VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34
Thread
  1. DVD Ninja budz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the shadows.....
    Search Comp PM
    I'd appreciate any comments from those of you who either have the Intel Q6600 Kentsfield or E8400 Wolfdale cpu. I've been waiting for Newegg to stock the Wolfdale E8400 but the price has rose to $259.99. On the other hand the Q6600 Kentsfield cpu is down to $254.99. It's only a $5.00 difference between the two cpu's. In terms of video encoding which is the better processor?? I've checked out the Tomshardware site on the cpu's. Correct me if I'm wrong but the E8400 Wolfdale performed a bit better than the Q6600 Kentsfield in most of the tests.

    I've been told the Q6600 is good for multitasking but I have more than one computer to use so I don't really multitask much. I use a pc with a P4 3.00ghz cpu to surf the net. My other 2 computers that have core 2 duo cpu's are used for video encoding and dvd burning. I'll probably remove the c2d Allendale 1.8ghz cpu and replace it with either the E8400 or Q6600. The mobo I'll be using is GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L. I've read on the internet that some who used the same mobo that I have did not have to update the mobo bios for the E8400. But there were some that reported a mobo bios was needed in order for it to recognize the E8400 cpu. Help me decide which is a better processor for my needs. Thanks in advance.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    The 6MB L2 Cache on the E8400 is pretty nice. But then you have the risk of having to flash your bios, which is a minor PITA.

    The Q6600 is pretty impressive. I've got several at work, and the machines boot up incredibly fast.

    I'd give 6 points to the 8400, and half a dozen points to the 6600
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Finland...
    Search Comp PM
    Well logically the faster Dual Core would be more effecient then the Quad Core since most software doesnt support Quad Core processors yet...
    Quote Quote  
  4. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    Actually, anything that supports multi-core should be able to get some benefit from going quad. Most of the major encoders support quad : CCE, ProCoder, HCenc, FFMPEG, Vegas and Premiere will make use of all the CPU you can throw at it. I certainly wouldn't go back to a duo for encoding purposes.

    But . . . . .

    Many games are still very much single core focussed, so if you are a game player first, who dabbles in video on the side, a fast core2duo will give you much better performance than a quad. This is changing as 2 and 4 become the norm, but if you area attached to any games released in the last 12 months, you might want to consider the dual.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Finland...
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by guns1inger
    Actually, anything that supports multi-core should be able to get some benefit from going quad. Most of the major encoders support quad : CCE, ProCoder, HCenc, FFMPEG, Vegas and Premiere will make use of all the CPU you can throw at it. I certainly wouldn't go back to a duo for encoding purposes.

    But . . . . .

    Many games are still very much single core focussed, so if you are a game player first, who dabbles in video on the side, a fast core2duo will give you much better performance than a quad. This is changing as 2 and 4 become the norm, but if you area attached to any games released in the last 12 months, you might want to consider the dual.
    I was under the impression that After Effects doesnt use all 4 cores unless you use a specific plugin, is this correct? I am also considering upgrading my "rig" and still undecided as to what would be best... mostly Premiere/AE stuff going on.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    I haven't used AE for a while, however I would be surprised if the latest versions didn't used whatever you threw at it.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Finland...
    Search Comp PM
    Could be, AE 7 didnt support QuadCore as far as I could tell without a plugin which name I cannot remember right now... Nucleus something. No doubt the CS3 version does support it but thats a whole 1000 more so I wont be upgrading that for a long while...
    Quote Quote  
  8. I pointed this out in another thread somewhere.

    If you look at software on tom's site, it's older software not meant for multi cores....correct me if I'm wrong.

    The E8500 is faster per core stock settings
    The E8500 is more expensive per core

    The Q6600 is slower per core stock settings
    The Q6600 is less expensive per core

    As I've been reading, the Q6600 can easily be overclocked to 3ghz per core without any side effects. That would make it even faster than the stock E8500. I would overclock my Q6600 but I have an Intel board and it will not allow you to OC anything :bummer

    I like my stock Q6600 and it does very good at encoding
    tgpo famous MAC commercial, You be the judge?
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    I use the FixEverythingThat'sWrongWithThisVideo() filter. Works perfectly every time.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member rhegedus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    on the jazz
    Search Comp PM
    Get the Q6600.

