What does it take? - DVD to 'insert format'

[NotSoEasy]

I have seen it asked a few times here, what is faster, this software or that.But what I havent really seen is what these people are using.
What is going to help that software of choice convert faster.
Does it take CPU?
Does it take RAM?
Does it take both?

Does having a good say P3 with 768 RAM get the job done as well as say a P4 with 512 RAM
Is RAM even a consideration when converting?

I know that it takes time when using several pieces of software, but Im talking about the all-in-ones here like avi.NET - AutoGK - SimpleDIVX and the like.What gets these things work thier fastest.

One reason I ask is I havent been able to use any of these with the results posted on here.Im on a P4 2.4 GHzwith 512 RAM and it took me about 8hrs for Forrest Gump to XviD
Does that seem normal?
If that sounds about right, what will cut down on that time?
More CPU?
More RAM?

Maybe the video guru's should make a post on the 'ultimate video machine'
List the parts and software needed to have that perfect, fast video editing machine!

[celtic_druid]

Video encoding itself doesn't use all that much RAM since it is basically encoding one frame at a time. Complex AVISynth scripts can eat up the RAM though.

[Duchess]

In my experience the things that matter most are:
1. HDD access time
2. CPU speed
3. If the HDD and DVD burner are on the same buss. Better if HDD is on primary buss and DVD burner is on secondary buss.
4. Amount of RAM but above 512Mb for most applications it's not as important as items 1 to 3.

[FulciLives]

When it comes to encoding video on a computer the CPU is the primary point of interest.

The better and faster the CPU the faster the encode time. As long as you have a decent amount of memory (512MB RAM for WinXP is considered "optimal") you are good to go.

The video/graphics card has very little to do with encoding time if any at all. It can affect editing if you are using a lot of "effects" in a program like Vegas or Adobe Premiere but for encoding it does not.

So if you want faster encoding time you need to concentrate on getting the best and fastest CPU you can afford.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[jimmalenko]

CPU first and foremost, but lots of other bottlenecks that can gain small %'s here and there.

The only thing I'll say about RAM is to use a dual channel config if you can. Works wonders

[mikiem]

Many of the reviews for m/boards include benchmarks, & most often those include video encoding. User reports on those same boards will give some indication of common problems. Be careful about compatibility -- latest hardware really pushes data flow between cpu, board, & ram, & prob can surface encoding that won't anywhere else, so if possible spend more for better ram, not just more. Dual channel helps a LOT as posted, but unless you're doing a lot of previews in authoring &/or editing prog, going from 512 to a gig won't improve things as much as one might wish/hope. Last, don't forget temp during those long renders -- include cooling solutions when planning or budgeting system.

[MOVIEGEEK]

CPU first and foremost, but lots of other bottlenecks that can gain small %'s here and there.

The only thing I'll say about RAM is to use a dual channel config if you can. Works wonders

I agree,I recently installed another 512MB stick on my dual channel mobo and many functions are faster such as editing but encoding is the same.