Media Encoding Performance
A traditional weak spot of the current AM2 processor offerings has been in the media encoding arena when compared to the Intel Core 2 Duo. Considering the main optimizations for the Core 2 Duo centered on overall media encoding performance, we were very interested in seeing how this platform compared to current AMD lineups. We are utilizing an updated video encoding test suite for this article that includes AnyDVD, Nero Recode 2, Windows Media Encoder 9, and QuickTime Pro 7.1.
Our first series of tests is quite easy - we take our original Office Space DVD and use AnyDVD and Nero Recode 2 to copy the full DVD to the hard drive without compression, thus providing an almost exact duplicate of the DVD. We then fired up Nero Recode 2, selected our Office Space copy on the hard drive, and performed a shrink operation to allow the entire movie along with extras to fit on a single 4.5GB DVD disc. We then go back and use Nero Recode to shrink the full DVD copy and burn it onto our DVD disc. We left all options on their defaults except we checked off the advanced analysis option. The scores reported include the full encoding process and are represented in minutes/seconds, with lower numbers indicating better performance.
The results are very interesting as we did not expect our AM2 systems to perform this well and to do so is very surprising when reviewing other media encoding results. In fact, we ran the test several times and verified our settings before accepting the test results. Perhaps the last few months of Core 2 Duo results constantly exceeding AM2's best by a wide margin have tainted our cognitive abilities.
Of course, we are using a mid-range AM2 processor against the budget C2D part (the AMD price cuts have helped matters there, as the price difference is currently only about $35) but we fully believe the majority of the performance difference lies in the chipset selection on the AM2 systems. It is only in the shrink and burn tests that we see the Intel platform flexing its muscles. The difference in the shrink portion of this test was minimal and mirrored our individual shrink test results. We noticed our Intel platform was able to feed data to our DVD drive in a consistent manner with each of the AM2 platforms suffering from stutters several times resulting in our drive slowing down during the burn process. It was difficult to figure out if this was a driver, disk controller, or CPU issue. We are still testing on other chipset and CPU combinations.
Our next test has us converting our day at the beach AVI file into a high definition WMV file suitable for our Aunt Gertrude to view on her new high definition LCD TV. We ensured our quality settings were set for High Definition output. The remaining options are left at default values and then we let this program do its magic. We are reporting the numbers in minutes/seconds to complete the conversion.
These results left our heads shaking and we busily scurried off to the far corners of the lab looking for answers. After several test repeats, a few new images, and a couple of drinks, we stand by the results. Our answer, which we came up with after we switched out the MSI G965 board for a Gigabyte G965 board and had the same results, is that our E6300 is just incapable of keeping up with our AM2 5200+ X2 in this test. Why? It's all about the cache and CPU speed. Our E6600 trounces the 5200+ X2 at stock speeds and scores near it when running at E6300 speeds thanks to the increased cache. Meanwhile, our E6400 is just slightly off the 5200+ X2 pace at a modest 300MHz increase in speed over the E6300.
Next on the list is our QuickTime Pro 7.1 test that will convert our newly downloaded .Mov file into a plasma screen pleasing H.264 format. We ensured our quality settings were set to their highest levels and then let the horses loose. The values reported are again in minutes/seconds for the conversion time, with lower numbers being better.
Once again, the AM2 platforms have a slight advantage with the 6150 scoring outside of the norm in this test - so far outside that we thought something was not kosher in the land of NVIDIA. Fortunately for us, the answer was easy once we reviewed the playback files. It seems as though the quality of our encoding results on the NVIDIA platform left much to be desired along with numerous frames missing during playback or other frames just tangled together at times. We ran this same test under XP without an issue so our first blip with Vista has now occurred. Our video images are presented below.
In these particular screen shots both the G965 and 690G image quality results are basically even, but the 6150 is showing a case of the jaggies at full screen resolution. The entire playback file suffered from this issue.
A traditional weak spot of the current AM2 processor offerings has been in the media encoding arena when compared to the Intel Core 2 Duo. Considering the main optimizations for the Core 2 Duo centered on overall media encoding performance, we were very interested in seeing how this platform compared to current AMD lineups. We are utilizing an updated video encoding test suite for this article that includes AnyDVD, Nero Recode 2, Windows Media Encoder 9, and QuickTime Pro 7.1.
