chunkylover53
02-16-2008, 02:19 PM
We all know there are a number of benchmark tests out there that spit out a number and compare you to other similar systems. I don't really take much stock in them, but I also want to know that I'm getting something out of it if I'm going to take my chances OC'g. I've been working to overclock my Q6600 from it's stock 2.4Ghz, and have found a stable OC at 3.1Ghz. But the question is, how does that translate into actual performance?
As a non-gamer and video editing enthusiast, performance is less time rendering digital video and writing to DVD. There's no way to improve on capturing DV, because it's a real-time 1:1 process. One minute of Digital 8 tape takes one minute to capture onto a PC, regardless of how powerful the PC is. The rendering process is where PC performance comes into play, and that can take time. On my wife's POC Dell, it can take more than 2 hours to render 60 minutes of video. :rolleyes: So my test was to compare rendering time at stock settings to time at OC'd settings.
I rendered and burned the same 53 minutes of captured video to DVD, once on stock setting and once on OC'd setting. I tried to keep variables to a minimum, so I re-started the PC prior to each test and didn't have anything running in the background. I also deleted any temporary files so that it would completely re-render and not take any short cuts.
Bottom line? The stock setting took 51 minutes and the OC'd setting took 40 minutes. That 11 minutes, and if you use 51 minutes as the base, means the OC'd setting was 21% faster.
Unscientific? Definitely. I doubt my findings will be getting published anytime soon. Worth it? We'll see. If the Q6600 dies or performance degrades before I'm ready to build my next rig in a year or two, then no. If it keeps on truckin', then it was worth it to me. Plus, 3.1Ghz is lower than the limits of the Q6600, and even during rendering the hottest core never gets above 41deg on Coretemp.
My only regret? That I don't have an E8400 handy to test as well... ;)
As a non-gamer and video editing enthusiast, performance is less time rendering digital video and writing to DVD. There's no way to improve on capturing DV, because it's a real-time 1:1 process. One minute of Digital 8 tape takes one minute to capture onto a PC, regardless of how powerful the PC is. The rendering process is where PC performance comes into play, and that can take time. On my wife's POC Dell, it can take more than 2 hours to render 60 minutes of video. :rolleyes: So my test was to compare rendering time at stock settings to time at OC'd settings.
I rendered and burned the same 53 minutes of captured video to DVD, once on stock setting and once on OC'd setting. I tried to keep variables to a minimum, so I re-started the PC prior to each test and didn't have anything running in the background. I also deleted any temporary files so that it would completely re-render and not take any short cuts.
Bottom line? The stock setting took 51 minutes and the OC'd setting took 40 minutes. That 11 minutes, and if you use 51 minutes as the base, means the OC'd setting was 21% faster.
Unscientific? Definitely. I doubt my findings will be getting published anytime soon. Worth it? We'll see. If the Q6600 dies or performance degrades before I'm ready to build my next rig in a year or two, then no. If it keeps on truckin', then it was worth it to me. Plus, 3.1Ghz is lower than the limits of the Q6600, and even during rendering the hottest core never gets above 41deg on Coretemp.
My only regret? That I don't have an E8400 handy to test as well... ;)