    I have one clocked at 3.0 with a Freezer 7 Pro.
    Regards,

    Rob
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member rr6966's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, Oh, USA
    Search Comp PM
    I have the E8400 Wolfdale and it is incredible. The processor runs very fast and cool. Many people are overclocking up to 4.0ghz and remaining stable. My older pc is a P4 3.0 and this is quite a bit faster. I recommend this processor if you can find it. I bought it a month ago for $190.
    Quote Quote  
  11. DVD Ninja budz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the shadows.....
    Search Comp PM
    Hey! Thanks for all the replies. I'm still undecided but I will take all comments into consideration when I finally decide to bite the bullet and purchase one of them. Keep da comments coming.
    Quote Quote  
  12. DVD Ninja budz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the shadows.....
    Search Comp PM
    Whoas! Newegg dropped the price on both cpu's, $249.99. Making it harder for me to decide which one to purchase.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by budz
    I'd appreciate any comments from those of you who either have the Intel Q6600 Kentsfield or E8400 Wolfdale cpu. I've been waiting for Newegg to stock the Wolfdale E8400 but the price has rose to $259.99. On the other hand the Q6600 Kentsfield cpu is down to $254.99. It's only a $5.00 difference between the two cpu's. In terms of video encoding which is the better processor?? I've checked out the Tomshardware site on the cpu's. Correct me if I'm wrong but the E8400 Wolfdale performed a bit better than the Q6600 Kentsfield in most of the tests.

    I've been told the Q6600 is good for multitasking but I have more than one computer to use so I don't really multitask much. I use a pc with a P4 3.00ghz cpu to surf the net. My other 2 computers that have core 2 duo cpu's are used for video encoding and dvd burning. I'll probably remove the c2d Allendale 1.8ghz cpu and replace it with either the E8400 or Q6600. The mobo I'll be using is GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L. I've read on the internet that some who used the same mobo that I have did not have to update the mobo bios for the E8400. But there were some that reported a mobo bios was needed in order for it to recognize the E8400 cpu. Help me decide which is a better processor for my needs. Thanks in advance.
    i would go with the E8400, it runs at 3Ghz per core, has 6mb of shared L2 cache, it has faster communication between the L1 caches of each core and it supports SSE4.1. it also has superior floating point performance.

    now don't get me wrong, the Q6600 is a sweet cpu, but unless you are running software that can utilize all 4 cores efficiently (i.e scales properly), the dual core with superior architecture and much faster clock speed will beat it everytime.

    think of it this way: running the Q6600 with software that can't use all 4 cores is like being in a snowstorm with an all wheel drive vehicle with bald tires, a front wheel drive vehicle with good snow tires will leave it in the dust.

    now if you are absolutely sure that the software you will be using makes full use of all 4 cores, then by all means choose the Q6600, but for general computing and even for video encoding with a wide variety of software, the E8400 is the way to go.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member rhegedus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    on the jazz
    Search Comp PM
    As far as I was aware, software is either multi-core or not: if it can use two cores, it can use four.

    All the software I use regularly can use four cores.
    Regards,

    Rob
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by rhegedus
    As far as I was aware, software is either multi-core or not: if it can use two cores, it can use four.
    Not necessarily. A lot or tasks are fairly easy to split into two threads but much more diffult to split into more. So they only get split into two.

    Don't confuse this with the fact that Windows XP may cycle threads through all four cores to even out the heat generation. So even a single threaded task will use all four cores but only one core will be running that task at any one time.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by rhegedus
    As far as I was aware, software is either multi-core or not: if it can use two cores, it can use four.

    All the software I use regularly can use four cores.
    a couple of things:

    software is not "multi-core", "multi-core" refers to how many processing units a cpu has, software that can utilize multiple cores is said to be "multi-threaded".

    second, just because a piece of software launches 2 threads does not mean that it can launch 4 threads when run on a quad core cpu, the software needs to be coded in such a way that it can launch multiple threads (though there are some compilers that are capable of multi-threading single-threaded software to some extent).

    there is a limit as to how many threads a program can simultaneously launch and the limit is determined by how well a task can be parallelized, the logistics of keeping track of all the multiple threads and the law of diminishing returns.

    as for the statement that all the software you regularly use being able to use 4 cores, as long as you are sure that the software is using all 4 cores properly, then by all means choose the Q6600. keep in mind however that just because the task manager shows an app loading up all 4 cores to 100 percent doesn't mean that the app is using all 4 cores properly, i have seen some multi-threaded software that will load up all 4 cores but the performance isn't twice that of a dual core, what happens with some software is that the data gets ping-ponged back and forth between cores, or a thread running on one core is waiting on a thread running on an another core or the cache is getting thrashed and while it looks like alot is getting done, all you're really doing is just spinning your tires, so to speak.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member rhegedus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    on the jazz
    Search Comp PM
    I appreciate the difference between cores and threads, but was just keeping things simple

    I've checked to see how well my CPU's cores are being utilized - changing the number of cores used from 4 to 3 to 2 etc results in a drop in performance measured as a proportional increase in encoding times etc.
    Regards,

    Rob
    Quote Quote  
  18. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    True. As an example, the latest version of HCEnc is multi-threaded, and will use all four cores on a quad core - to about 75%. Contrast this with four instances of HCEnc running and you get all four cores utilised 100 %

    Most modern software used for video work will utilise all cores of quad core system to a greater degree when appropriate, and this range of software will only grow over a short period of time. Intel have already shown of prototype 8 core chips.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I thought I would never have to ask these questions, but I'm in a situation that I want to upgrade my video production PC. The hard-to-choose stuff is the CPU. My current CPU is P4 3.0. The main apps will be;

    - SONY Vegas 7.0
    - Photoshop CS3
    - TMPGENC
    - MainConcept
    - DVDWorkshop

    I've heard about AMD Phenom 9600, Intel Q6600 and Intel E8400 are very close in performance. The budget of the CPU is $250. I'll install Vista Ultimate 32 on it. I'll also need a video card to go along with this new unit as well. My current monitor is Samsung 245B 24".

