Originally posted by: Budarow
Originally posted by: timzak
Originally posted by: ramjet428
I am interested in getting some good benchmarks, I havent had too much luck with 3DMARK05 or 06, seems they dont like my ancient AGP card...
What would you suggest?
I am not a gamer, I mainly use my computer to record, edit and burn DVD's. I have been recording lots of tv show, mostly SCI-FI and then editing out the commercials.
On my old Athlon 64 3200+ system, I could encode a 42 min program in 5 min. and 720 X 480 DVD resolution at 7000BPS, now I can do the same in less than 3 minutes. It also tends to be a good stress test of the processor, ram and HD's as you can imagine...
Yeah, your video card will be the limiting factor in all graphics testing, so 3dmarks or game benchmarks will be useless to you. Like you, I also have an encoding benchmark I use...basically just encode a movie DVD with Nero Recode and jot down the time reported.
When using "High Quality Encode" it really stresses the cpu. My previous system used an Athlon XP 2.4Ghz. This new c2d is about 13% faster at standard encoding, but with high quality encoding, the c2d is 2.5X faster. Other good cpu benchmarks are Cinebench and SuperPI. Almost every review site uses one or both so you can directly compare your system to those in reviews.
Can you provide example times between your 2 PCs for "standard encoding" and "high quality" encoding?
I use the PC in my sigy and am considering upgrading to the E4400 and this mobo. It usually takes my PC ~1 hour or so to encode/burn a movie.
Also, I use the freeby "standard" Nero to burn which came with my burner. What exactly does Nero Recode do to make it "high quality encoding"?
As a reference point, I read in PC Gamer Magazine last year that a PC with a E6700 (at 3.6 GHz) took 12 minutes to "transcode" (not quite sure if transcode is the same as encode) a ~7 GB movie whereas a Pentium 4 (at 3.0 GHz) took 4 hours.
Thanks,
Budarow