Will these upgrade help trim down TMPGenc encoding time?

[brycastillo]

From P!!! 600 to Athlon XP 1700+ with 256 PC133 SDRAM.

Will these trim down encoding time of TMPGenc?

[DJRumpy]

Are you serious? Trolling like this should be illegal. I'll bite. It's Friday.

*Bump*

{moderator's, you may fire when ready...}

[hwoodwar]

If you are seriously asking this question, evidently DJRumpy did not think so. The answer is YES. Processor speed creates a serious impact on encoding times in TMPGenc. My guess would be this upgrade would decrease your encoding time to 1/2 to 1/3 of the encoding time of the previous setup.

[johneboy]

If you are seriously asking this question, evidently DJRumpy did not think so.

Yea, i didnt really think so either.. kinda seemed like a "i got something new, and i want everyone to know" post

[brycastillo]

hwoodwar:

Thanks! How about the memory? 128 or 256MB SDRAM or DDRAM?

Does a large memory contribute to a faster encoding?

Does SDRAM or DDRAM make a difference on trimming down encoding time?

[RabidDog]

Why not use DDr ram with that proc?? incidentally? AFTER processor speed what affects encodeing most ? ram speed and amount OR hard disk speed and throughput eg 5400 vs 7200 or even 15000 scsi ?
two hard disks OR more ram eg 512mb 1024mb .... yeah baby.. yeah!
IS the athlon better than the p3 at encoding (same speed... err PR rating)

actually of course single pass encodeing will cut your time in half!!

just off off to test some kwag templates...

[brycastillo]

HDD speed will also help?

2nd HDD too?

I have a 2nd HDD but i primarily use it as mp3 storage, 10GB of MP3.

My 1st HDD,30GB 7200rpm partitioned 15GB each,
My 2nd HDD,10.2GB 5400.

What will be the set-up for the 2nd HDD?

The 1st HDD for the raw video file to be processed by TMPGenc to be saved to the 2nd HDD? or the other way around?

Which will be the 5400 and the 7200?

[RabidDog]

I personally would put all your video files on the 7200 disc as video is FAr more bandwidth hungry than mp3s (10gb = 4 years of non stop listening?)
and dont forget to make it NTFS and defrag every 3 days!!!

[hwoodwar]

Brycastillo:

I think you could get by with 128meg, I am encoding right now at near 100 percent CPU usage and it's using about 110 meg of the system memory (you can click on my profile, or system details to see specific hardware I'm using.) In the past I have seen it up to about 192 meg while encoding.

Since I have seen it up to about 192 meg, and the minimal price difference between 128 meg and 256 meg of ram, I would go with the 256 meg. Do I think you need 512 meg? No.

[brycastillo]

so you would most likely recommend,

1700+ XP
Asus A7S333 or A7V266-C
128 DDR RAM

or

1700+ XP
Iwill KK266-RAID KT133A
256 SDRAM

Which will perform better? Difference in RAM and board>

[DJRumpy]

johneboy, off subject, but that image reminds me of spongebob squarepants. That thing must scare the hell out of children. What were they thinking?

[MpegEncoder]

brycastillo,

No matter what kind of memory it is, 128M is not enough!

Get at least 256M or even better 512M

[Gazorgan]

Encoding is pretty much straight CPU based, faster is better. It's also the only reason to get a Celeron.

RAM, as long as you have the minimum, more doesn't help much. Same thing for 133 SDRAM versuse 266 DDR. I changed...and on a timed encode it wasn't any faster(the bottleneck is CPU calculations, not memory reads). 256 MB is a nice 'minimum', 284 is better and 512 is just spiffy if you also game I got 512 MB DDR from Best buy for $60 no rebate ( 2 sticks of 256 MB @ $30 each on sale ).

Drive speed matters in things like ripping, but REALLY matters in capturing. You can get your best speed improvement by ripping to one drive and writing your encodes to another. For DVD encoding, I have found 5400's are just fine. I tend to rup VOB's, then batch encode over days. This means I need a LOT of space with DVD2SVCD (even deleting files, you have a lot leftover).

Synapsis, fast CPU, MHz matters. 256-512 MB RAM, SDRAM or DDR...bought the same for encoding. Multiple large drives, not multiple partitions ( multiple partitions serve no useful purpose, deal with it ). W2K or (gulp) XP, 9x isn't up to the demands of multitasking for days of encoding.

-Cheers

[Nelson37]

If you use higher-speed RAM in a MB that supports the hi-speed Front Side Bus, AND you set the board's bus speed accordingly, you should see a significant speed increase, 20% or more. I did from just this change.

