CPU or Ram, or Video card matter on converting..

[Aznmask]

my cousin's P4 3.0, 1GB(dd-r 3000ram), Radeon 9800Pro 128mb. He use TMPGEnc 2.5 to convert a 45min rmvb file to mpg and only took 25min..

my PC, Athlon 1700XP, 512sd-ram, Radeon 8500 64mb, converting the same file and took up 1hour..

I wonder which most important? CPU or video card or Ram?

Ram << i think 512 is enough or do you think more is good??
CPU << faster is mean convert faster

[budz]

CPU is faster that's why the conversion didn't take long to do.

[Sefy]

Most important factor would defenetly be the CPU and then the RAM, the rest won't be an advantage to encoding unless you encode faster then a HDD can work which I doubt it

[Aznmask]

how about the quality? if i convert in my cousin's pc with radeon 9800pro VS my Radeon 8500. Does his quality better than mine?

[thor300]

The screencard is not involved in the converting process. Your pc will give just as good quality encodings as his even if you had the worst screencard in the universe.

[dc91gt]

CPU is king for encoding.

You want a P4 with hyperthreading. Makes a huge difference in
encoding speeds. The new SSE3 instructions on the prescott's
should help quite a bit as well when it gets supported by the
major encoders (tmpgenc 3.0 has support now).

-d

[Sefy]

I'd personaly go for an Athlon XP or Athlon 64, both are still cheaper then just abouy any Intel CPU and give better bang for the buck.

[lordsmurf]

I'd personaly go for an Athlon XP or Athlon 64, both are still cheaper then just abouy any Intel CPU and give better bang for the buck.

Not for video. AMD can't touch Intel when it comes to video. AMD is a gamer's machine for the most part.

[Sefy]

Dream on Johnny!
I've seen my PC beat a much faster Intel CPU using same programs! :P
Intel Fans only think it's an illusion their CPU is faster, maybe under the most optimized and specific conditions, but not on a daily regular user home PC it isn't!

[thor300]

The reason why intels are faster is the higher clock frequency, at same amount of Mhz AMD is better. I agree with Sefy; More bang for the bucks. Its only individual preferences, both are good CPUs, as long as the model name doesnt end with RON.

[Sefy]

I Loved the part about the "RON" thingy
I Haven't noticed it before, but celeRON and duRON

[thor300]

My youngest brother was the one who made me aware if it, he got a Duron 1.4, and said something like "Why does all the shit end with RON?". In other words, he wasnt impressed with the performance

[romu]

I have a Pentium III 933. A 4 minute music video takes 1/2 hour. :P

[Sefy]

On my old Duron 800 it took me less then your Pentium 3

[Almost Human]

Makes you just want to RON away from it!

[Sefy]

Now now, 3 of my good friends go like Ron, Doron and Aaron

[Almost Human]

Beach Boys said it best;
Dey do RON, RON...

[flaninacupboard]

guess that explains what happened to enron...

In benchmarks alone, the P4 is better than AMD for video, but i'm sure if you could do a price-performance graph AMD would win.

[Sefy]

@flaninacupboard, that's not an "accurate" statement, as in a LOT of benchs i've seen, AMD beats Intel in many categories. Also, like i've said before, in a real life state where the system isn't OPTIMIZED for a specific CPU and does not use specific settings, or should we basicly say a REGULAR home user, i've seen my pathetic XP2000+ beat a P4 at 2600! in encoding and general usage.

I Don't believe benches cause they are always optimized for that latest CPU which just came out to make it look good

[vcdlover]

My youngest brother was the one who made me aware if it, he got a Duron 1.4, and said something like "Why does all the shit end with RON?". In other words, he wasnt impressed with the performance

My third one is moRON...

[flaninacupboard]

all right then, i'll re-iterate.

as long as it's not set up in a retarded way, a P4 should beat an athlon at video encoding simply because of higher clock speed. processing a 32bit instruction 3,000,000,000 times a second is going to be quicker than 2,000,000,000 times a second. 11.1 GB/s versus 7.45GB/s. ok, that's a gross oversimplification, but you see where i'm going.

