Processor Speed vs Graphics Card ?

[Chiarobscuro]

Greetings everyone,
I am using a k62 450mhz to make my dvds ...
(waits for laughter to die down)
anyway, after waiting a ridiculously long time yesterday ... and most of the night before for my DV footage to convert to MPEG2 I started to seriously think about ways to fix this problem.

Hence the question, what speeds up encoding time ? Does encoding time depend on the processor or does the graphics card play into this equation?


-Brian

[bokkasrealm]

It is purely based on processor speed. It helps to have fast speed and a lot of ram. You can do alot with a 1 ghz processor and a lot of ddr or SDRAM. For a good $150 you could upgrade that machine to do just about anything.

[sterno]

The only time your graphics card will affect your encoding speed is if you have one of those crappy shared memory architecture on-board video controllers. Since they use your system memory they tend to slow down the entire machine. So if you do upgrade, don't use on-board video unless it has dedicated video memory (almost none do).

[crahak]

Yes, if your vid card is this crappy, it's not really helping, but even still... (you'd have to be low on ram, and I've hardly ever seen video onboard) And RAM, unless you're really running low on it, it won't help much either. Encoding is all number crunching, it's mainly dependant on CPU speed.

[musher70]

take that whatever it is to the landfill, r u kidding us?
ur just wasting ur time posting bout slow system like that..
xp wont even run at 450khz,if ur down there, memory
probably under 128 right?im not even gonna check...

If ur into encoding, or ever want to be, here is a minimum...

p4 or same ABOVE 2.0 ghtz
512 ddr or like, rdram is cheaper now
40-60 gig hd
a real good motherboard...
dont forget the AGP videocard,
and a dvd burner,vcd stuff just wastes ur time and effort...

[crahak]

It doesn't have to be 2.0GHz+, but 450 is not much I agree. Lots of people are quite happy with speeds around 1.4 to 1.8 GHz... (Mind you I have quite a few computers, If I was relying on a single machine it might be a different deal).

512 meg is a waste as far as encoding or minor stuff is considered. 256 is a decent amount right now.

As fas as storage space, it really depends, you can't even state numbers like that. I consider 40-60 to be really under what I'd want. A 80gig drive has like twice the space of a 40 gig, for only like 50% more $... I go also by $/gig (or whatever way you want to put it). But it's mainly linked to specific needs... With all computers combined, I am getting near a terabyte, and most of it is on raid0... lol

"Real good motherboards" are just overrated. (Just like the "gotta be crucual CAS 0.0005 whatever, oh and a 950Watt enermax 7 fan power supply that was the trend before). Sure, you don't want a P.O.S. motherboard, but I go for bottom price and they're all working fine...

As far as buying a video card, anything non-AGP 4x+ is just out of the question... lol

DVD burner is getting more popular, it's not vital though. (I don't do VCD's myself)

[ghoster]

plus it really denpends on your encoder. i first started out with dvdx it took like 5 plus hours to do a 2 hour movie. then i moved to TMPGEnc that took a little over 4 hours to do. now i have cce and it takes about 2 hours to do a 2 hour movie.

[vitualis]

xp wont even run at 450khz,if ur down there, memory
probably under 128 right?im not even gonna check...

This is completely off topic but I just have to refute this...

I've got a PIII 500 MHz machine with 384 Mb of RAM running WinXP. It runs smoothly and well and certainly much more stably than Win98SE. WinXP is not all that different from Win2k if you turn off some of the gawdy, CPU cycle eating UI "enhancements".

In fact, my home server (file/printer/internet) runs on WinXP as well. This machine is a Pentium 200 MHz MMX with 128 MB RAM. Again, runs brilliantly and has never crashed (unlike Win98SE which would stop working properly after about 1 week of continuous operation and required a reboot).

Regards.