Does This Seem Like A Long Time To You To Encode...?

[Blkout]

Hi there,
My experience with:
Encoding an AVI file, frameserved from VDub, encoded to SVCD with CBR on TMPGEnc, with:
P4@1.6 Ghz & 256 RAM - encoding time is like 2.5 to 3 x real time.
P4@2.4 GHz & 512 RAM - encoding time is like 1 to 1.5 x real time.

If I'm not wrong, encoding time is incredibly highly dependant on CPU speed, more than RAM.

Hope this help.

You are correct. CPU speed means far more than memory size.

[CaptainC]

Using My AMD K7 1.1ghz to encode to DVD spec took 10hrs setting motion searh to High quality(Very Slow) adds loads of time to the encoding and really isnt better than (slow).
Ive used both and not really noticed anything but more time it seems to be the general opinion in this forum from others. For high speed encoding you need an AMD they seem to do this sort of thing better.
Mainconcept is quite quick and the quality is pretty good but it lacks the settings that Tmpgenc has but you may not need any of those settings for what you are doing, it may work a bit better with your processor but im scepticle that this alone would lead to such a high increase in time.
You say that you are encoding to DVD what format is the source if its a Divx make sure that you have the Divx filter installed as well as the codecs and set the direct show filter in the Vfapi plugin settings to 4
But from what you have said this doesnt sound like your using Divx.
These settings will increase speed quite dramatically if I encode a Divx 2hr movie to SVCD @2500kbs it takes around 4hrs using a AMD XP2000
if i install the direct filters and set as above it takes 2Hrs.
I dont really do a whole lot of DVD to SVCD its mainly Divx to SVCD
which wont take as long anyway.
Im curious about the formay you are encoding from to DVD.

[Blkout]

Using My AMD K7 1.1ghz to encode to DVD spec took 10hrs setting motion searh to High quality(Very Slow) adds loads of time to the encoding and really isnt better than (slow).
Ive used both and not really noticed anything but more time it seems to be the general opinion in this forum from others. For high speed encoding you need an AMD they seem to do this sort of thing better.
Mainconcept is quite quick and the quality is pretty good but it lacks the settings that Tmpgenc has but you may not need any of those settings for what you are doing, it may work a bit better with your processor but im scepticle that this alone would lead to such a high increase in time.
You say that you are encoding to DVD what format is the source if its a Divx make sure that you have the Divx filter installed as well as the codecs and set the direct show filter in the Vfapi plugin settings to 4
But from what you have said this doesnt sound like your using Divx.
These settings will increase speed quite dramatically if I encode a Divx 2hr movie to SVCD @2500kbs it takes around 4hrs using a AMD XP2000
if i install the direct filters and set as above it takes 2Hrs.
I dont really do a whole lot of DVD to SVCD its mainly Divx to SVCD
which wont take as long anyway.
Im curious about the formay you are encoding from to DVD.

'


Intel is faster at encoding media, the P4's are the quickest Intel's yet. I have both an AMD XP and a P4 and the P4 is faster every day of the week.

[ZippyP.]

Here's a chart with relative CPU encoding times: http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-26.html

8)

[gmatov]

ZippyP,
Do you interpret that chart as I do, in each speed step the AMD bests the Intel product?
i.e., a 2000XP is some 1.6 ghz, and is faster than a 2.4 ghz Intel?
An AMD 3000 is actually like 2.16 ghz and an Intel 3.06 is the only thing to beat it. An AMD 2800 is about 2.26, so Intel has an 8-900 mhz advantage, about 40%, and does 12% faster encodes.
I think I'll stick with AMD. At the time I bought my 2000XP, a 2.4 Intel would have run a hundred or more over the price I paid.
Since that chart is for DV to MPEG2, how do you think the times correlate to DVD to SVCD?
1.2GB, 7 minutes, 5 GB rip, surely more than 30 minutes, 4 times the data.
Mine still go 10 hours or so to a DVD convert with CCE, TMPGenc.
Must try Mainconcept.
Must try my TV@vantage, also. Hardware cap in mpg1, mpg2, and, supposedly, mpg4.

[ZippyP.]

Do you interpret that chart as I do, in each speed step the AMD bests the Intel product?

Yup. Intel still makes the fastest CPU's overall, but AMD gives more bang for the buck.

[CaptainC]

It seems to be getting a bit like my dads bigger than your dad.
Blkout I would hope that your Intel P4 was faster than an amd at the 100 bucks more you'd have paid.
Its worth knowing that Tmpg will not go faster the bigger the processor you use. Bottom line its only going to go so fast.

[CaptainC]

Just to add if you are encoding DVD you have to set the DC component to 10 this results in smoother encoding its also the standard for DVD.
In various tests that ive done adjusting the Dc component form 8 to 10 in any conversion will increase encoding time slightly and probably varies from processor to processor but results with greater quality.
If you have jerkiness in your movie regardless of the bit rate you have a problem with your movie or your encoding software or the Pc your playing it back on has a problem.

I guess what im saying is if your PC takes 49hrs rather than around 10-12 hours roughly to encode a movie and your processor regardless of the make is above 1ghz you have a problem with the computer setup.

500mhz = 24hrs
1ghz = 12hrs
1.6ghz = 6hrs * this is based on an AMD XP2000 which runs upto 2.0ghz
if you were to run one of AMD's processor tools while your encodig or running other tasks you will note that the speed increases from 1.6 upto 2.0ghz depending on the tasks you are doing.