Originally Posted by S_A_V
I don't have direct comparison with more than 4 cores with exact the same settings.
Just found PCMark04 results with FX-4100 @ 6918 MHz and FX-8120 @ 6782 MHz:
4-core: 49.3 web page rendering, 317 fps WMV - http://hwbot.org/submission/2231053_
8-core: 55.2 web page rendering, 362 fps WMV - http://hwbot.org/submission/2240067_
Don't look at Overall score, FX-4100 result was done with wrong Grammar Check.
Windows was updated with AMD Bulldozer Performance Updates:
Do you use WMV settings suggested in PCMark05 Tweaking Thread
I mean this: "Force NumThreads"=dword:00000002
Try playing with other values
I did set the registry value for the number of threads on fx-8120.
This was hard set to 8 threads (just look at audio/video):
This was hard set to 4 threads (just look at audio/video):
The 8 threaded score was better, but I believe that was the result of Vista over Win7 and I was running higher clocks on the 8 threaded submission (I spent more time on it, and higher clocks were easier on that motherboard). That isn't a good comparison because many settings as well as the OS was different.
I don't personally have any direct comparisons with similar settings either, but from running the bench a few dozen times on the fx-8120, it seemed to me that scaling stopped more or less at 4 cores.
That said, I don't believe the encoder actually supports splitting out more than 4 threads (reference here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...dsettings.aspx
- that isn't talking about wmencoder9, but even a newer version). Seeing as how it is doing a video and audio encode at the same time though, I suppose the video encode should be able to use 4 threads itself, and perhaps the audio can use several of its own... I don't know.
Looking at scores however, the best 2600k scores are done with only 4 cores active and no HT. This tells me that its likely scaling stops at beyond 4 cores again.
Not sure, just my inferences from my own benching and looking around.