[citation][nom]tpi2007[/nom]Three brief notes, including a question to Chris:1. I think some of the readers didn't quite grasp this sentence when talking about QuickSync: "Neither MediaEspresso or MediaConverter are able to recognize the pipeline with a discrete card installed."Chris, is this a software limitation of the programs that currently use these optimizations, or is this really a hardware problem ? Can QuickSync be used on a PC with a discrete card, even on a P67 board ? Logically speaking, you don't need a GPU to have a display interface to be able to do these calculations, it should just be used as another part of the CPU, just as SSE instructions are used.If this doesn't turn out to be this way, it's probably the stupidest thing Intel could have made. You buy a CPU and are unable to get the best performance in media encoding/decoding tasks - I sure hope it's just a software problem.2. AMD is in deep trouble. I have a Q9550 at stock (and these E0 overclock very well, to Core i5 750 levels on stock voltage), and it was a bit embarrassing to see their flagship 970 at 3.5 Ghz be the next in line in the graphs. This just proves that the current Quad Core line from AMD is really only competing on price, because architecturally they are on par with the Core 2 Quads @ 45nm. Intel just stopped producing any faster variants and moved on, while AMD is still there, two years late, producing higher clocked versions. If I overclock my Q9550 to 3.5 Ghz I will probably have equal or better performance. As I said, it's embarrassing even to me, let alone for AMD, to see it laid out bare in the graphs. At current prices, AMD's best quad-core line is essentially dead. I hope they come up with something soon though. Only people already on an AMD board will consider these if the price doesn't change soon.3. For the price, I predict the i5-2500k is going to be a best-seller. Only 11$ more expensive than the non-k version and excellent performance with unlocked multiplier; another best-seller for those who want 4 cores, the best performance and save the maximum amount of cash is the i5-2400. 300Mhz base clock faster than the 2300 for only seven bucks more, when the difference upwards is only 200Mhz and 100Mhz and with bigger price differences.Overall, it's a very welcome nice step up, and I do understand their strategy for overclocking, it might upset those super-value seekers, but hey, unlocked processors just got a lot cheaper, right ? I think the disadvantages are clearly outnumbered by the advantages, and still more platforms to come which allow more overclocking.My only gripe is with QuickSync for the reasons I stated above, I hope it's just a software problem, otherwise it is useless to many, many people.Cheers![/citation]
I actually asked that question to Intel this morning. *HUGE* drawback to Quick Sync--it *has* to be used with integrated graphics (added this point to the review itself). It CAN be done with Switchable Graphics on the mobile side, but it's a significant effort. Here's the official response:
"For switchable graphics configurations, Intel® Quick Sync Video may remain functional and enabled. This requires the OEM to work with their preferred graphics and software vendor for validation. In addition, Intel Quick Sync Video can work in multi-monitor using multiple graphics device configurations. However, the application must be enabled through the Media SDK and the processor graphics output must be driving a display. In other words, a monitor must be connected to the Intel processor graphics port."
This does, in fact, suck. I want to be able to use Quick Sync with my discrete card, because I'm not giving up discrete graphics for fast transcoding. Hope that answers your question!!
Best,
Chris
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram