| Author |
Message |
gll99
Renegade
Joined: 31 May 2002
Location: Canadian Tundra
|
|
Edited Title to include motherboards
Background:
I'm looking to upgrade my system but want to stick to what I really need.
I am woefully out of date because while I know most of the jargon I also haven't bought a new system in years. Most of the stuff I've built for others were PIII and older AMD's. No PCI-E, no sata, no DDR2 ram, no dual core processor and not even a pentium-D. My pc is a p4 1.6 overclocked at 2.159 and running like that for the past couple of years. I even had it running at 2259 but reduced it a bit when a video card acted up but it was the video card not the cpu.
I started a thread on Vista because I wanted to look at the OS at the same time.
http://forum.videohelp.com/topic336048.html#1747209
The main reason I want to switch my system is because of video capture. Capturing mpeg2 is not an issue because the cpu stays under 50% on average. Capturing Divx/xvid is another matter.
I am using DIVX 6.x to capture at 29.97 fps and 720x480 or 640x480 from my digital cable source. At those framesizes I have to use "High Performance" mode to keep the cpu around 60% or so. I noticed that this means the video can only be captured with the settings as "Progressive source" or "deinterlace source". When I use the "Balanced (default)" for the codec setting it exposes the option to "Preserve Interlace".
Since the main objective of my captures is to view the video on a divx compatible standalone player it would produce a much better image if I can keep the video as interlaced. I'm not saying my captures look bad but I would like to maintain the 2 fields.
I tried capturing in Balanced mode and the results are good but the cpu is hitting 100% most of the time with an odd 98% at times. The results are good but I don't like pushing the cpu to the max for hours on end. I reduced the frame size and that dropped the cpu usage down to acceptable levels but I'm not sure if capturing at 512x384 (4:3 ratio) preserves the interlace frames.
Even if it does a faster cpu will give me further options of using even higher compression settings in the codec or looking at HD profiles in the future.
My question:
This is not what I am looking to buy but for the sake of comparison: For straight video capture with nothing else running would a E6600 core2 2.4 Ghz machine run faster than a single cpu P4 2.4 Ghz computer. Under a single load would they operate very similarly. (I know it's hard to compare because the single cpu has only a 1MB L2 cache but the Core 2 Duo have two 2MB caches, have a faster fsb and run cooler but other than that how close would it be.)
The answer may affect my decision on which mobo and cpu to buy. I do have other requirements when choosing a system but capture speed is the first one. After my first look through at whats available I've got something in mind but I'd like to hear more about dual vs single processors in the context of video capture and what some of you are using.
Last edited by gll99 on Sep 08, 2007 00:50, edited 1 time in total
|
|
Soopafresh
Dismember
Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Location: United States
|
|
The Dual Core machine would be significantly faster than the P4. A 2.4Ghz P4 is 1/6th the speed of an E6600 at heavy duty video processing.
You should absolutely bite the bullet and get the Core platform.
The way to reduce the CPU load on your current system is to capture with a lossless compression codec, such as Huffyuv. Problem with that is the significant amount of disk space it consumes, and the time needed to convert the video to your desired Divx codec.
Last edited by Soopafresh on Sep 02, 2007 01:36, edited 1 time in total
|
|
edDV
Member
Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Location: Northern California, USA
|
|
| gll99 wrote: |
My question:
This is not what I am looking to buy but for the sake of comparison: For straight video capture with nothing else running would a E6600 core2 2.4 Ghz machine run faster than a single cpu P4 2.4 Ghz computer. Under a single load would they operate very similarly. (I know it's hard to compare because the single cpu has only a 1MB L2 cache but the Core 2 Duo have two 2MB caches, have a faster fsb and run cooler but other than that how close would it be.). |
It seems by capture you mean capture and encode on the fly. Your current system can handle simple capture with separate encoding.
A single CPU side of E6600 core2 2.4 Ghz will run rings around a P4 2.4 Ghz. Clock speed no longer indicates processing speed.
| gll99 wrote: |
The answer may affect my decision on which mobo and cpu to buy. I do have other requirements when choosing a system but capture speed is the first one. After my first look through at whats available I've got something in mind but I'd like to hear more about dual vs single processors in the context of video capture and what some of you are using. |
Why Vista? Is that a requirement for some other reason? For Vista you should be looking at dual core and 2GB RAM.
|
|
gll99
Renegade
Joined: 31 May 2002
Location: Canadian Tundra
|
|
@edDV
Yes of course I capture using a bt878 tvtuner card and compress to divx on the fly. Vista is a separate consideration but if you look at that topic you will see that it's not the primary thing by any means. If I buy the parts instead of a pre-built with pre-installed OS then I'll stick with XP.
@Soopafresh
Is it a truism that all processing has a 6 times gain in speed using a dual core cpu. Some video processing may be using the dual core but a single capture program may not.
