It is also obviously designed to perform along side many CPU’s in the same motherboard. Its easy to say that more cores are better for FFmpeg encoding, however the system with more cores did have an SSD which would favour it.Īnother aspect being the E5-2650 v2 is a work horse CPU, at 8 cores and 16 threads its built for demanding tasks like this. The dual E5-2650 v2 system hammered the E3-1270 v2. Again at the slow preset Test A finished 1 hour 24 minutes before the Test B time.Ĭheck out the slowbased presets. Test A veryslow was 4 hours and 47 minutes quicker thanTest B, For slower it was 2 hours and 11 minutes quicker. However as the chart above shows if you pair two E5-2650 v2 CPU’s together it will turn the tables and encode video much quicker than a fast CPU. Geek bench single and multi core test has the E3-1270 V2 beating the slower clocked E5-2650 v2 considerably. Similar results in the outcome size but the speed in particular the slow based presets are definetly slower. The same media is also being used, an unnamed large 1920 x 1080p video ~ 24GB in size.
32 GB of ram and a HDD not a SSD like the first time.
The first test CPU was 2x E5-2650 v2 2.60GHz (16 cores, 32 threads), This test uses an E3-1270 v2 3.50Ghz (boosting to 3.90Ghz) but only 4 cores 8 threads. Last time the test went through all the FFmpeg x264 encode presets to compare the outcomes. Is having more cores or faster cores an obvious difference for FFmpeg video encoding? Something different this time, testing with a faster CPU that has less cores.
0 kommentar(er)