Our first series of tests is quite easy - we take our original Office Space DVD and use AnyDVD and Nero Recode 2 to copy the full DVD to the hard drive without compression, thus providing an almost exact duplicate of the DVD. We then fired up Nero Recode 2, selected our Office Space copy on the hard drive, and performed a shrink operation to allow the entire movie along with extras to fit on a single 4.5GB DVD disc. We then go back and use Nero Recode to shrink the full DVD copy and burn it onto our DVD disc. We left all options on their defaults except we checked off the advanced analysis option. The scores reported include the full encoding process and are represented in minutes/seconds, with lower numbers indicating better performance.
The results are very interesting as we did not expect our AM2 systems to perform this well and to do so is very surprising when reviewing other media encoding results. In fact, we ran the test several times and verified our settings before accepting the test results. Perhaps the last few months of Core 2 Duo results constantly exceeding AM2's best by a wide margin have tainted our cognitive abilities.
Of course, we are using a mid-range AM2 processor against the budget C2D part (the AMD price cuts have helped matters there, as the price difference is currently only about $35) but we fully believe the majority of the performance difference lies in the chipset selection on the AM2 systems. It is only in the shrink and burn tests that we see the Intel platform flexing its muscles. The difference in the shrink portion of this test was minimal and mirrored our individual shrink test results. We noticed our Intel platform was able to feed data to our DVD drive in a consistent manner with each of the AM2 platforms suffering from stutters several times resulting in our drive slowing down during the burn process. It was difficult to figure out if this was a driver, disk controller, or CPU issue. We are still testing on other chipset and CPU combinations.
Our next test has us converting our day at the beach AVI file into a high definition WMV file suitable for our Aunt Gertrude to view on her new high definition LCD TV. We ensured our quality settings were set for High Definition output. The remaining options are left at default values and then we let this program do its magic. We are reporting the numbers in minutes/seconds to complete the conversion.
These results left our heads shaking and we busily scurried off to the far corners of the lab looking for answers. After several test repeats, a few new images, and a couple of drinks, we stand by the results. Our answer, which we came up with after we switched out the MSI G965 board for a Gigabyte G965 board and had the same results, is that our E6300 is just incapable of keeping up with our AM2 5200+ X2 in this test. Why? It's all about the cache and CPU speed. Our E6600 trounces the 5200+ X2 at stock speeds and scores near it when running at E6300 speeds thanks to the increased cache. Meanwhile, our E6400 is just slightly off the 5200+ X2 pace at a modest 300MHz increase in speed over the E6300.
Next on the list is our QuickTime Pro 7.1 test that will convert our newly downloaded .Mov file into a plasma screen pleasing H.264 format. We ensured our quality settings were set to their highest levels and then let the horses loose. The values reported are again in minutes/seconds for the conversion time, with lower numbers being better.
Once again, the AM2 platforms have a slight advantage with the 6150 scoring outside of the norm in this test - so far outside that we thought something was not kosher in the land of NVIDIA. Fortunately for us, the answer was easy once we reviewed the playback files. It seems as though the quality of our encoding results on the NVIDIA platform left much to be desired along with numerous frames missing during playback or other frames just tangled together at times. We ran this same test under XP without an issue so our first blip with Vista has now occurred. Our video images are presented below.
 690G - Click to enlarge |
 G965 - Click to enlarge |
 6150 - Click to enlarge |
In these particular screen shots both the G965 and 690G image quality results are basically even, but the 6150 is showing a case of the jaggies at full screen resolution. The entire playback file suffered from this issue.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
What's worse is that the G965 scores almost twice as high in 3DMark06... and then falls flat on its face in actual gaming tests. (Well, most of them anyway.)IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - link
I think it might be combination of Vista too. Half Life 2 can score ~20 fps with G965 at the same settings AT tested at, when using Windows XP. I would also like to see how it performs it in XP. It seems G965 suffers more from Vista then other IGP.
chucky2 - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
I think it would be good insurance, given how amazingly late 690G is, to please confirm with AMD that 690G motherboards will definitly support the AM2+ CPU's this late summer/fall.And before people remind me that this is already fact, we have not to my knowledge see AMD themselves confirm this...which for something so seemingly simple to confirm, is getting distrubingly telling.
