Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
Our new benchmark suite includes more threaded software than before. However, we still use a number of single-threaded apps that remain popular on the desktop. Adobe Acrobat, on the previous page, was one. iTunes and LAME are two others.
Both audio transcoders consequently favor the most efficient architecture running the fastest (in this case, Ivy Bridge). Sandy Bridge does really well too, besting AMD's flagship FX-8350 running in excess of 4 GHz. Ouch.
HandBrake and TotalCodeStudio conversely utilize all available processing resources. And yet, the quad-core $2,000 machine still manages to outpace the eight-core $1,000 PC. You could either credit Intel's combination of an efficient architecture and Hyper-Threading technology, or fault AMD's modular architecture that leans heavily on resource sharing between the four on-die dual-core modules.
Either way, the $500 machine’s Sandy Bridge-based Pentium, which doesn't benefit from a technology like Hyper-Threading or higher clocks, gets stomped.
Just a thought, but shouldnt the percentwise distribution of value for each built based on the purpose for which it was built ?
Something like : games, apps, storage.
$500 build : 80%, 15%, 5% (cheapest best gaming with lots of cheap storage. )
$1000 build : 50%, 40%, 10% (slightly better games over apps. Great apps. fast storage for boot)
$2000 build. : 42.5%, 42.5%, 15% (equally good games and apps. fast storage should be plenty and fast)
goes to show how even a $500 pc can thrash and destroy xbox 360 and ps3.
I was pleasantly surprised how well it turned out. I believe I would have gone with one that had less cores and spent the money elsewhere. Overall though, it turned out to be a pretty good machine. Now only if they could get the power usage under control.
Yeah the AMD 7850 really pulled its gaming performance up. Very nice too that the Intel G850 didn't choke it off. A sweet build!
Firstly, the bulk of sane consumers with even half a clue and with $1000 in their pocket would not have given the AMD platform a 2nd look if given the choice. Are we really suggesting that they would have thrown $1000 at a solution that would not give them a 3770K upgrade option later on if they felt like it?
Also, this comparison deliberately factored out power consumption, which was rather convenient for AMD. I'm afraid you can't factor this out in this day and age, just because it's hard to quantify the cost across the entire globe. What you could do is produce some sythetics that represent average consumption over a given task and mutliply it up to get the total power over a year - then folk can work out what that would cost them in their own location. What I would like to know is how much that AMD solution would cost me to run for a couple of years when compared to a comparible Intel solution, and then work out what I could have bought with the money saved - it might not be much but I think it's valid - it could be the difference between a decent cooler or a piece of trash.
Please make these value comparisons tell the whole story by including both platforms within that price bracket - I know that makes life hard for the reviewing team but boo hoo hoo, you're the ones that set out to prove a point, so do a full job please. Tell us the full story, not half of it.