Benchmark Results: Media Encoding And Cinebench
A four-thread Core i5-655K overclocked to 4.66 GHz takes more than eight minutes to finish our HandBrake workload, so it’s pretty impressive to see the 12-thread Core i7-980X at its stock 3.33 GHz doing the same job in almost half the time. The return on investment in upgrading to a 16-thread Xeon W5580 configuration is minimal, though the speed-up is still measureable. And switching over to the 24-thread setup is more impactful still, demonstrating how well this free application is optimized for threading.
In contrast, 24 threads is complete overkill for Xvid, which actually gives up performance as you run it on more complex hardware.
DivX is fastest on the Xeon X5680 setup, but it’s fairly clear that this one is optimized to run on fewer than 12 threads, as the Xeon W5580’s 133 MHz clock rate disadvantage is the most glaring influencer of performance here.
Optimized for up to 64 threads, Cinebench 11.5’s CPU render clearly favors the dual Xeon X5680s, demonstrating impressive scaling in the process.
In contrast, the OpenGL rendering test returns higher frame rates on the Core i7-980X, suggesting that when your workload is less processor-dependent, a more complex platform might actually be a detriment to performance.
Current page: Benchmark Results: Media Encoding And CinebenchPrev Page Benchmark Results: CS4 And Introducing Adobe’s CS5 Suite Next Page Benchmark Results: MatchMover 2011, Vue 8 PLE, And Euler3D
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Or 24 Logical cores, not really Processors.Reply
24 threads, 12 cores.Reply
A+ Excellent Review.
one-shotOr 24 Logical CPUs, not really Processors.Misleading title. I was excited because I assumed intel had finally come out with 12-core server CPUs.Reply
I was expecting an even better performance from these CPUs.The performance is still limited by the software you use.Reply
Enzo MatrixMisleading title. I was excited because I assumed intel had finally come out with 12-core server CPUs.they could have gone 4x 6 core cpus without HT too.Reply
Enzo MatrixMisleading title. I was excited because I assumed intel had finally come out with 12-core server CPUs.Reply
The Xeon 5600-series tops out with 6 cores and 12 threads, yielding 24 logical processors between two sockets. =)
So many cpu's in task manager...do all but 1 go unused running a single threaded app? shame intel had to go this route with more cores instead of making single core with hyper-threading work faster. you should really only need 2 logical cpu's and hyper threading accomplishes it with 1.
i have a feeling you dont understand what the word "workstation" means.
Hyper threading was kind of cool back in the P4 days, but now I don't see the point. Virtually nothing that >people actually use< has any benefit to see from it.. It just makes for cool screenshots imo..Reply
I guess what this review says is that, if you want performance for stuff you do at home you should pretty much just get a Nehalem i7 6c with some fast ram. The xeons seems to be behind on everything multimedia, much as expected.
cangeliniThe Xeon 5600-series tops out with 6 cores and 12 threads, yielding 24 logical processors between two sockets. =)You should have written "logical processors" or "logical cores" and no one would have argued.Reply
mheagerNot true. Hyper threading makes it so if one app gets stuck in an endless loop it doesn't suck up all the cpu and freeze the computer.The OS can do that even on a single core with no HT. Not to mention the case with many physical cores which non-HT CPUs have nowadays.
mheagerNot true. Hyper threading makes it so if one app gets stuck in an endless loop it doesn't suck up all the cpu and freeze the computer.But why should it get stuck in an endless loop with all that computing power?Reply