Intel Core 2 refresh: QX6850, E6850 & E6750

Written by Tim Smalley

July 17, 2007 | 09:28

Tags: #2 #computing #core #dual #dual-core #duo #e6750 #e6850 #evaluation #extreme #performance #pricing #quad #quad-core #qx6850 #refresh #review #specs #trusted

Companies: #intel

Xvid Encoding:

We tested video encoding performance using VirtualDub-MPEG version 1.6.15 and a multi-threaded version of the Xvid codec, along with the LAME MT MP3 encoder for encoding audio. We did a two-pass encode of a 15-minute 276MB digital TV recording with a target file size of 100MB.

Xvid Encoding

VirtualDub MPEG-2 1.6.15, Xvid 1.2 beta, 276MB .mpg to 100MB .avi

  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (4x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6700 (2x2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6600 (2x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 2x1MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2x2.8GHz, 2x1MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2x2.6GHz, 2x1MB L2)
    • 657.3
    • 666.3
    • 679.7
    • 694.0
    • 725.0
    • 732.0
    • 746.3
    • 797.0
    • 811.0
    • 935.7
    • 980.6
    • 1057.0
0
250
500
750
1000
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
  • Average Time

The Xvid codec isn't a particularly good example of how multi-threaded video encoding can be, but since it's a very popular codec, it's also very relevant. Essentially, dual-cores is enough to keep the Xvid codec humming along nicely and there were no benefits for quad-core processors here. Having said that though, you could realistically game while running an Xvid encode in the background and you're unlikely to suffer any performance deficit during gaming.

MP3 Encoding:

We used LAME MT for our audio encoding test - it’s the multi-threaded version of the popular LAME MP3 encoder. We ran tests with both Intel’s and Microsoft’s compilers - naturally, the Intel compiler resulted in some performance increases on Intel’s processors. We converted all 18 tracks from Moby’s popular Play album to a 192kbps variable bit-rate MP3.

MP3 Encoding

LAME MT 3.97, Moby - Play, .wav to 192kbps .mp3, Microsoft Compiler

  • Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (4x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6700 (2x2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6600 (2x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 2x1MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2x2.8GHz, 2x1MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2x2.6GHz, 2x1MB L2)
    • 108.0
    • 108.0
    • 110.7
    • 111.0
    • 121.7
    • 122.0
    • 122.3
    • 135.0
    • 135.7
    • 164.3
    • 176.3
    • 191.3
0
50
100
150
200
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
  • Average Time

MP3 Encoding

LAME MT 3.97, Moby - Play, .wav to 192kbps .mp3, Intel Compiler

  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (4x2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6700 (2x2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2)
  • Core 2 Duo E6600 (2x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 2x1MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2x2.8GHz, 2x1MB L2)
  • Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2x2.6GHz, 2x1MB L2)
    • 98.7
    • 101.0
    • 101.0
    • 102.7
    • 111.0
    • 111.0
    • 111.0
    • 123.7
    • 125.0
    • 165.0
    • 175.0
    • 190.7
0
50
100
150
200
Time in Seconds (lower is better)
  • Average Time

Our MP3 encoding tests told a similar story to our Xvid encoding tests - in that dual cores are pretty much all that's required. Of course, that's not to say you couldn't be doing something else that is equally processor intensive while MP3 encoding is using only two out of four cores to complete the task.
Discuss this in the forums
YouTube logo
MSI MPG Velox 100R Chassis Review

October 14 2021 | 15:04

TOP STORIES

SUGGESTED FOR YOU