stock cooler)
Gigabyte GA-965P-S3 (with latest F8 bios)
Corsair XMS2 1GB (2x512MB) DDR2-675
Seagate 80GB 7200.7 SATA/150
Biostar nVidia 6200TC (64MB dedicated + 192MB shared?)

For BIOS settings:
I loaded "optimized settings," then made the following changes:

boot device priority (no need going into details here)
SMART enabled
FSB 414MHz
PCIe bus 100MHz
DDR2 multiplier 2 (828MHz)
MCH (northbridge) overvoltage +0.1v
FSB overvoltage +0.1v
DDR2 overvoltage +0.1v
CPU voltage 1.36250v

There ya go.

 

[Markfw]

He is not uncivil, you are just wrong....And he pointed that out, Chill, your setup is prabably fubared, and you are comparing single core to dual-core incorrectly.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
He is not uncivil, you are just wrong....And he pointed that out, Chill, your setup is prabably fubared, and you are comparing single core to dual-core incorrectly.

Wrong about what? I ran some benchmarks. I posted my results.

 

[Duvie]

I am unfamilar with that audio app you ran, but it isn't uncommon that most audio encoders are single threaded. So that % increase appears reasonable in just comparing single core speeds...

Winrar seems wrong compared to the results I showed you from THG...

TMPGenc I know seems wrong...especially since you say the C2D is maxed at 100% (both cores being used fully the entire time)....

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

I understand that my numbers are unexpected, but what could be interfering? Since all three apps posted minimal performance increases from system to system, I have to assume any problem is with my hardware or driver configurations. But what, exactly?