    Thanks
    vcdlover
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Not only that, you'll need a new motherboard and RAM. I was impressed by the cost of the Phenom - $180 and around the performance of the Q6600.

    Video card performance doesn't matter for 2D work.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Soopafresh
    Not only that, you'll need a new motherboard and RAM. I was impressed by the cost of the Phenom - $180 and around the performance of the Q6600.

    Video card performance doesn't matter for 2D work.
    I mean I do need a new motherboard and RAM to go along with the CPU, but after choosing what CPU will perform the best bang for the buck.

    Thanks
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    I am also in doubt which is better. There are a lot of cpu charts testing different video encoders, but I can't find an up-to-date HCEnc test. The tests I found also have different outcomes. Sometimes the E8400 (or E8500) is faster, sometimes the Q6600 is faster and sometimes they are about the same. But what I specifically want to know is the difference for HCEnc.

    Let's look at the specs again:

    E8400: 3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6 MB cache
    Q6600: 2.4 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB, 8 MB cache

    Now I'm not planning to do any overclocking, so let's stick to the details above. The Q6600 is running at a lower clockspeed and a slower FSB, but has twice as many cores and more cache than the E8400.

    Everyone seems to recommend the Q6600, but how much difference would it make in HCEnc? About 25% faster? 50%? Or even 100% faster? After seeing so many tests, I don't have a clue.

    Another question is this: is it correct that for example the Q8300 is slower than the Q6600 for video encoding because it has way less cache? (4 MB instead of 8 MB on the Q6600. The clockspeed is only a little bit higher, 2.5 GHz for the Q8300 vs. 2.4 GHz for the Q6600.)

    Thanks in advance for the input.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Q6600 is better than the 2 core procs for video conversion, as there are ways of optimizing HCenc encoding, especially with some Avisynth AVS file tweaks.


    I have the E8400. It's plenty fast for playing videos (it's never hiccuped playing anything). It's not impressive at encoding speed, but I don't do a lot of transcoding/encoding.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by Soopafresh
    there are ways of optimizing HCenc encoding.
    I only see about a 20 percent increase with four threads compared to two (no filtering). What optimizations are there for HcEnc? Splitting the source into two pieces and encoding separately? Or do you just mean using the MT option in AviSynth to speed up filtering?

    I'd still go for quad core though.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    MT
    Quote Quote  
  26. I think in real life you wouldn't see much difference between both because even bench marks are not that much different. I put one together Q6600 CPU bought all best parts when they went on sale. When CCE is fired up it flies. I started with 2gig RAM and increased it to 6gig but didn't see much change since I bought everything at best price at sale I feel OK. I used RAID 0 it makes a big difference same HD SATA300 alone is noticably slower. In this ASUS MB I got it has 2 pair of RAID. For single task I think this is a good price braking point and as more RAM did not help much faster CPU would be the same because these program get enough resources.
    The most important thing is to match parts so it would be stable so as far as those 2 CPU goes they are the same just toss a coin. Just give few points to newer CPU and more cache.
    The following is just to show for video encoding mostly favors quads and the only dual is extreme.



    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by Bergen
    E8400: 3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6 MB cache
    Q6600: 2.4 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB, 8 MB cache
    how much difference would it make in HCEnc?
    HCEnc will run about the same speed on those two CPUs.
    Quote Quote  
  28. DVD Ninja budz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the shadows.....
    Search Comp PM
    Whoas! Old thread from last year. I did buy that e8400 and then a few months ago I bought a Q9550. The Q9550 rules in terms of video encoding.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    Well, the final choice went to neither. Instead we bought the i7 920 on an ASUS P6T board and it ROCKS.

    An AVI (DV/PCM, captured with Canopus ADVC-55) fed with Avisynth to HCEnc reached 225 fps at the fast profile and about 175 fps on the best profile, both in pass 1. Pass 2 is a little slower, but not much.
    Quote Quote  
  30. I am having similar dilemmas too -- looking for the best performance / price point. My go-to guy originally recommended E8500; but then suggested for future-proofing purposes I might want to consider Q9550, even though I will only be running 32 bit XP so the two extra processors probably won't be utilized much... But then I read that i7 is the the way to go for encoding HD content (though I can only afford the 920 at this point if I go with i7.) Each step up is roughly an $80 increment, though I'm really confused by the fact that each of the faster CPU has "slower" GHz (been away from computer hardware for a long while and it definitely shows...)

    Suggestions?
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads