Epox eX5-320S SFF PC

Article Index

Windows Media Encoder and 3DMark03

Windows Media Encoder 9
Digital Video Encoding

We continued our testing with another application from Futuremark, 3DMark03, and with a video encoding benchmark, Windows Media Encoder 9.  In the WME9 test, we took a 416MB Digital Video file and encoded to a WMV9 format used for streaming video.  Times were recorded in Minutes : Seconds, with lower times indicating better performance.

The times were darn close, with only 8 seconds being the difference between the Asus and Shuttle boards.  Somewhat surprisingly, the Epox Mini-Me came closer to the Shuttle's time than it did to the Asus P4P800 Deluxe.  We had thought that the optimized RAM timings on the Epox system would give the P4P800 a run for the money, but were apparently mistaken.  Still 8 seconds equates to less than a four percent difference between the "haves" and the "have-nots".

3DMark03
DirectX Gaming Performance - Sort Of

It's not an actual game, but 3DMark03's built-in CPU test is a "gaming related" DirectX metric that's useful for comparing relative performance among similarly equipped systems.  This test consists of two different 3D scenes that are generated with a software renderer, which is dependant on the host CPU's performance.  This means that the calculations normally reserved for your 3D accelerator, are instead sent to the central processor.  The number of frames generated per second in each test are used to determine the final score.

Using only the CPU benchmark, we've got the Epox eX5-320S smack dab in the middle once again between the front-runner Asus P4P800 Deluxe and the third place Shuttle SB61G2.  Once again though, the difference in score that separated the systems was very small, with only a 4.5% total performance delta.  This breakdown of the scores should be expected by now, for reasons we've already explained.

 

Tags:  SFF, PC, SFF PC, x5, 320

Related content

Comments

Show comments blog comments powered by Disqus