Ivy Bridge to be up to 199% faster than Sandy Bridge

[jman98]

All the heavy lifting done on my PC is done while I'm either sleep or away from home. Finishing a project 30 min faster is not that important I'll never see the benefit of it since i'm away from the PC in either case. Am I missing something here?

You're my hero. One of my biggest complaints here is dumbass posters complaining about "how long" stuff takes on their PCs because they refuse to leave them powered on and working while they away or asleep so they are limited to doing encoding tasks while they are at home and actively monitoring their PCs.

[jagabo]

I don't prefer the 1100T, I just singled it out as seeming to be the better bang for the buck for video encoding (aside from cost of ownership that is), when compared to Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. And my question is, Am i missing the big picture here?

If all you are concerned about is how fast the second pass of x264 runs and the cost of the CPU, then the 1100T offers better bang for the buck. On the other hand, the i5 2600K currently costs* about the same as the 1100T and runs about the same speed in video encoding benchmarks (that don't use Quick Sync).

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2428.html?prod%5B47...d%5B4788%5D=on

If you use Quick Sync the 2500K and 2600K offer better performance per dollar, by far.

Since others have been discussing power consumption: At-the-wall, 2600K and 2500K systems require quite a lot less power than the 1100T systems both at idle and under load.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/intel-core-i7-3960x-sandy-bridge-e-review-keeping-t...gh-end-alive/7


* I quoted current Newegg prices earlier. They are out of the i5 2500K but they most recently had them at $220. Microcenter currently has both the 2500K and the 1100T for $180.

[dragonkeeper]

If all you are concerned about is how fast the second pass of x264 runs and the cost of the CPU, then the 1100T offers better bang for the buck.
If you use Quick Sync the 2500K and 2600K offer better performance per dollar, by far.

I agree with you on the i5 that's why i mentioned it in an earlier post. I don't feel that quick sync is ready for prime time yet , when comparing video encodes using quick sync and video encodes not using quick sync the latter look to be sharper. Hopefully the encoding software was responsible, I'll run another battery of test when the Ivy Bridge is released. I try to preserve as much detail in my video as possible, esp in wedding videos. The brides are ever so proud of their costly gowns and they want every detail to show.

Since others have been discussing power consumption: At-the-wall, 2600K and 2500K systems require quite a lot less power than the 1100T systems both at idle and under load.

I'm not as concerned with power consumption (probably should be i have 7 AMD powered PCs in my home), I mitigated this by using the money saved on the processor to buy 80 Plus Gold Certified PSU for my machines.

[jagabo]

I don't feel that quick sync is ready for prime time yet

Either do I (and the same goes for CUDA and ATI's GPU encoder). In fact, my i5 2600K encodes just as fast with x264 at the veryfast preset and the videos still look better than QS output (at the same bitrate).

when comparing video encodes using quick sync and video encodes not using quick sync the latter look to be sharper. Hopefully the encoding software was responsible

I think the QS encoder skips a lot of the slower features of h.264 encoding and uses higher quantizers to make up for the loss of compression. Hence the fuzzier results and loss of small details.