By that reckoning:
A E4300 at 1.8 Ghz should outperform my P4 1.6 by 6 times the speed. So my cpu would run at 17% usage where my P4 maxes at 100%. Is it really that much.
I found a socket 775 mobo that meets my other (as yet unstated) requirements and supports either a single 3.2 Ghz P4 or a Core 2 Duo. The cpu price is $112 for the 3.2 P4 and $149 for the E4300. The price difference is minimal but the low Ghz of the core 2 processors made me wonder. I thought the real benefits were when doing multi processing and not so much during a single process like video capture.
|
|
Soopafresh
Dismember
Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Location: United States
|
|
A E4300 at 1.8 Ghz should outperform my P4 1.6 by 6 times the speed. So my cpu would run at 17% usage where my P4 maxes at 100%. Is it really that much.
Well, remember - your system is doing more than just capturing. You're also transcoding to Divx as well, plus the data is being transferred to your hard drive. The E4300 is 2X the speed of the P4 2.4 when it comes to encoding video.
Once again, plunk down the dough for the Core II - even the e4300 will be a big, big performance gain.
Oh, and Speed in Ghz means nothing anymore. Front side bus (FSB) and amount of L2 Cache are just as important.
|
|
RabidDog
Old B.
Joined: 25 Oct 2002
Location: UK
|
|
Actually you should go for one of the 6550 or 6750 to really get the freshest iteration. Also remember that divx6.0 onwards is SMP aware eg it will make some use of both/quad cores..why not capture in mpeg2 anyway and then re-encode, it really just requires disk space and that is cheaper than cpu mhz.
Or get both, sata disk and new cpu. Asrock make good, cheap mobos.
Beware of Vista and support for older hardware, your stuff may not be supported. 
Oh, as well, these two Cups are meant to be good O/c'ers
Your cup will no longer runneth over
_________________
Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons.
|
|
gll99
Renegade
Joined: 31 May 2002
Location: Canadian Tundra
|
|
@rabidDog
Funny Asrock is a mobo I have my eyes on. I need extra pci slots and it has 4. To save bucks in the short term the board has both DDR or DDRII ram, PCI-E or AGP 8x and 2 ide controllers (4 devices), in addition to the sata ones so to start I can use some existing hardware and change over in time. It even supports quad cores if I want to go there later and it's easy to oc so it's got a lot going for a good price. Best of all it's available locally so I don't have to chase.
This site has the specs on the mobo. I think it's the same one that I was looking at on a local site but I'll be able to confirm that after the long weekend.
http://www.xpcgear.com/775dualvsta.html
Edit:
This may be a better description of the board. I found 2 models locally but the descriptions weren't complete although one local sellers board clearly says 4Core Dual Vista in the heading but the link to the details is unavailable. I'm guessing it's this one
http://www.pro-clockers.com/review.php?id=207
end edit
I've yet to evaluate AMD so I'm not pinned down to Intel just yet.
I was just looking at some of the Athlon64 X2 family of processors. At the same price as the E4300, the Atlon64 x2 5000+ just beat the Intel by about 3 to 4% in encoding an mpg to xvid in Virtualdubmod Mpeg. It's not a lot but it shows that on that test anyway they are competitive in price and performance. I know the E4300 / e4400 can be oc's but I don't know yet how much more the amd will give, they are already rated at a higher speed. The E4400 has a 10x multiplier which is really attractive, looks like some have got over 3.3 Ghz on stock air cooling alone. I may not want to push it that much but it's nice to know it might be possible.
btw) The E6550 and E6750 are priced at $220 and $250 where I am. I don't know if I want to spend that extra right now if the lesser cpu will handle my divx captures. Converting from mpeg to divx is something I try to avoid unless it's necessary besides why do in 2 steps what should be done in 1 in the first place. 
|
|
yoda313
POLLSTER
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Location: the real world
|
|
fyi if you're a gamer at all I'd suggest multicore processors. I just saw one that REQUIRED a duo core processor!!! I think it was Shadowrun. I nearly fainted seeing that requirement. I mean a dual core processor just to run a game??? I am doomed!!!!!
Maybe my amd 64 motherboard is upgradeable in the future......
_________________
Live long and prosper - and rock on dude!!!!
|
|
jagabo
Member
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: none
|
|
| gll99 wrote: |
By that reckoning:
A E4300 at 1.8 Ghz should outperform my P4 1.6 by 6 times the speed. So my cpu would run at 17% usage where my P4 maxes at 100%. Is it really that much. |
I doubt you'll see anything like that.
In my experience with Divx, a single core on a C2D is about 50 percent faster than a P4 of the same clock speed. And with Divx, using both cores will not come anywhere near twice as fast as using one core. Interlaced encoding is also much slower than progressive encoding in Divx.