[Sefy]

Not really, if you put a 2000 AMD vs a 2000 Intel, in most cases AMD beats it
If you wanna compare 2000 AMD vs a 3000 Intel, then sorry, that's not realy a comparison.

Why not take a 3000 AMD vs a 2000 Intel and then see who wins
What i'm saying is, if you take Clock per Clock in speed, AMD will beat in a lot of the cases any Intel system.

[hhhhbk]

im stuck in 4 minds over getting a barton xp3200 athlon 64 or pentium 4 3.0/3.2

last 2 pcs iv had were athlons xp1700 and xp2600
xp1700 was a major improvement on its predecessor old pentiium 3
and the xp2600 is a fair bit faster than the xp1700

am very tempted to try a pentium 4 this time as video and audio processing will be the main tasks

any one have any ideas on a program which i can use to benchmark my pcs for video and audio editing other than just their relative times at ripping a dvd to xvid

[Sefy]

Personaly i'd go for an Athlon 64 since it's 64bit and gives you more headroom to grow, unfortunatly AMD started using Intel's tactics, and it has it's own socket version, so it won't fit on current XP boards

But if you plan on going a whole system, i'd recommand the Athlon 64 as in a LOT of benchs even the 1800 beat the crap out of P4 at 3000!

[MpegEncoder]

all right then, i'll re-iterate.

as long as it's not set up in a retarded way, a P4 should beat an athlon at video encoding simply because of higher clock speed. processing a 32bit instruction 3,000,000,000 times a second is going to be quicker than 2,000,000,000 times a second. 11.1 GB/s versus 7.45GB/s. ok, that's a gross oversimplification, but you see where i'm going.

Your problem IS that you've oversimplified. There is more to executing instructions than clock speed. AMD processors do more with EACH clock cycle. That means that they make better use of EACH clock cycle, therefore you can't just compare clock speeds.

The internal architechture of modern microprocessor chips makes comparisons difficult and using ONLY clock speed makes the comparison invalid.

If you look at generalized benchmarks that don't intentionally favor INTEL or AMD, you'll see that AMD gets equivalent results with a much lower clock speed.

[DVD_Ripper]

You neglected to mention that AMD makes a much better room heater.

For the same program processing the AMD can run as hot as 160-170 degrees if not hotter (75-80c) .. the P4's will run in the 100 (40-45c) degree range.

[MpegEncoder]

You neglected to mention that AMD makes a much better room heater.

For the same program processing the AMD can run as hot as 160-170 degrees if not hotter (75-80c) .. the P4's will run in the 100 (40-45c) degree range.

Perhaps you'd like to provide some better documentation than the usual anecdote. Intel is notorious for the heaters they produce. I have an Athlon XP 3200+ and I've run it real hard. It's NEVER been over 46C.

[Sefy]

@DVD_Ripper, i'm with MpegEncoder, I don't know where you get your numbers from, but at that speed, it would burn! i'm in Israel and it's a hot country here, not to mention I have high humidity cause i'm living next to an ocean, and I have YET to get higher then 57c on the hottest day!

And I don't even have a Specialist Super-Fan! just a regular simple one!

[flaninacupboard]

mpegencoder, i'm well aware that per clock the amd chips do more work, this is the whole basis for their model numbers rather than just clock speeds. all i am saying is that a 3000+ against a P4 3.0, the P4 would be faster at video encoding, simply because it crunches more numbers and that's all an mpeg encoder needs to do. i understand full well a 3Ghz athlon would be much faster than a 3Ghz P4, and when one arrives i'll gladly buy one. it's not an option yet though.

[Sefy]

Facts show the opposite, AMD at lower clock speeds, not only match but also surpass Intel at higher Clock Speeds, BECAUSE of how their CPU works! they don't need a 3.0ghz to beat Intel's 3.0ghz, they already do it on 2.2ghz CPU's