Intel Core Duo: AOpen i975Xa-YDG to the Rescue
by Gary Key on May 4, 2006 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Audio Encoding Performance
While the media encoding prowess of the Intel processors has been lacking at times, they have generally faired a little better on the audio side. Our audio test suite consists of Exact Audio Copy v095.b4, LAME 3.98a3, LAME MT 3.97a-MS Compiler, Windows Media Player 10, and Nero Digital Audio.Our first task was to figure out what test CD to utilize. We needed one that contained a significant number of tracks and had over 600MB of data in order to properly stress our platforms. After rummaging around the lab and discounting the Burl Ives Greatest Christmas Hits album, we happened upon a CD that would work for our purposes as it was not working for anyone else, INXS Greatest Hits. This one time '80s glory masterpiece contains 16 tracks totaling 606MB of songs that was instantly whisked into our anxiously awaiting optical drive.
Our first test consists of utilizing Exact Audio Copy as the front end for our differing versions of LAME. We setup EAC for variable bit rate encoding, burst mode for extraction, use external program for compression, and to start the external compressor upon extraction (EAC will read the next track while LAME is working on the previous track, thus removing a potential bottleneck with the drive).
Our two versions of LAME consist of the recently released 3.98a3 and LAME MT 3.97a, which is a multi-threaded version of the LAME MP3 encoder. LAME MT was originally designed as a demonstration to show the advantages of multi-threading on the Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading enabled. Instead of running multiple parallel threads, LAME MT generates the encoder's psycho-acoustic analysis function in a separate thread from the rest of the encoder using a simple linear pipeline and then caches it in the second thread for processing. Further details about the program and its creation can be found here. The results are presented in minutes/seconds for the encoding process, with lower numbers being better.
As in the media encoding section, the more CPU intensive operations seem to favor the Intel platform. We ran these tests several times with the results all being within one second of each other. If we shortened the test to 6 tracks then the AMD platform was within a couple of percent of the Intel platform. As we extended the size of our test samples the performance margin between the two platforms lengthened from a 2% advantage for the Intel platform to almost 11%. It concerned us to the point that we changed our drive image and then our board. We were rewarded with the same results. Running this same test on our 945GM based board resulted in a performance difference around 4% in favor of the Intel platform.
When utilizing LAME MT we see upwards of a 29% improvement in encoding times resulting in scores near that of our overclocked results. This once again shows the advantages programs can gain when they're written to take advantage of multiple-core processors or platforms.
Our next test consists of utilizing the INXS Greatest Hits CD and ripping all 16 tracks with Windows Media Player 10. We set WMP10 to rip the tracks in Widows Media Audio variable bit rate format and moved the slider all the way to the right resulting in a Best Quality request.
The results are very close for both platforms and the only comment here is that a fast optical drive is probably more important than your choice of CPU in this benchmark.
Our last audio test - and we are sure our INXS Greatest Hits CD is ecstatic about this - utilizes Nero Digital Audio to extract all 16 tracks and convert them into an mp4 format. We changed the default quality settings to transcoder-ultra, variable bit rate, encoder quality to high, and the AAC profile to LC. We were determined to give our platforms a workout with this test.
These results invoked the burning of the midnight oil along with some late night phone calls to Nero. In the end, after numerous retests and a run to Best Buy to purchase another copy of the INXS Greatest Hits CD - just to make sure CD scratches weren't causing problems - we have a situation where the AMD platform has a clear advantage at the stock settings in a program that heavily stresses the CPU subsystem. However, the Intel platform shines at the overclocked settings resulting in scores that do not follow any previous patterns in our test results.
We ran these tests over a dozen times with the same results. We noticed that on the last four tracks the Intel system would encode these files quicker than the AMD system, even though the track speed of our optical drive did not change. We thought perhaps our Opteron system was encountering some form of thermal throttling, but our temperature readings showed very little change, and adding active cooling to our OCZ memory still generated the same results.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
The card was delievered over the weekend, Derek only had a couple of days and nights to test it. He will be expanding upon this article in the near future as more games are launched with support, not to mention all of our test platforms will undergo a radical change here shortly. ;-)
goinginstyle - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Best quote of the day. Ignore that guy as he is just a tool or had his first visit on a computer today.