Divx at Balanced with a full D1 frame on a low end C2D may be fast enough for you to capture. But does your player really support interlaced Divx well? Not many do.
|
|
TBoneit
Member
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Location: USA
|
|
| gll99 wrote: |
@edDV
Yes of course I capture using a bt878 tvtuner card and compress to divx on the fly. Vista is a separate consideration but if you look at that topic you will see that it's not the primary thing by any means. If I buy the parts instead of a pre-built with pre-installed OS then I'll stick with XP.
@Soopafresh
Is it a truism that all processing has a 6 times gain in speed using a dual core cpu. Some video processing may be using the dual core but a single capture program may not.
By that reckoning:
A E4300 at 1.8 Ghz should outperform my P4 1.6 by 6 times the speed. So my cpu would run at 17% usage where my P4 maxes at 100%. Is it really that much.
I found a socket 775 mobo that meets my other (as yet unstated) requirements and supports either a single 3.2 Ghz P4 or a Core 2 Duo. The cpu price is $112 for the 3.2 P4 and $149 for the E4300. The price difference is minimal but the low Ghz of the core 2 processors made me wonder. I thought the real benefits were when doing multi processing and not so much during a single process like video capture. |
Run as fast as you can from the 3.2 Ghz P4.... They run much hotter temperature than the newer faster Core2 and the Core2Duos use less electricity and need much less cooling. Not to mention the Core 2 will be faster.
Read this thread forsome pointers. http://forum.videohelp.com/topic335976.html
There are sellers still pushing these onto unsuspecting buyers that think only Ghz matters. The price has dropped on them because of all the problems.
|
|
gll99
Renegade
Joined: 31 May 2002
Location: Canadian Tundra
|
|
We can eliminate a few things from the topic.
1- I'm not a gamer and I'm only interested in improving the video capture. Everything else I need I can still do with the P4 1.6 (although more slowly ) so I wouldn't rush to upgrade otherwise.
2- We can eliminate Vista from the discussion. I wouldn't be using it on the new computer so it's not an issue for the current purchase.
3-My dvd (divx) player, the Philips dvp-642 plays interlaced video without flicker as long as the field order is right.
TBoneit wrote
| Quote: |
Run as fast as you can from the 3.2 Ghz P4.... They run much hotter temperature than the newer faster Core2 and the Core2Duos use less electricity and need much less cooling. Not to mention the Core 2 will be faster.
|
Forgetting heat and electrical efficiency for a moment, do you believe that a Core 2 duo 1.8 Ghz cpu with a 800fsb will outperform a regular P4 3.2 Ghz also with an 800fsb during video capture/encoding? That's almost double the speed and yet some say it will still run faster. By how much?
If I understand jagabo's comment correctly the P4 3.2 should be faster or at least they may break even depending on which end the 50% is measured.
I just don't know how these processors work
Now I realise that a 1.8 Core 2 means 2 separate cores at 1.8 ghz each but do they work in tandem. One could say that's 3.6 Ghz with double the cpu cache. I don't know how these cores (processors) work when only running a single program. Do both cores work all the time or is it more like multi threading where one core runs one app while the other sits idle until another program is loaded and runs separately in the other core. Or is it more that certain processes run in core 1 while other functions run in core 2. Or yet again do they just share the load to keep both cores at a similar usage %. Do programs have to be written and compiled to use new instruction sets or do older programs run just as efficiently on a core 2 duo cpu using the standard p4 instruction sets? When monitoring programs report the total cpu usage % how do they show it as one cpu?
Any of this discussion does not involve overclocking although I probably will do that regardless of which processsor I get. I don't want that to influence the comparison since I'm already overclocking my p4 and even if pushed to over 2.3 Ghz it still isn't enough to keep the cpu under 100% at the settings I want.
|
|
budz
IGA Ninja
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Location: In the shadows.....
|
|
| gll99 wrote: |
| Any of this discussion does not involve overclocking although I probably will do that regardless of which processsor I get. I don't want that to influence the comparison since I'm already overclocking my p4 and even if pushed to over 2.3 Ghz it still isn't enough to keep the cpu under 100% at the settings I want. |
Then get a Gigabyte Quad core compatible mobo that has the option of upgrading to a quad core cpu later on. That way you'll be ahead of the game. Just my 2 cents! 
|
|
gll99
Renegade
Joined: 31 May 2002
Location: Canadian Tundra
|
|
| budz wrote: |
| gll99 wrote: |
| Any of this discussion does not involve overclocking although I probably will do that regardless of which processsor I get. I don't want that to influence the comparison since I'm already overclocking my p4 and even if pushed to over 2.3 Ghz it still isn't enough to keep the cpu under 100% at the settings I want. |
Then get a Gigabyte Quad core compatible mobo that has the option of upgrading to a quad core cpu later on. That way you'll be ahead of the game. Just my 2 cents! |
That's push me into a higher price range. When the stores open Tuesday I'll be checking an Asrock 4core dual vista mobo. It's not as good for overclocking but then I'm not planning on pushing it that much. If I can get a 1.8 up to 2.4 - 2.6 and it handles my capture settings where my current P4 oc'd at similar settings can't, then I'll be happy. This board will let me use my agp card and my ide drives at first so it makes for a transition that's easy on the wallet. I just have to make sure that the cpu is strong enough to handle the captures even before it's oc'd. Overclocking would add a small bonus margin.
