Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: DivX And WMV, No Hardware Acceleration

Updated: Tuning C'n'Q: Maximize Power And Performance, Part 2
By

This scenario will likely apply to many of us watching video on our PCs without hardware-accelerated video. It’s a bit more interesting to look at because, with this scenario, we will be able to see power consumption when the processor is fully loaded.

Interestingly, DivX uses fewer resources for playback than WMV. A multi-thread codec is able to spread the task more evenly between available cores. In effect, this means having more cores (in lower p-states) leads to more savings than having fewer cores (in intermediary p-states). Compare the DivX and WMV graphs. With WMV, all processors are unable to use lower p-states (and thus unable to save power) compared to DivX.

That doesn’t mean DivX is not resource-intensive. Just look at the Athlon X2 7750 and Phenom II X3 710. These processor lack the performance to play our DivX test video clip while in their lowest p-states, forcing them to use the higher/highest p-state. You can keep this from happening by customizing the multiplier used by the lower/lowest p-states as demonstrated in Part 1.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 24 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 10 Hide
    nzprogamer , November 19, 2009 5:33 AM
    GO AMD go
    i am telling you my next build AMD/ATI
    """I WILL BE BACK"""
Other Comments
  • 10 Hide
    nzprogamer , November 19, 2009 5:33 AM
    GO AMD go
    i am telling you my next build AMD/ATI
    """I WILL BE BACK"""
  • 5 Hide
    jedimasterben , November 19, 2009 11:29 AM
    I'd be interested to see the tests performed on Windows 7 to see what the effect of reducing thread "jumping" would be.
  • -9 Hide
    cnox , November 19, 2009 11:54 AM
    Dammit...how can this part 2 article be posted before the Building the Balanced PC Part 2?

    Cumon....
  • 4 Hide
    melangex3 , November 19, 2009 12:55 PM
    Great Stuff. Keep up the good work. This is the type of review that will keep me coming back. How about throwing in the ever popular 720 BE and the new 620 or 630 just for giggles?
  • 0 Hide
    Ryun , November 19, 2009 1:45 PM
    jedimasterbenI'd be interested to see the tests performed on Windows 7 to see what the effect of reducing thread "jumping" would be.


    I was thinking the same thing as well.

    Also, were the BIOSs all updated? The asynchronous clocks problem you're experiencing with Athlon II X2 was supposed to be fixed with updated CPU microcode.
  • 1 Hide
    Summer Leigh Castle , November 19, 2009 2:58 PM
    620 and 720? :D 
  • 0 Hide
    redgarl , November 19, 2009 5:27 PM
    I must admit that lately AMD is impressive. I got a PII X3 720 BE unleashed at PII X4 20 fully stable with an Asus M4A78T-E latest BIOS. Let simply add that my 2 radeon 4850 OC in Crossfire are running as fast as 2 stock 4870...

    If you take into account that the 2 cards only cost 82$ each for a total of 165$ for the two... I can hardly believe that so little money can give so much results.
  • 2 Hide
    JimmiG , November 19, 2009 6:55 PM
    With my Phenom X4 9650, I found Cool n Quiet to be pretty much worthless without tweaks. There were huge performance drops across the board, especially with tasks that didn't use all four cores, or only loaded cores partially. Videos and games would stutter and skip every couple of frames, compressing files would take longer etc. I basically had a 1.1 GHz CPU that would sometimes run at 2.3 GHz, if it felt like it. Too bad there was no tweak guide available then. I just disabled CnQ which solved all problems but made the system use more power and run hotter.

    With my 955BE, I haven't really had a need to tweak CnQ. It might cause a slight performance hit in some rare cases, but generally when I need a 3.2 GHz CPU, that's what it delivers.
  • 0 Hide
    tacoslave , November 19, 2009 8:46 PM
    Nice, amd owns in the graphics department now with that $1.2 billion im sure amd is heading to pwn BOTH markets.
  • 0 Hide
    saint19 , November 21, 2009 2:48 PM
    Good!!!, I have my 955 to 3.8GHz at 1.5V....
  • -2 Hide
    marraco , November 21, 2009 11:09 PM
    Quote:
    For this test, we've selected a 616MB folder full of files (the installer for Adobe Photoshop CS4)

    Bad choice. You are "compressing" already compressed files.
    A better choice would be to copy 600 MB from windows "program files" folder, and play with it.
  • 0 Hide
    eyemaster , November 30, 2009 6:20 PM
    marracoBad choice. You are "compressing" already compressed files.A better choice would be to copy 600 MB from windows "program files" folder, and play with it.


    Bad choice if you're trying to compress file, but not a bad choice if you're just trying to stress a CPU. It will still have to do a whole lot of calculations regardless of the files.
  • 2 Hide
    b23h , December 3, 2009 4:20 AM
    Thank you very much for this article. It came at the perfect time for me. I’ve just upgraded from a 65 watt AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600 to the AMD Phemon II X3 720. Since I’m running a fanless CPU heatsink (ZEROtherm BTF95) I was concerned that the 95 watts of power of the 720 would be too much for the BTF95. I was planning on underclocking the CPU in order to approximate what I thought the heatsink could handle. However with the help of the article I don’t need to underclock it at all. Using the chart of the 710 I estimated some beginning settings for the 720. While I may be able to further lower the voltages I’ve stressed test my current settings by running a program called the Intel Burn Test plus an immoderate amount of Borderlands.

    The 720 seems to have four p-states. The defaults were 1.25/1.15/1.05/.95 I am currently running the CPU at 1.15/1.125/1.0250/.9 I really haven’t thoroughly stress tested all the possibilities so I expect I may still be able to optimize further P-states one through three.

    The timing of this article was excellent for me and I appreciate all the information I’ve gotten at Tom’s Hardware Guide all these years.
  • 0 Hide
    volks1470 , March 25, 2010 6:30 AM
    Typo! Phenom II X3-X4 720-965 only have 6MB of L3 cache, not 8MB. Not a big deal but for a second there I though the 955 had more L3 cache than my 965.
  • 0 Hide
    4ILY45 , March 25, 2010 7:48 AM
    melangex3Great Stuff. Keep up the good work. This is the type of review that will keep me coming back. How about throwing in the ever popular 720 BE and the new 620 or 630 just for giggles?


    YES PLEASE!!!! :) 
  • 1 Hide
    shreeharsha , March 25, 2010 8:29 AM
    I still need to sell my intel Pentium 660 system to build a AMD system. I am a AMD fan (converted) stuck with intel processor system.
  • 0 Hide
    JohnnyLucky , March 25, 2010 11:45 AM
    Thanks for a very informative article that helps put things in perspective.
  • -1 Hide
    chaitanya_mkin , March 25, 2010 6:18 PM
    Im Telling u AMD wll be the king in HISTORY theres no other name than AMD.
    Quote:
    AMD the BEST
  • -1 Hide
    chaitanya_mkin , March 25, 2010 6:21 PM
    And this comparision is great for amd users, ofcourse for me tooooo cause im using AMD since 6 years.(my brain is AMD ATHLON X2 6000+ WINDSOR 3.02GHz)
  • 0 Hide
    arnawa_widagda , March 25, 2010 11:27 PM
    Hello,

    We've updated this article (and the first part) with results from an AM3 motherboard and an Athlon II X4 620. The p-state settings we tested with the Athlon II X4 620 can be found in the first part (along with some power consumption numbers).
Display more comments