New cpu=faster conversion???

[wolvesandbooze]

I'm only running at 500mhz at the moment, and I'm about to get myself a new cpu around the 1700 mark. It takes me around 5 to 6 hours to convert half a movie (45 mins) at the moment, any idea how long it would take me with the new processor I'm going to get. I'm using TMPGEenc to convert. Also I've always had great success at doing my vcds but I've never done a svcd, do these take longer to convert or is there more chance of running into problems, the reason I ask is, it's going to be a better quality so why bother with vcds then? Wheres the catch.

[bugster]

Faster Cpu = shorter encoding times. The relationship is almost linear. i.e, double cpu speed = 1/2 encode time for same encode settings.

Yes, SVCD takes longer to encode, due to higher resolution and bitrate the encoder has more work to do. Try it and see.

[wolvesandbooze]

Cheers for that mate, another question although I think I already know the answer, svcd I assume is going to be a bigger file than vcd once encoded, if so how much bigger?

[bugster]

Yep SVCD is also bigger. As it is usually encoded Variable Bit Rate the size varies depending on the movie action. I don't often encode SVCD myself but I think you can expect to get 40-45 mins per CD using regular encode settings, more if you lower the bitrate but this will sacrifice quality.

Hope this helps

[fossil]

using CCE i can encode at 2.776X the speed of real time. and it's a 1840mhz AthlonXP.

[ABAB]

Yup, I use a Duron 800 and convert to SVCD, it takes me about 7 hrs per disc (40 mins per disc).
This is due to the filters used and mt processor speed.
i.e...........Pulp Fiction...2 hrs plus film = 4 discs and 28 hrs encoding.

Upgrade needed me thinks.

[ian follow]

Hi guys,

I'm also looking for an upgrade from Celeron. What is your choice: P4 or Athlon XP? I read somewhere that Athlon is more suitable for video work.

Thanx, Ian

[energy80s]

I upgraded from an AMD K6-2 500 to a 1600XP processor and noticed a 7 times increase in speed! I can do a 40 minute CVD encode (at CBR or CQ settings) in about 1hr 25 mins - used to take well over 8 hours!

[DUKE107]

I just bought Gateway Pent 4 2.26 Gig/h with Radaon 128Meg vid card (awsome performance) and I can encode with TMPGE a 800 meg SVCD in 1 hour 30 min set with slow for high quality.

Duke

[DUKE107]

Sorry, make that a 700 meg 80 min cdr.

[energy80s]

What's that in running time? File sizes are irrelevant. My 40 minute file is 800 megs. On your setup it should encode in less than an hour.

[ian follow]

>>I upgraded from an AMD K6-2 500 to a 1600XP processor and noticed a 7 times increase in speed! I can do a 40 minute CVD encode (at CBR or CQ settings) in about 1hr 25 mins - used to take well over 8 hours! <<

Hi guys,

Thank for replies, energy80s' reply is what I wanted, it doesn't matter is it 1 hr 25 or 1hr 35 min, the relative ration faster/slower is what I needed.

Thank you,
Ian

[dc91gt]

my XP1700 takes about 7-8 hours to do svcd (95min)- vbr/2pass @ high quality setting.

I'm considering stepping up to a dual processor MP2100 system.
-d

[kitty]

You can never go wrong getting as fast a P4 as you can afford. While you are paying Intel too much the compatability will be 100% - TMPGenc has P4 optimizations. I like dual AMD systems but there are compatability issues with some hardware like the hauppauge wintv pvr 250.

[yossisht]

Will Dual CPU system worth the expence?
Will I get x 2 preformance on Video encoding with 2 CPU's.
Will 2x P4 1.6GHz get substantial edge on P4 2.4 or 2.8 GHz?

The Reason I am asking is because the price of CPU's.
High end CPU's coast twice and more then "entry" level P4 1.6 GHz.

What about Celeron CPU's, they are very cheep and the only diffrence is the L1/L2 Cache size.
How relevant is it to the encoding time?

Will AMD make better performance the Intel.
TMPGEnc indicates it is tuned for use with Intel P4.

[easydvd]

I have an 850mhz celeron and have excellent results as well as decent encoding times. I don't do too much svcd, but a vcd or avi will encode at about 16fps at a 1600 or so cbr

[ian follow]

Hi guys,

Although not very experienced in video, I hav some experience with hardware/software, so:

yossisht
1) >> Will I get x 2 preformance on Video encoding with 2 CPU's.
No, there's some overload due to sinchronizing more than one processor, so you can't expect that two processor on the same clock will give twofold improvement over one proc. You'll get 70% or less.
2) >>What about Celeron CPU's...
I have Celeron and I wouldn't recomend it. The cache and bus size do matter. 66 MHz vs 133 MHz bus - that's a big difference.

However, I'm interested in that P4 vs Athlon stuff. Does anybody tried to convert the same thing on P4 and on Athlon and, if so, what are the results?
I'm asking because I have two different opinions and it seems that P4 owners prefer P4 and Athlon owner prefer Athlon.

Thank you,
Ian

[Treebeard]

I find that my celeron does a great job for the price it cost me.

i can encode a 2hr movie to svcd in about 7-8 hrs. I dont have a lot of stuff i run on my computer though , mostly audio & video related stuff and then office 2000 applications.

the $2000 computer is not worth it to me. i spent $400 on my computer and its great

[ian follow]

I agree with you SLBOSS926, Celeron's price/performance is great. I just intent to make some business out of video, so I'm looking for something faster.

Ian

[rion]

guys need help,

I am using AMD k6 tm III processor, can i upgrade this processor too?
I think my motherboard is "Soultek"

any suggestion would help

[dc91gt]

Hi guys,

Although not very experienced in video, I hav some experience with hardware/software, so:

yossisht
1) >> Will I get x 2 preformance on Video encoding with 2 CPU's.
No, there's some overload due to sinchronizing more than one processor, so you can't expect that two processor on the same clock will give twofold improvement over one proc. You'll get 70% or less.
2) >>What about Celeron CPU's...
I have Celeron and I wouldn't recomend it. The cache and bus size do matter. 66 MHz vs 133 MHz bus - that's a big difference.

However, I'm interested in that P4 vs Athlon stuff. Does anybody tried to convert the same thing on P4 and on Athlon and, if so, what are the results?
I'm asking because I have two different opinions and it seems that P4 owners prefer P4 and Athlon owner prefer Athlon.

Thank you,
Ian

P4 lacks a barrel shifter - big mistake on intels part. An XP2200 will encode at the same rate as a P4 2.8ghz give or take 2/3 frames a second. (not to mention the P4 has a 1ghz clock advantage).

Those 2/3 fps advantage is not worth the $350 more the P4 costs. Wait till the XP2400 and XP2600 release in a few weeks.

[vitualis]

Whether you prefer the Athlon or the Pentium 4 is up to you. They are both excellent CPUs.

The Athlon probably gives you better performance for your money and a better upgrade path.

However, the P4 systems tend to have less stability problems and are better supported.

Furthermore, the top P4 systems will outperform the top comparable Athlon systems (at least at the moment). You are paying a price premium for this though.

I suggest that you have a look at some of the hardware comparison sites to check things out for yourself... e.g., http://www.tomshardware.com

Regards.

[ian follow]

Thank you, dc91gt & vitualis,

your comments are really what I needed. The home video is one thing, and I'm in it for only two weeks. However, I just got a job, a conversion of 12 hours to VCD and about 600 CDs to be burned.

With that in mind it is clear that speed is no. 1 priority on my list (and stability of course no 2). Tnx for tomshardware.com and surprising comparision of XP2000 and P4.

Ian