1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Phenom II 955 vs. Intels i7

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by t77snapshot, Apr 20, 2009.

  1. Darren

    Darren New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,936 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    It depends on the compression algorithm, the size of the DVD movie, the size of the .AVI and the quality of the end result.

    But the P4 is like almost a decade old, ANY new CPU whether dual core or quad core will be a massive improvement beyond comprehension.

    Edit:

    Actually there are too many variables to consider, but ALOT faster.

    Edit 2:

    Personally I would rip the raw DVD straight to the hard disk, the quality will be better and you retain the 5 channel audio as well.

    OK, it takes up a lot of space but 1 TB hard disks are cheap.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2009
  2. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,275 (4.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,419
    TBH AVI as a container file sucks.
  3. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,435 (11.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,620
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Encoding isn't always that. For some it even means encoding a 100 MB TIFF file to a web-friendly JPEG that weighs a few hundred KB.
  4. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,275 (4.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,419
    there are better Formats than .AVI, .AVI is ancient, and its not updated if at all.
    Darren says thanks.
  5. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I don't actually have i7 as of yet. But anyway, I haven't encoded anything to avi in ages, so I wouldn't be able to tell you anyway.

    I do most of my encoding to 2-pass H.264 video/Dolby Digital 5.1 audio in mkv containers. Depending on the content and filters used, it usually takes just a little bit more than half the length of the movie being ripped on my QX9650. The i7 is something like 20% faster at the same speed as a Yorkfield in encoding.
  6. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,435 (11.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,620
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    You do realise that .avi is just a container, and that today's latest video formats such as DivX continue to use that container?
    Darren says thanks.
  7. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    mkv containers support the full 5.1 audio.
    Darren says thanks.
  8. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,275 (4.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,419
    yes i know .avi is a container format, i'm just saying as a container file it is not as good as when it first came out due to probably not being updated for the times like DIVX/XVID are. Btw DIVX/XVID utilize MKV if im not mistaken
  9. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,435 (11.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,620
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    It doesn't make a difference. All .avi has to do is hold the DivX and MP3 data, and stream it. Yes, you can drop DivX into any container, though .avi is the most popular container even today. Don't confuse container with a "format".
  10. Darren

    Darren New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,936 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Indeed.

    I'm not one for encoding myself, but if I download from a torrent, say a tv program I tend to look out for the MKVs because they usually retain the full 5.1 channels, which is great for my AV receiver.

    But taking into account that I have a low-mid dual core and vbx has a Pentium 4, would ripping the DVD to the hard disk would be quicker than encoding a DVD to MKV?
  11. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Just flat ripping the DVD to disc is much faster. If you have the space for it, why not?

    Personally, i rip to H.264 because I usually fill my hard drive before I can afford another one. I need that compression. lol.
    Darren says thanks.
  12. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,275 (4.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,419
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2009
  13. vbx New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    720 (0.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    60
    Okay, lets say you ripped an ISO to the computer, then convert that ISO to .mkv. How long would it take for an i7 powered desktop to convert that file to a .mkv. It takes about the same time. Almost an hour to convert a 2.5gb iso to a 1gb mkv.

    The i7's should be able to do it in what? 10mins or less?
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2009
  14. Darren

    Darren New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,936 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
  15. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,435 (11.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,620
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    If you really read, understood, and knew what was in those articles, you wouldn't have posted this in the first place:

  16. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I think he's hinting to the fact that avi is outdated because it isn't compatible with many of the newer codecs. (Well, not without hacks, anyway)

    Thus, if it's in an avi container, it's not using a high quality codec anyway.
    eidairaman1 says thanks.
  17. vbx New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    720 (0.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    60
    Ok, I will compare my p4 3.4HT desktop to my 2.ghz Core 2duo laptop.

    To combine 14 .avi files at about 84mb each into 1 huge file, it would take my P4 3 hours.
    Compared to 1.2 hours on the Core 2 duo.

    Using windows movie maker.
  18. _33

    _33 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,248 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Quebec
    I'm absolutely satisfied with my i7 config. If I would have bought an AMD system instead, I would have saved money, but wouldn't have as good framerates in games, for many good reasons. AMD has yet to design a processor that can beat the i7 (gaming or not). That is why Intel will release the i5 platform, so AMD has competition. And sadly for AMD, things won't get any better for now as Intel will release the 950 and 975. I'm always for the best performing systems, that is why in 2004, I had a DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra-D and an overclocked AMD processor, but things have changed since Intel released the C2D. PII is a good move for AMD but it doesn't win the performance crown, maybe a PIII. I think in the end it's a question of budget, my guess is that AMD has the best bang for the dollars spent, but definately needs better processor to beat the top Intel ones.
  19. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,567 (1.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    515
    Location:
    Australia
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii955/12.html

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-9.html

    AMD Phenom is good for gaming as you can see it does compete well against i7 and mostly beats the Q9650. All in all there all about the same performance, which means AMD Phenoms are good enough and competive for gaming, everything else not so much against the i7 but gaming yes.
  20. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,275 (4.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,419
    Core i7 came about as a Media Encoding Processor, thats where it excells at.
  21. _33

    _33 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,248 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Quebec
    When you see benchmark scores where the Phenom II is on the heels of the i7, it's mostly because the test was run at high resolution with maximum game details. If you see benchmarks where the test is run at low resolution and low game detail, you will see the i7 far ahread of the Phenom II processor. In such case the test is limited by the graphics card's capacity to perform, where it bottlenecks.

    http://www.techspot.com/review/162-amd-phenom2-x4-955/page10.html
  22. farlex85

    farlex85 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,830 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Why would you buy top end hardware and then care about low end performance? Who cares what does better at low detail, high detail is most certainly more realistic of a bench. Regardless, I wish I could set up a pepsi challenge type deal, cause I'd wager a decent sum of money I could set up 3 rigs (i7, PII, core 2) that were identical in every way other than processor (and mb of course), set them to settings you would play at, and you wouldn't be able to tell me which is which. When it comes to subjective performance in games, cpu is largely irrelevant (provided we exclude 5 year old tech, or pre-core 2). You may get better frames, but if you didn't count them you wouldn't know.
    Melvis says thanks.
  23. trickson

    trickson OH, I have such a headache

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,494 (1.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    Not to sound like a fan boy but the Phenom II can't even hold a candle to a Q9650 let alone an i7 . Just MHO .
  24. _33

    _33 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,248 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Quebec
    I'd say if you have a configuration where you have an SLI or a CROSSFIRE setup, where your system is less limited by the graphics hardware, there it would be justified to go with the i7, as your system is much less limited by the graphics performance. But I'd say the difference would be still negligible. But, passing through the benchmarks, generally speaking, I'd say AMD is doing a good job with their latest PII's for gaming performance.
  25. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,468 (6.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,426
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Core i7 dominates everything and games at low res. Phenom II only comes out on top at high resolutions.

    This story has been repeated in other benchmarks. I still wouldn't take a Phenom II over a Core i7 because even at high resolutions, the Core i7 still posts good framerates. Why lose all that performance in other applications just for a marginal gain in high res games?

    To quote a Teladi: "You make no sense; you lose profit." :roll:
    Crunching for Team TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page