Best CPU for DVD rip

[Epicure]

The title say s it . Acording to some writers anandtech for instance , the Pentium4 3.2 is the best . What is your opinion . considering AMD 64 and opteron?

[mrbass]

If your using transcoders the bottleneck isn't the CPU but the I/O. So your best of getting whichever CPU is at the price sweet point. I just got a 2.4GHz for my kid since it was only $159. Now using IC or dvd2dvd then yes a fast CPU will help you out. But most CPU 1GHz or faster will be up to the task..just let it run over night whilst you sleep.

[graysky]

P4s are expensive and in some real-world benchmarks, slower than their AMD counterparts. I switched over to AMD about 2 years ago and have been very happy.

[andkiich]

As was stated before CPU has nothign at all to do with the DVD Rip process.

I've been using AMD chips since they first introduced their 486 line and have never used a Pentium since.

[belvedere16]

My Pentium II 350 owns everyone here

[spiderman2k1]

belvedere16

My Pentium II 350 owns everyone here

try beatting my P2 400 lighting fast LOL

[aglips]

My Pentium II 350 owns everyone here

I better rush home and see how many years it'll take my PI 200mhz pc to copy 1 movie.

[Chuffster]

My Pentium II 350 owns everyone here

Ha! My 1970's Commodore Calculator 0wn$ j00



I find it quicker to use than the windows calculator on my 3.06GHz P4.

[Thunder In Paradise]

Actaully I was reading in the latest issue of "Maximum PC" that at the moment, there's no AMD 32-bit based processor that can beat the clock speed of Intel! Yeah, that's right, all you silly AMD users! JK Actually, most people know that Intel has the outright speed, but AMD's are better for multiple applications and whatnot. My 2.53Ghz Pentium IV has performed very well since I got it, and I haven't and will never use any AMD processor.

[Faustus]

Actaully I was reading in the latest issue of "Maximum PC" that at the moment, there's no AMD 32-bit based processor that can beat the clock speed of Intel! Yeah, that's right, all you silly AMD users! JK Actually, most people know that Intel has the outright speed, but AMD's are better for multiple applications and whatnot. My 2.53Ghz Pentium IV has performed very well since I got it, and I haven't and will never use any AMD processor.

On the same note I just looked up some info on 64bit Desktop processors and intel... wait wait... has nothing!
Its a shame most of the programs we use for DVDs will not be updated to 64bit when XP 64 comes out. Cause I bet the Athlon FX is gonna be a video encoding monster.

[lordsmurf]

On the same note I just looked up some info on 64bit Desktop processors and intel... wait wait... has nothing! Its a shame most of the programs we use for DVDs will not be updated to 64bit when XP 64 comes out. Cause I bet the Athlon FX is gonna be a video encoding monster.

I refuse to upgrade to 64-bit CPUs or HDTV. Why would I want to?
Everything I currently have is now useless in the future.
I'll live in the past, thanks.

[jarvis1781]

Actaully I was reading in the latest issue of "Maximum PC" that at the moment, there's no AMD 32-bit based processor that can beat the clock speed of Intel! Yeah, that's right, all you silly AMD users! JK Actually, most people know that Intel has the outright speed, but AMD's are better for multiple applications and whatnot. My 2.53Ghz Pentium IV has performed very well since I got it, and I haven't and will never use any AMD processor.

On the same note I just looked up some info on 64bit Desktop processors and intel... wait wait... has nothing!
Its a shame most of the programs we use for DVDs will not be updated to 64bit when XP 64 comes out. Cause I bet the Athlon FX is gonna be a video encoding monster.

Intel will release a 64Bit CPU when it becomes necessary. As of now there are no 64Bit OS's to even utilize a 64Bit CPU. The P4 EE with 2.5mb of cache RULES all.

[Strykerz_1]

I have used both AMD and P4, no problems with either. Currently using P4 2.53. Server Box is AMD 2500, no problem burning DVDs.......i guess its what you want to spend or your preference......

[RabidDog]

dvd rip speed is all about your dvd reading drive. But dvd transcoding requires a good processor for fast encodes. However the difference between a fast amd and fast intel is marginal, unless you do video editing full time professionally. I have recently changed from intel to amd purely on price grounds.

[FOO]

and I haven't and will never use any AMD processor.

What if an AMD processor could be demonstrated to
be better ? It has happened in the past. It might
happen in the future. You gonna screw yourself
because you have some patriotic duty to Intel ?

