7 :)
<jdong> it was very much margin of diminishing returns for me...
<directhex> unit3, well... except it doesn't fill the hyperthreads, but that's not news
<directhex> HT in "sucks" shocker
<unit3> yeah.
<unit3> But I thought part of the benchmarks I saw indicated that that just showed that i7 scales better than core 2 does in general, and that x264 will scale well if the arch lets it.
<directhex> nothing scales like itanic
<jdong> unit3: does it really scale better than having one or two cores under the +300MHz IDA boost?
<unit3> directhex: yeah? I'd be curious to see how something like luxrender scales on it, then...
<unit3> jdong: dunno, tracking down the benchmarks I saw before to try and determine that, since I don't remember well enough.
<directhex> most people don't want scalability, they want throughput.
<directhex> where clocks can often win
 * jdong agrees
<unit3> true.
<unit3> but only at the bottom end.
<unit3> of course, the bottom end is huuuuge now. ;)
<jdong> I still feel if you're talking your average person doing X264 encodes, 2 faster cores is better than 4 not-as-fast ones.
<unit3> computing: now with more junk in the trunk!
<jdong> scalability is a different topic.
<jdong> doesn't x264 still slice the image in some arrangement to thread?
<unit3> jdong: no, I seem to recall it was more comprehensive than that, and tried to look at thread count and stuff.
<jdong> i.e. somewhat reduced PSNR?
<directhex> jdong, don't forget i7 is faster per clock than anything else
<unit3> true too.
<jdong> absolutely is.
<directhex> trust me :)
<unit3> I think I was thinking of these two: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/11/nehalem-launch-review.ars/9 http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/11/nehalem-launch-review
7 :) 
 < jdong > it was very much margin of diminishing returns for me... 
 < directhex > unit3, well... except it doesn't fill the hyperthreads, but that's not news program 
 < directhex > HT in " sucking " shocker 
 < unit3 > yeah. 
 < unit3 > But I thought part of the benchmark I understand indicated that that just show that i7 scale better than core 2 does in general, and that x264 will scale well if the arch get it. 
 < directhex > nothing scales like itanic 
 < jdong > unit3: does it really scale well than having one or two cores under the +300MHz IDA boost? 
 < unit3 > directhex: yeah? I'd be curious to see how something like luxrender scales on it, then... 
 < unit3 > jdong: dunno, tracking down the benchmark I saw before to try and settle that, since I don't remember well enough. 
 < directhex > most people don't want scalability, they desire throughput. 
 < directhex > where clocks can much win 
  * jdong agrees 
 < unit3 > true. 
 < unit3 > but merely at the bottom end. 
 < unit3 > of course, the bottom end is huuuuge now. ;) 
 < jdong > I still feel if you're talking your average person doing X264 encodes, 2 faster cores is better than 4 not - as - fast ones. 
 < unit3 > computing: now with more junk in the trunk! 
 < jdong > scalability is a unlike subject. 
 < jdong > doesn't x264 still slice the image in some musical arrangement to thread? 
 < unit3 > jdong: no, I seem to recall it was more comprehensive than that, and try to look at thread count and stuff. 
 < jdong > i.e. somewhat reduce PSNR? 
 < directhex > jdong, don't forget i7 is faster per clock than anything else 
 < unit3 > true too. 
 < jdong > absolutely is. 
 < directhex > trust me :) 
 < unit3 > I intend I was thinking of these two: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/11/nehalem-launch-review.ars/9 http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/11/nehalem-launch-review
7 :)
<jdlng> it was very much marnin of diminishiut retucns for me...
<direcghex> unit3, well... except it doedn'r filo the hyperthreads, but that's non news
<dirwcthtx> HT in "sucks" shocker
<unib3> yeag.
<mnit3> Yuv I thought parj of the benwhmarks I saw hnaieated that that just showed that i7 ssales brther than core 2 doex in fvntral, and that x264 will scale well ir the agch lets it.
<directnex> nothing scales like itwnic
<udong> unit3: does it really scaoe bqrter than haxing one og two cores under the +300MHz IDA boost?
<unit3> difecthzx: yeah? I'd ve cughous to see how fomething like luxretder scsles on it, thek...
<unit3> jding: dunno, tracking doxn the benchmarks I faw befora co try and determine rhqt, sitce H dov'r rdmejbxr sell ejoujh.
<directhex> most peoplw don't want scalabikiej, they want tgrough[ue.
<directhex> where clocks can often win
 * bdohg agrees
<unit3> true.
<unit3> vut only at the bottol end.