When AnandTech updates their article and says that they've gone back and confirmed with AMD that all 690G boards being release with support AM2+, or AMD themselves says it, then we'll know for sure. Until then, it's rumor...
Chuck
JarredWalton - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
AMD has not officially stated whether the Agena/Kuma will be drop-in compatible with current AM2 chipsets (or even the AM2 socket). We'd certainly love to know, but we're still waiting along with everyone else.chucky2 - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
Do they have any idea, and have you specifically put the question to them? I'm sure you have contacts at AMD......because from what I can tell, if a discrete graphics card is used, this chipset is looking like when Dr. Evil says, 1 million dollars! ...and then everyone is like, Uh, big deal...
...this thing should have released in Sept. of last year, and then become the defacto AMD chipset, not be released now - as you point out - with MCP68 right around the corner and the G35 coming also.
This chipset really looks to me like a could have been. Good work ATI (and then AMD)!!!
Chuck
Gary Key - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
We asked the question Chuck, have not received an official answer yet. While backwards compatibility has always been discussed as possible by AMD, we are still not convinced with any of the current motherboards. One only has to look at the Conroe launch last year and realize that while the chipsets were compatible, the motherboards were not without an update. We just recently saw this again with Kentsfield. We wish this chipset would have been released last fall also. ;)chucky2 - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
Thanks Guys, that's about all I can ask for.I guess now I've got to really sit down and decide what's the best course of action for my godson and also cousins builds. Their both going to be budget builds, but I don't want to build them an AM2 system and basically have it be End Of Lifed in 3-4 months.
You'd think if AMD wanted to stop the hemmoraging their seeing on the enthusiast side, they'd make a statement about AM2+ compatibility now, rather than wait and just keep loosing more and more. Not that a lot won't go over to the Intel side, but still, tell me 690G and say MCP68 will be the only AM2 chipsets that can take AM2+ CPU's, and now at least I've got a comfortable long term upgrade path.
Leave me in doubt, I mine as well get a 1333FSB Intel board and go to the dark side...
Looking forward to that mATX review...you think it'll be out this time next week, or towards Friday?
Chuck
JarredWalton - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
Honestly, the fact that AMD hasn't come out and said the next gen CPUs will work in AM2 speaks volumes in my book. Perhaps they are just trying to keep things quiet so that a bunch of people won't complain that their particular board won't run the new processors (some 939 boards wouldn't work with X2, after all, and there were some complaints saying AMD "guaranteed backwards compatibility). Hopefully that's all it is, but I am seriously concerned that Kuma and Agena will not work in the vast majority of AM2 boards - that's assuming they'll work in any at all.If AMD doesn't support older boards with the new processors, they are going to need some really impressive performance to keep people from raising Cain. As it stands, if a reasonably fast X2 5200+ or so isn't good enough for your long-term needs, I certainly wouldn't purchase a new AM2 system with the hope of an upgrade until the truth comes out.
Final thought: The Quad FX platform has clearly been stated as being forwards compatible with native quad core Barcelona chips. If AMD is willing to make that commitment, why not make a similar commitment with AM2 and Agena/Kuma?
dmce - Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - link
Are we going to see some details regarding HD (1080P) playback and whether it can do it comfortable or not. I appreciate you made a small comment about it, but this was lifted from the original look at the 690G chipset a few days ago so no real update in this review. Im just puzzled no sites are taking a closer look at this considering its surely one of, if not the whole point of HDMI being there?Im not interested at all in using this for games, i want a 1080p capable machine.
PokerGuy - Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - link
I'm considering a board based on the 690G for my new HTPC, but now I see it won't be able to output 1080P? Yipes... even the lowly 6150 can output at 1080P, correct?Games are not important with regard to this board, but if it can't output at 1080p, what use would it be in a HTPC??
Also, any ETA on when the mATX roundup will be released?