[Vejita-sama]

Intel and AMD both make fine products. But haven't owned an intel based system since HS. AMD produces CPUs that work as well if not better for a much lower price, and I don't have to upgrade my entire system (memory/MB) everytime a new chip comes out. If I had unlimited resources things would be different.

Yes AMD CPUs run hotter, get a good heat sink. It's not like you can run etiher CPU without a heat sink and a few fans these days anyway. This sounds too much like the which transcoder is better debates. Better for what?

[Jimmykicker]

All you need for fast ripping is a good 16x DVD drive -- fast processor will not make any difference -- I recommend a Lite-On 163 or 166 -- you will be able to rip a single layer disc in less than 5 min with one of these drives!!

[SaSi]

The question, as stated, has generated some confusion.

Epicure, what exactly do you mean by ripping? Just copying from DVD to the hard disk or also re-encoding/transcoding and re-authoring?

For DVD to HD, as stated, a very fast DVD that can rip at a high speed is essential, regardless of the CPU. Also, a very fast 7200rpm disk in UDMA 100 or 133 will help maximize the transfer rate. Any CPU above PII at 500MHz or more is adequate (or even enough).

But then you need to re-encode or re-author or transcode.

There, the things get rather complicated.

On the AMD vs Intel question, well, I've never tried an AMD processor myself, but some friends have. And since we live in a hot country, most of my AMD-owner friends didn't much use their PCs during the Summer as they became steaming hot in an hour's time. That, for me, answers the question.

Now, regarding CPU performance, I had a P4/2.67 and upgraded a week ago to P4/2.8HT a week ago. The results are dissapointing!

Ripping speed has not changed. All is well and ripping goes between 6x ~ 10x as before.
DVDShrink Is as fast as it was before. Not any faster. And viewing the CPU utilization while transcoding, I see a constant rate of 50% during transcoding. Yes, the CPU is able to take additional tasks in parallel, which is nice, BUT, DVDShrink cannot go twice as fast by using up all CPU.

The same applies to other programs I use. DVD2One, Mainconcept, Tmpgenc, CCE SP and Scenarist.

Of all, Scenarist is the worst. While authoring, CPU utilization is between 8~12% And the time it takes to fully author a disk is more than half an hour.

Mainconcept (which uses both CPUs) has become slightly faster, more than the 2.8 : 2.67 difference in CPU speed.

Tmpgenc is the WINNER here, as I now get close to realtime encoding with it. a two hour movie takes 3 hours to encode, and as everyone knows, this is incredible for Tmpgenc. Also, it's the only program of the lot to be able to use almost all of the CPU.

Recording is a joke. Nero takes between 0~3% of the CPU. I can rip, encode, browse and play F1 simulation while recording at 4X!

One may wonder what the above means.

My understanding is that CPU and RAM (DDR400) are now perhaps too fast for the other parts (ie. Hard Disk) to keep up. Scenarist is expected to suffer the most as it multiplexes a whole lot of elementary streams into yet another file all stored on disk. (Actually, copying files from one disk to another takes up 5% of the CPU as well and cannot go any faster).

What I mean to say is the following:

Anything above a P4/2.4GHz is currently a waste, especially if you don't have ultra fast Hard Disks. Even if you do, I woudn't recommend anything beyond P4/2.67 because CPU prices go skyhigh above that. (And Intel is about to produce a raddically new P4 product later this year).

If you need to go faster, really consider a different disk subsystem, like a good IDE Raid (if something like that exists) to stripe 3-4 fast disks into a large striped array. Or, a stripped set of Ultra 320 SCSI disks. (one of these costs as much as a normal PC).

[xtreemkareem]

Most software is optimized for Intel Chips, and software such as DVDx or TMPGenc is optimized for P4. AMD does not support RDRAM, and the FSB of Intel CPUs w/ the same clock speed of AMDs is faster for the P4. I have a P4 2.4 ghz and encode most mpeg's at around real time and can render DivX 4.12 @ about 30 FPS. I got mine for $164 and i got my MB really cheap... the only thing I need is a faster damn hard drive... DVD ripping can take up to 45 minutes for some DVD's I've done, and i have a 16X DVD-Rom!!

