Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD 8370E/8320E vs. FX 6300 vs. FX 6100 for video encoding

Tags:
  • Video Encoding
  • CPUs
  • Servers
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 11, 2014 11:19:47 AM

Been using the FX 6100 as the CPU in my WHS 2011 server. It's mostly used for server media and basic storage. However, it does see some regular duty in transcoding/re-encoding video files and it can struggle to transcode real-time full Blu-Ray rips especially to multiple devices simultaneously.

I am not really interested in doing much more than just dropping a new CPU into the same motherboard since the server functions fine; video encoding is just borderline and for $100-$150 it would be nice if I could get a 20-30% and still stay at a TDP of 95W. I had been considering just grabbing an FX 6300 while they are ~$100 at NewEgg, but $50 for 2 more cores seems like an interesting proposition.

Anyone got opinions on how the newer 8320E/8370E 8-core CPUs perform compared to an FX-6100?

More about : amd 8370e 8320e 6300 6100 video encoding

a b à CPUs
October 11, 2014 11:22:17 AM

The 8320 would the best for the money as long as your mobo supports it. Get the 8320e if your mobo cant support 125 watt tdp.
m
0
l
a c 910 à CPUs
October 11, 2014 11:30:46 AM

You will benefit from the 8core transcoding so opt for one of those.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 11, 2014 3:28:17 PM

8320E will be ~20-50% faster than the 6100 while encoding depending on the conditions... First pass (if you do multi-pass) won't be much faster on the new CPU, second pass will be up to 50% faster.
m
0
l
October 11, 2014 6:39:52 PM

mdocod said:
8320E will be ~20-50% faster than the 6100 while encoding depending on the conditions... First pass (if you do multi-pass) won't be much faster on the new CPU, second pass will be up to 50% faster.


50% faster is pretty optimistic from my research, but basically I was looking for confirmation that the 8320e would be at least 25% faster and everything seems to be pointing to that as a realistic expectation. Guess I'll grab one and throw the FX 6100 up on eBay for cheap.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 12, 2014 2:05:29 AM

33% increase in core count, 10-15% increase in IPC. ~50% is not an unreasonable estimate for the better end of the scale in some conditions.
Share
a c 910 à CPUs
October 12, 2014 3:29:54 AM

smitbret said:
mdocod said:
8320E will be ~20-50% faster than the 6100 while encoding depending on the conditions... First pass (if you do multi-pass) won't be much faster on the new CPU, second pass will be up to 50% faster.


50% faster is pretty optimistic from my research, but basically I was looking for confirmation that the 8320e would be at least 25% faster and everything seems to be pointing to that as a realistic expectation. Guess I'll grab one and throw the FX 6100 up on eBay for cheap.


On average I would expect 25% with higher peaks.
m
0
l
October 12, 2014 6:19:36 AM

rolli59 said:
smitbret said:
mdocod said:
8320E will be ~20-50% faster than the 6100 while encoding depending on the conditions... First pass (if you do multi-pass) won't be much faster on the new CPU, second pass will be up to 50% faster.


50% faster is pretty optimistic from my research, but basically I was looking for confirmation that the 8320e would be at least 25% faster and everything seems to be pointing to that as a realistic expectation. Guess I'll grab one and throw the FX 6100 up on eBay for cheap.


On average I would expect 25% with higher peaks.


Right on. Kind of makes it a no-brainer at this point. Thanks for the info, guys.

m
0
l
!