ShapeGSX - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
This is a server chip vs a laptop chip. If anything, the AMD server chip had the upper hand in this review, and the little Intel laptop chip bested it in almost every category.Though, technically the review was a review of the motherboard, not the CPUs, I think it speaks volumes as a comparison of the K8 vs the Yonah architecture given the identical clocking used.
Frumious1 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
"If anything, the AMD server chip had the upper hand in this review."Again with the reading comprehension! Look at the chart for Christ's sake. Notice that a bunch say "lower is better"? At 2.8 GHz, the Core Duo sweeps the tests - only in disk controller performance could you potentially level a complaint. At 1.83 GHz, it's a bit closer, but to say the Opty has the upper hand?
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
Moderate to substantial wins by Core Duo across the benches.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
More ties or wins for Core Duo.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
Opty wins in Nero Digital Audio... which I have never even used or seen as a benchmark. One win for Opty 165! Woohoo! AMD Rules!
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
More substantial losses in file compression.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&am...
It loses every gaming test by a reasonable margin, with or without CrossFire.
ONE win for AMD at 1.8 GHz, and that's in Nero Digital Audio. A few ties, but otherwise AMD loses. Boy, I can't imagine why AnandTech would do an article like this. I mean, Intel managing to win almost every benchmark is old news! I remember Pentium II/III spanking K6/K6-2/K6-3 ages ago. Looks like nothing has changed... except for the whole K8 vs. NetBurst era where Intel got the shit kicked out of it!
Intel looks primed to take back the performance lead. I've been running lots of AMD K8 systems for the past 3 years, but it looks like I will now have a serious reason to consider Intel again. (Before K8, I ran mostly K7 setups. Before that I was always running Intel because they were better. Notice the pattern? Buy the BEST chip, regardless of who makes it!)
Calin - Friday, May 5, 2006 - link
What is sad for AMD is the fact that the Intel chip is advantaged by frequency increase. At 1.8GHz, they are more or less at a tie (with few not-so-great exceptions), and the increase in frequency to 2.8GHz favors Intel much more than AMD.So, overclockers would choose the chip that will give them a bigger increase in performance for the same increase in MHz (Intel). The situation changed from the Athlon64 versus Prescott days.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
His context was in the positive, meaning the AMD had the upper hand going into the review but was outperformed in several areas.
:)
ShapeGSX - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Indeed it was meant to be positive. Thanks!Laptop cpus beating server cpus, dogs and cats living together!
Frumious1 - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I'm not sure what you read, but I saw a review in which a ~$590 Core Duo + AOpen board was able to basically match a ~$550 Opteron 170 + ASUS board in performance. What exactly don't you like - the fact that Core Duo overclocks more than 50% on the board? Or the fact that Athlon X2/Opteron doesn't win every benchmark?Thanks for being such a retard. FYI, Intel doesn't want this type of review, because AT is basically promoting buying their $240 CPU and overclocking rather than buying their $600 CPU. Let me rephrase your post:
ANANDTECH
In this review, we'd like to show your how an "Athlon FX-62" compares to a 2.8Ghz Core Duo.
..."As you can see, the Core Duo actually beats the FX-62 equivalent on just about every fucking benchmark. AMD's former monster has been humbled, and it looks like the stupid ass AMD fanboys like snorre need to stop snoring and brush up on their god damned reading comprehension! If that's not enough, Core Duo will add another 25-40% performance clock for clock over Core Duo (see Johan's article). Needless to say, even the best AMD is prepared to offer looks to be in serious trouble."
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Comparing this to a THG article is an insult to both parties. THG would have used more hyperbole and run fewer benchmarks, while AT wouldn't accept large cash payment to do an article. Go back to whatever black ole you crawled out of. PLEASE!
BTW thanks for proving that no matter how good an article is some stupid shit will wander in and bitch about the results. "OMG my eyes! I can't look at a graph and stand to see AMD lose!" The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory has been proved yet again. (Google that if you don't get the reference.)
JarredWalton - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
I think I see the problem, frumious. You used some odd text in your post and it killed the colors.JarredWalton - Thursday, May 4, 2006 - link
Note to others: don't use the abbreviation for HardOCP. LOL