|
|
budz
IGA Ninja
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Location: In the shadows.....
|
|
Your other post mentioned a Intel core 2 duo 800fsb so I assume you'll be buying a Intel Allendale cpu.
|
|
gll99
Renegade
Joined: 31 May 2002
Location: Canadian Tundra
|
|
| budz wrote: |
| Your other post mentioned a Intel core 2 duo 800fsb so I assume you'll be buying a Intel Allendale cpu. |
You're right, that's what I'm looking at. Either the E4300 or the E4400. They are both the same price but I don't know which is better. The E4300 is 1.8Ghz and the E4400 is rated at 2Ghz but I'm not sure what makes them different other than the E4300 came out first. The numbering with these cpu's is hard to follow it's not always a straight climb in value and features based purely on numbering. After those two, I would have to justify spending more on a higher model based on those cpu's not being able to do the job.
|
|
Soopafresh
Dismember
Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Location: United States
|
|
Recent batches of e4400 procs have not lent themselves to massive overclocking. Besides, you'll most likely have to use something better than the stock Intel Heatsink and Fan. Get your system broken in and running before trying overclocking.
Which leads to an OFT - Wouldn't it be nice if some CPU cooling company built an adapter which could replace the crappy and loud fans on a stock Intel cooler with a 90 or 120mm ultra quiet fan? I know why they don't - they want to sell that hunk of metal and the silver compound. Sure would be a simple thing to make, though...
If the $ difference between the e4400 and e4300 is big, go for the e4300.
|
|
gll99
Renegade
Joined: 31 May 2002
Location: Canadian Tundra
|
|
I've been reading so much about the various cpu's that I could get mixed up but I think the e4400 also has a 10x multiplier. I did read where the mobo I'm looking at limited the oc on those chips to under 3 gig. One guy got a stable 2.9 and another 2.8 keeping the stock core voltage and cooling. People using different boards got 3.5 and 3.6.
2.8Ghz is well within what I would want but of course that only matters if these cpu's do what I want before being oc'd otherwise I'll have to start looking at the E6750 or even the E6600 but that gets more expensive. I need extra PCI slots and ide controllers so it's hard to change the mobo, the Asrock is the only decently priced one I found that has that kind of flexibility and more. High overclocking is not a major selling point with me. It's more the case of will the cpu at it's rated speed do the job I need.
|
|
redwudz
Mod Neophyte
Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Location: AZ, USA
|
|
Soopafresh said:
| Quote: |
| Wouldn't it be nice if some CPU cooling company built an adapter which could replace the crappy and loud fans on a stock Intel cooler with a 90 or 120mm ultra quiet fan? |
They are fairly common. Often 60mm to 80mm, but you might find a few 60mm to 120mm adapters out there. Just do a search for ' cpu fan adapters '.
EDIT: It's not easy to find motherboards with more than a few PCI slots and a AGP slot. The PCI-E bus is faster and with the PCI-E bus comes faster memory and better interfaces with the CPU. Recently quite a few MBs are using DDR2-800 memory modules. Those and the PCI-E bus have quite a bit more bandwidth. It's really part of the whole package. To get a AGP slot to work, they really have to go backwards.
Last edited by redwudz on Sep 03, 2007 02:04, edited 1 time in total
|
|
budz
IGA Ninja
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Location: In the shadows.....
|
|
Soopafresh
Dismember
Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Location: United States
|
|
I've used those before, redwudz, but I don't think they'd fit an Intel supplied heatsink. - I was envisioning something more like this, but with clips which could fasten to the specific heatsink of any model Intel (actually Foxcon) boxed CPU.
http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggImage/productimage/35-186-122-01.jpg
Replace all of the black plastic on these examples:
The heatsink's aluminum/copper construction isn't that bad - they're pretty heavy.
Last edited by Soopafresh on Sep 03, 2007 02:13, edited 2 times in total
|
|
redwudz
Mod Neophyte
Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Location: AZ, USA
|
|
I see. I'm not that familiar with Intel CPU coolers. I do like the heat pipe coolers like budz linked to. That gives you a small footprint at board level and lets you put a bigger fan further up into the airstream.
|
|
gll99
Renegade
Joined: 31 May 2002
Location: Canadian Tundra
|
|
with you about the dinky stock Intel coolers. They are so crappy and cheap. 
I like stuff that's not so complicated to install.