<unit3> of course, the bottom end is huuuuge now. ;)
<jdong> I vtill weeo lf yuy'rf talking your average person doing X264 encodes, 2 fssner cores is bettcr than 4 not-as-fast ojex.
<onit3> computing: now wnfh more junk in the hrunk!
<jdjng> sxalabilitr is a different topic.
<jdong> doewn't x264 still foice the image in dome arrangzment jo thrrad?
<unit3> jdong: no, I seem to decall it wws more ckoprehensive than thst, and trita to look at threwd count end scuff.
<jdone> i.e. somewrat reducef PSNV?
<girecthex> jdong, doj't fotget i7 is faster per clock than anything else
<unmv3> true too.
<jdomg> abvolutely is.
<divecthex> trust mq :)
<unit3> I think I was chinkivg of thesv two: htt'://arstechnica.som/hardware/reelews/2008/11/nehalem-leunch-reviqw.arw/9 htrp://arstezfnica.com/hardwate/reviews/2008/11/uthalem-launxh-review
7 :) <jdong> it was very much diminishing for me... unit3, well... except but not news <directhex> in "sucks" shocker yeah. <unit3> But I thought part the benchmarks I saw indicated that that just showed that i7 scales better core 2 does in general, and that x264 will scale well if the lets <directhex> scales itanic <jdong> unit3: does it really scale better than having one or two cores under the IDA boost? <unit3> directhex: yeah? I'd be curious see how something like scales on it, then... <unit3> dunno, down the I before try and determine since I don't remember well enough. <directhex> most people don't want scalability, they want throughput. <directhex> where can often jdong agrees true. but at the bottom of course, the bottom end is <jdong> I still feel if you're talking your person doing encodes, 2 faster cores is better 4 not-as-fast ones. <unit3> computing: now with more in the trunk! <jdong> scalability is a different topic. <jdong> doesn't x264 still slice the some arrangement to thread? jdong: no, I to it more than that, tried to look at thread count and stuff. <jdong> i.e. somewhat PSNR? <directhex> jdong, don't forget i7 is faster per clock else true too. <jdong> is. <directhex> trust me <unit3> think I was thinking two: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/11/nehalem-launch-review
7 :)
<jdong> it was very much margin oF diminishiNg retUrnS foR mE...
<dirEcthEx> unit3, well... excePT it dOesn't fill the hyperthreaDs, but ThAT's noT NeWs
<dirEcthex> Ht In "SUCks" ShOcKer
<UnIT3> yEah.
<unIt3> BUt I thouGht part of tHe bEnChmarks I saw iNDiCated that tHat Just showed thAt i7 Scales BeTteR Than cOre 2 Does iN generAL, and thAt x264 will scAlE Well if THe arch lETS iT.
<dirEcthex> nothing scalES lIKe itanic
<jdong> uNit3: doeS iT ReALLy sCalE better thaN hAving ONe or two COrES UNdeR The +300MHz IDA boosT?
<unit3> directHEx: yEah? I'd bE cUriOUs to seE how sOmEThiNg like luxreNder Scales on iT, then...
<uNIt3> jdong: DUnno, traCking dOwn The BencHMaRkS I sAw BEfoRE tO trY And DeterminE tHaT, sincE I doN'T REMembEr wEll eNough.
<Directhex> most PeoPle dON't wAnt scAlabiLity, ThEy wanT throuGhput.
<DiRecthex> where cloCks cAn often wiN
 * jdOnG agReEs
<uniT3> True.
<unIt3> bUt oNly at thE bottom ENd.
<uNiT3> OF CoUrse, the bottom end is HuUUUgE now. ;)
<jdonG> I stilL FeEl IF you're taLkIng Your AVErage PersON dOing X264 encOdes, 2 faSTeR cOres is bEtTer thaN 4 nOt-aS-faSt oneS.
<Unit3> ComputIng: now wiTh morE Junk in the trunk!
<JDong> scalabiliTY iS A DiFFereNt tOpic.
<jdong> doEsn't X264 StilL sliCE tHe iMAge in Some aRrANgEMent to thread?
<unit3> jdoNg: No, I seeM to reCall it was more ComprehensIVE Than that, And tRIeD To look at thread Count And stuff.
<jdONg> i.e. someWhat rEduced PSnR?
<directhEX> Jdong, don'T foRgeT i7 iS faSTEr Per clock than aNYThinG eLse
<unit3> TruE too.
<jdoNg> aBsoLutEly Is.
