Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
setaG_lliB wrote:-Something in the Core ix processors make them brutally fast at video decoding. The quad-core i5-3470, clocked at a boring 3.4GHz, not only demolishes the 4GHz Q6700, but also wipes the floor with the 4.07GHz Phenom X6!
DancinJack wrote:setaG_lliB wrote:-Something in the Core ix processors make them brutally fast at video decoding. The quad-core i5-3470, clocked at a boring 3.4GHz, not only demolishes the 4GHz Q6700, but also wipes the floor with the 4.07GHz Phenom X6!
That's not terribly surprising. Intel has worked decently hard to include some decent decode hardware in more recent versions of their IGPs.
setaG_lliB wrote:-The A10-8700p is curiously slow for a 4T processor, being only slightly faster than the "little core" Atom X7 Z8700. The ancient C2D E8600 is in a completely different dimension, easily outclassing both processors despite only having 2 threads to work with.
setaG_lliB wrote:-Something in the Core ix processors make them brutally fast at video decoding. The quad-core i5-3470, clocked at a boring 3.4GHz, not only demolishes the 4GHz Q6700, but also wipes the floor with the 4.07GHz Phenom X6!
It is.-1080p @ 60 fps actually seems to be a little more demanding than 1440p @ 30.
just brew it! wrote:setaG_lliB wrote:-The A10-8700p is curiously slow for a 4T processor, being only slightly faster than the "little core" Atom X7 Z8700. The ancient C2D E8600 is in a completely different dimension, easily outclassing both processors despite only having 2 threads to work with.
The single-channel RAM is likely holding it back. Pushing lots of pixels around requires lots of RAM bandwidth, and that's going to be in short supply on a single-channel system.
just brew it! wrote:setaG_lliB wrote:-The A10-8700p is curiously slow for a 4T processor, being only slightly faster than the "little core" Atom X7 Z8700. The ancient C2D E8600 is in a completely different dimension, easily outclassing both processors despite only having 2 threads to work with.
The single-channel RAM is likely holding it back. Pushing lots of pixels around requires lots of RAM bandwidth, and that's going to be in short supply on a single-channel system.setaG_lliB wrote:-Something in the Core ix processors make them brutally fast at video decoding. The quad-core i5-3470, clocked at a boring 3.4GHz, not only demolishes the 4GHz Q6700, but also wipes the floor with the 4.07GHz Phenom X6!
Probably due to Intel Quick Sync, which puts dedicated video decode/encode hardware on the CPU AVX support, which was introduced with Sandy Bridge.
Takeshi7 wrote:I have found the Firefox Quantum has lower CPU usage than Chrome when playing back VP9. You might want to try it on some of those low end CPUs to see if there's any difference.
I am using a Pentium EE 965 @ 4 GHz and 1080p VP9 YouTube videos only use around 20% CPU usage. The closest chip in your list is the 3.2GHz Pentium D.
setaG_lliB wrote:I retested the C2D E8600 machine with Firefox Quantum. CPU usage was indeed significantly lower, at around 4% for 1080p (Chrome was using 26-35%). However, I noticed that YouTube was streaming AVC (H.264) video to Firefox. H.264 is decoded in hardware by most video cards.
setaG_lliB wrote:Didn't it take them (and other browsers) forever to finally use SSE?
The original AMD64 architecture adopted Intel's SSE and SSE2 as core instructions. These instruction sets provide a vector supplement to the scalar x87 FPU, for the single-precision and double-precision data types. SSE2 also offers integer vector operations, for data types ranging from 8bit to 64bit precision.
...
The proliferation of 64-bit processors has made these vector capabilities ubiquitous in home computers, allowing the improvement of the standards of 32-bit applications. The 32-bit edition of Windows 8, for example, requires the presence of SSE2 instructions. SSE3 instructions and later Streaming SIMD Extensions instruction sets are not standard features of the architecture.
setaG_lliB wrote:VP9 @ 1080p - Chrome vs Firefox
Pentium D 935 (3.2GHz)
Chrome: 87-100% with occasional stuttering.
Firefox: 53-74%, completely smooth
biffzinker wrote:SSE3 instructions and later Streaming SIMD Extensions instruction sets are not standard features of the architecture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
LostCat wrote:biffzinker wrote:SSE3 instructions and later Streaming SIMD Extensions instruction sets are not standard features of the architecture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
Perhaps true, but seems pointless to mention considering afaik you can't find a proc that supports teh 64 bitzes without SSE3.
Ryu Connor wrote:I doubt SSE3 or later matter much. It's my understanding that SS3 and later were designed to cater to certain niche mathematical needs, that SSE and SSE2 cover everything you'd generally want an x87 FPU to do.
setaG_lliB wrote:I found a way to enable VP9 on Firefox. In general, Mozilla's VP9 implementation is faster than Google's, but it appears to be using some form of hardware acceleration. Obviously not for decoding, but perhaps for rendering the decoded frames? The Pentium D and Core 2 Duo--both equipped with GeForce video cards--were much faster using Firefox. However, the third machine I tested, a Core Duo T2500 with a mobile Radeon X1600, was a complete slideshow.
VP9 @ 1080p - Chrome vs Firefox
Pentium D 935 (3.2GHz)
Chrome: 87-100% with occasional stuttering.
Firefox: 53-74%, completely smooth
Core Duo "Yonah" T2500 (2GHz)
Chrome: 84-100 with occasional stuttering.
Firefox: 18-68 but only 0.2 fps
Core 2 Duo E8600 (3.33GHz)
Chrome: 26-35
Firefox: 16-21
Chrome @ 1440p: 55-67
Firefox @ 1440p: 35-41
Dammit. My curiosity is eventually going to force me to rebench all of these machines.
setaG_lliB wrote:Core Duo "Yonah" T2500 (2GHz)
Chrome: 84-100 with occasional stuttering.
Firefox: 18-68 but only 0.2 fps
DancinJack wrote:setaG_lliB wrote:Core Duo "Yonah" T2500 (2GHz)
Chrome: 84-100 with occasional stuttering.
Firefox: 18-68 but only 0.2 fps
This confuses me...the FF one has to be unwatchable, right? I mean .2 FPS is...nothing. The descriptors you use for the different browsers are strange.
LostCat wrote:Starting to feel like I forgot more about AMD procs than I remember Guess it was over a decade ago.
just brew it! wrote:LostCat wrote:Starting to feel like I forgot more about AMD procs than I remember Guess it was over a decade ago.
Aside from the one APU, the chart doesn't even include anything from AMD made in the past 7 years.
DragonDaddyBear wrote:This explains why my wife's old XPS 14z is having such a hard time lately. With a bajillion of tabs all auto-playing video her CPU (and RAM) makes the poor laptop cry. I guess it's time to upgrade.
DragonDaddyBear wrote:This explains why my wife's old XPS 14z is having such a hard time lately. With a bajillion of tabs all auto-playing video her CPU (and RAM) makes the poor laptop cry. I guess it's time to upgrade.