[igneous]

it will no doubt increase performance, but that pc133 ram is terrible, you'd be better off with ddr. I'm running a 2.26p4 with 512mb rdram and it takes me about 5 to 5 1/2 hours on average to do a 2-pass vbr with a 56 minute file. Thats resizing it to dvd from svcd with frame clipping. With cce I get like 1.30 when encoding too. I'm soon to get (working on) dual xeon 3.06ghz cpus, 1536mb - 2048mb of rdram, because i also do a lot of work with graphic design. Plus i'd be able to do 5pass vbr in like 1 hour and 30 minutes or less ;D in CCE. and encode movies like in 1 hour with 2 pass in tmpg

[EddyH]

my own stupid views

igneous, nice setup, may i borrow it while you're on vacation?

1. of course a faster cpu will help the encode time... hehe... (12+ hours 2-pass on 850mhz, yuck... but better than the old "333" cyrix where even CBR on low motion search could take 24..)

2. memory, all depends on whether the encode is all your pc will be doing at the time, or if (like most i suspect) you'll have other tasks going on concurrently, as well as how much space you may have free for a swapfile, fragmentation etc. More is generally better in this case anyhow, a machine without >256mb these days is a bit lost (hence my little 192mb is getting a bit strained! )

3. Hard disk speed possibly not that much of an issue, if your CPU is anything available to the consumer at the moment, and you use the same program to encode video and audio and instantly mux them into one stream, from avi to mpg (such as tmpgenc). lets see, even if you manage a 2:1 encode speed, with 2-pass, at 2xCD rate, the drive has to barely sustain 8-speed CD. You could quite happily do it over a USB link at a push, and not even USB 2.0 for that matter.

Capturing, doing any kind of uncompressed work on the video or audio though, or prepping them separately and then later muxing, THAT needs a bit of speed. Never had any severe problems so far with cheap-ass 5400rpm ATA-100's for either of those, save wishing that the software wasn't so crappy that something other than 22khz mono ADPCM could be selected (nasty tv card!). (Mind you, the only uncompressed/capture work done so far has been at 352x288 in YUV9, so whadda I know about high rate stuff!)
Or that it would take, say, 2 minutes to save the audio for/mux together the streams for a 90-minute VCD... instead of the oh-so-long five that the task requires right now! (Wonder how fast it would be with a 3ghz and enough memory to read the streams into RAM and process the whole multiplex off-disk...).


Partitions, eh. Used to split my hard disks into like six or seven separate sections for ease of finding stuff, or for backing up to CD as sector images (1945mb partition = 3xCD in Nero backup). Not doing it so much any more as it's a bit of a pain in the ass both to setup, maintain, and live with - akin to forced fragmentation. Got much hate from family for doing it! However, despite dropping stuff like "documents", "games", "internet" partitions, I'll still keep my drives in at least two pieces; one for all the essential system stuff and main programs (expanding it to, say, ~3.2gb nowadays as the 1.9 is getting a little cramped - 5CDs).
The rest of the hard drive (117gb?) going to a folder of quick backups of irreplacable C: stuff, a huge fixed-size and fully defragged swapfile, all my big media files (60gb of mp3 - 8 weeks of continous non-repeat tunes), and other sundry things that aren't too neccessary, like games. Then when something's going wrong, or the system's behaving poorly, I only need to scandisk or defrag the equivalent of an old 3gb seagate but at 10x the speed, rather than a whole whopping 120gb or whatever disk full of rarely-fragged, not-needing-scandisk videos and stuff.
Plus again it makes backup easier - system takes 5CDs, stuff on the other partition tends to end up on disc as a matter of course anyway!

[rhegedus]

If you didn't think it would speed up your syetem, why did you upgrade?

Seriously though - as everyone else has stated, TMPGEnc is very processor hungry, so the faster the better. With RAM, 256Mb will do, but if you also want to do non CPU intensive stuff at the same time then there is no harm in going for 512Mb RAM - the price difference isn't worth arguing about, and will leave you with more options to upgrade RAM in the future.

Rob

[brycastillo]

I found the anwer myself. It was almost real time encoding from MPEG2 to VCD-mpeg1 when I upgraded my system to 1800+ 128DDR, from P!!! 600 128pc100.

All of your inputs are very well appreciated. I would have not upgraded my system to do me good if not for all of your ideas, suggeastions, etc.

THANKS TO ALL!!!!