Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer
Never seen the content types specified, so it's not exactly a relevant comparison (read itznfb's post below). I'm 99% certain that Assassin performed that test using a g530 prior to the i3 swapout (Mfusick mentions below)
I recall that being why the i3 upgrade came about, but a g530 can't transcode to 6 devices at once
A G530 can "stream" to 5 devices no problem at all but an almost as weak i3 dual core has no chance of transcoding 5 simulations HD streams.
An i3 is marginally more powerful than a Celeron or pentium for half the price. Something like a $60 3.0ghz dual core pentium CPU is not much disadvantaged to twice the price i3 CPU on the same socket. You can likely do the same things with either chip and the i3 is completely not needed for maximum streaming. A $35 CPU in a server will allow for complete 125MB/sec LAN speed saturation with ease- that is why NAS boxes with much weaker CPU's perform well too. The speed of your LAN or at which your server can stream is based mostly on LAN speed (determined by networking cables, how long you run your cables, and LAN cards NIC and chipsets,) and / or Hard drive speeds depending on what your bottle neck is. A very slow 5400rpm hard drive can still do 60MB sec which is enough for 5 streams. But a faster hard drive that does 125MB/sec+ can likely do twice as many streams (10+)
My point was more about how hard drive speeds and LAN speeds determine how many simultaneous streams you can do because in general the effect general server performance. If you want to saturate gigabit LAN you can do that with a $35 CPU, but you might want to pay good attention to your choices for a gigabit switch, LAN Cabling, and Ethernet chipsets or LAN adapter cards.
If you wanted to transcode 5 simultaneous streams you would not want a dual core CPU. Step up to a quad core CPU.
We should not confuse streaming with transcoding.