[LanEvo7]

Any brand CPU will do for now if its just for ripping purposes. If you are building a new system, it would purely depend on your budget. If your budget is limited, I'd suggest you get an AMD. I am only speaking of the 32bit processors right now. The 64bit processors are over priced and the software that benifits from it NOW(maybe more the future) is limited. Although the fastest AMD will not be as fast as the fastest Intel, you will get better value for your money. I'd suggest a XP2600+. If you are an overclocker, get the 2500+ Barton. If your budget is somewhat not limited($1500+), you go Intel. Their high end processors tend to be faster than AMD's. Again if you are into overclocking, get the P4 2.4C. That overclocks nicely. If you have an unlimited budget, get the Dual Athlon 64 FX.

AMD does not support RDRAM

Currently, RDRAM is garbage. Even Intel got rid of it.

[aberboy0]

for good results anything above a ghz i say,i got a athlon 2500 barton core (fsb333).it runs like a dream,mind u it is a wee bit clocked to 2.4ghz though.i say forget the amd 64 and wait and see. the amd 64 just might the end for amd if it doesnt take off.the 64 is amd's last through of the coin they got a bucketful of debt.so guys wait and see

[VinnySem]

Actaully I was reading in the latest issue of "Maximum PC" that at the moment, there's no AMD 32-bit based processor that can beat the clock speed of Intel! Yeah, that's right, all you silly AMD users! JK Actually, most people know that Intel has the outright speed, but AMD's are better for multiple applications and whatnot. My 2.53Ghz Pentium IV has performed very well since I got it, and I haven't and will never use any AMD processor.

Yes, the P4 has a higher clock speed, but the Athlon can execute more instructions per clock because it has a shorter execution pipeline. If you have read any comparisons between the 2 CPUs, you would know that if you take 2 systems, 1 Athlon based the other P4 based, all else being equal save the chipset, in applications that are not optimized for the P4 nor use Intel's SSE extensions, the Athlon beats it hands down. Hell, it's common knowledge that a Pentium3 at the same clock speed as the P4 will win out, P3 has a shorter pipeline, but the P3's clock cannot scale as high as the P4.

[Gazorgan]

You said 'Rip', which means anything PII or higher. Makes absolutely noooo difference.

Did you mean 'Encode'? Well that's completely different.

Latest P4 is 'best' but a waste of money. Barton Core AMD's with true 333 FSB rock like no tommarrow! Forget 400 FSB, you get better performance on 333(synchronus versus Asynchronous), especially if it's Dual DDR (requires 2 mem sticks).

You want:
Barton Core
Dual DDR
Real Memory (kingston 2.0 timing)
2 Hard Drives (not raid, but source/destination...it really does help)
Liteon DVDROM
Dual Format DVDRW
Any of the latest 64 MB+ AGP 8x cards

[Thunder In Paradise]

Hey Guys. I was reading the latest installment of "Maximum PC" again, and they did THE BIG SHOWDOWN test with an AMD Athlon 64 FX-21, Intel P4EE, and the stupid Apple G5. You AMDer's are going to not like this....Intel's P4EE won! DA DADA DAAAA!!!!!!
Maybe I am a little patriotic towards Intel. So what? Why can't stupid AMD just say what their processor speed is instead of masking behind some goofy "2200+" or "180394+_)_((#*$()#"? Oh, that's because they haven't even reached 2.5Ghz yet.
Intel will always rule since they're the bomb! And AMD is just a lowly 2ndary placed chip maker!

[VinnySem]

Hey Guys. I was reading the latest installment of "Maximum PC" again, and they did THE BIG SHOWDOWN test with an AMD Athlon 64 FX-21, Intel P4EE, and the stupid Apple G5. You AMDer's are going to not like this....Intel's P4EE won! DA DADA DAAAA!!!!!!
Maybe I am a little patriotic towards Intel. So what? Why can't stupid AMD just say what their processor speed is instead of masking behind some goofy "2200+" or "180394+_)_((#*$()#"? Oh, that's because they haven't even reached 2.5Ghz yet.
Intel will always rule since they're the bomb! And AMD is just a lowly 2ndary placed chip maker!

Your head is so far up Andy Grove's ass we can't tell where he ends and you begin.

One review does not the processor speed crown award. Anyone who visits THG regularly can attest to this. Read this article on Anand's website, and judge for yourselves: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=4

[redflake]

If AMD vanished. How much would an INTEL cost.
I have an AMD. If you have an INTEL so what, who cares as long as it does the job.
Viva la competition.

[MachineMan]

The AMD 64bit is not all about GHz. It may be less then 2.5GHz but it can move twice as much data for the same speed. However I wouldn't buy it yet until the software packages catch up to this technology and the price drops.