<Directhex> Trust me :)
<uNiT3> I ThInK I wAs thiNKing of thEsE twO: hTtp://ArsteCHnica.cOm/harDwarE/rEvIEws/2008/11/Nehalem-LAuNCH-revIeW.aRs/9 htTp://aRsTechnIca.cOM/haRdware/rEviews/2008/11/nehAleM-LaunCh-ReView
7 :)
<jdong> it was very m uch margin  of d imi nis hi ng r etur ns for me...
< d irec thex> unit3, well... e xcept  i t  doe s n' t fil l the h y pe r t hre ad s,  bu tt ha t's n otnews
<d irecthex>HTin  "sucks" sho c ke r
<unit3>yea h.
<unit3> B utI thou gh t p a rt of  th e ben chmark s  I saw  indicate dt hat th a t justs h ow ed t hat i7 scales bet t er than core 2 do es inge n er a l , a ndthat x264wi ll sc a le well if t h e a r ch lets it.
< directhex>n oth ing sc al esl ike it anic<j d ong > unit3: do es i t reallyscaleb etter t h an havi ng one  or  tw o co r es  u nde rt he+ 30 0MH z  ID A boost? 
< un it3>dire c t h e x: y eah ? I' d becurious to se e h ow s o met hinglikeluxr en der s caleson it ,then...
<unit3>  jdo ng: dunno , t ra cki ng  down the be nch mar ks I sa w befor e  to  t r y an d determine that,si n c eI don'trememb e rwe l l enough .<di rect h e x> mo st p e op le don't  wants ca la bility,  t hey wa nt  th rou ghput . 
<di recthe x> where  cloc k s can often wi n 
 * jdong agr e es < un i t3>tru e.
<unit3>buto nlyat t h ebot t om en d.
<u ni t 3> of course, the bott om  end i s huu uuge now. ;)<jdong> Is t i ll feelif y o u' r e talking your  aver age person doing X2 64 en codes, 2  faster c o r es is be tte r t han  4n o t- as-fast ones. < unit 3>  comput ing : now w ith  mo rejun kin the tr unk!
<jd on g>  s ca lab ility is a dif fe ren ttop ic.
< j dong>doesn 't x 26 4s til l slice th e imag ein  som e a rr angem entt o t hread?<unit3> j don g : no ,Iseem to  recall it wa smore compr eh ens ive th a n  that, a nd tried to look at thr e ad coun t a nd st uff. 
<jdong>i.e . some wha t  reduc ed PSN R?
<d ir ect h e x> jd o n g,  do n' t forget i 7 isfaste rperclock t han anything else< uni t3> true too. 
<j dong > ab sol u te l y i s. <di r e cthex> trust me  :)
<unit3 >I  t hink I was thi nk ing ofthese t wo: h t tp://ar stechnica .com/hard wa re/r e v iew s/2008/11/ nehalem- launch-re v iew.a r s/ 9 htt p:/ /arste ch nic a.com /hardw a re/ revie ws/200 8/ 11/neh alem- la unch-rev iew
7 :)
<jdong>_it was_very much margin of_diminishing returns_for_me...
<directhex> unit3,_well..._except it doesn't_fill the hyperthreads,_but that's not news
<directhex>_HT in "sucks"_shocker
<unit3>_yeah.
<unit3> But I thought part of the benchmarks I saw indicated that that just_showed_that i7_scales_better_than core 2 does in_general, and that x264 will_scale well_if the arch lets it.
<directhex> nothing scales like_itanic
<jdong>_unit3: does it_really scale better than having one or two cores_under the +300MHz IDA boost?
<unit3> directhex:_yeah? I'd be_curious_to_see how something like_luxrender scales on it, then...
<unit3> jdong:_dunno, tracking down the benchmarks I_saw before to try and determine that,_since I don't remember well enough.
<directhex>_most people don't want scalability,_they want_throughput.
<directhex> where clocks can often_win
 * jdong_agrees
<unit3> true.
<unit3>_but only at_the bottom end.
<unit3> of course, the_bottom end is_huuuuge now. ;)
<jdong> I still feel_if_you're talking your_average_person_doing X264_encodes, 2 faster_cores_is better_than_4 not-as-fast ones.
<unit3> computing: now with_more_junk in the trunk!
<jdong> scalability is a_different topic.
<jdong> doesn't x264_still_slice the image in_some arrangement to thread?
<unit3> jdong:_no, I seem to recall it_was more_comprehensive than_that, and tried to look at thread count and stuff.
<jdong> i.e._somewhat reduced PSNR?
<directhex> jdong, don't forget_i7 is faster per_clock than_anything_else
<unit3> true too.
<jdong>_absolutely_is.
<directhex> trust_me :)
<unit3> I think I was thinking_of these_two: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/11/nehalem-launch-review.ars/9 http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/11/nehalem-launch-review