Encoding and Types of Processors

[rhegedus]

Possibly, but I don't know if processor speeds can be compared so easily. How much does the motherboard have to contribute to the final answer? Not much, but then it's worth considering.

Incidentally, could someone explain how AMD rate their CPU's - there's usually two numbers for CPU speed, with one in brackets - what does it mean?

Rob

[The Maynard]

I just got done encoding the movie Spider-Man, which is 2 hours and one minute long and it took me 2 hours and 46 minutes to encode it to Divx 5 at 2800 kbps bitrate. And this is using my XP2000 cpu with 512mb of DDR ram.

[donpedro]

I know that this doesn't answer the question, but why don't we all do a comparison. If someone posts an avi (say in a peer to peer site) for us all to download, then we can all encode it to a pre-defined standard and see what our times are.

How about it?

Rob

Yes !! Can somebody make template of what data to post as result ? And maybe we can create new post that will have all the results in it.

And I sugest to test DVD encoding not VCD.

[wizzy]

war or not war....fastest CPU is best..
I have Dual AMD MP2000+ and 1GB DDR memory
and i encode to DVD at 1Hr and 15/20 min 90min movie (include sound,can be also AC3)

[Betamax]

My video-dedicated system is based at AMD (yes, because of its price 2years ago). It's a single CPU and the big problem I had before was HOTness. I managed to reconfigure the entire system so it is 'cool' inside, even if I leave the system on for days.

Another heating I have inside the system are the harddisks (2 of them), so I located them far away from the CPU and added a seperate cooler-fan next to it.
I use a maxi-tower, so I can locate the cpu and capture-/vga- cards (which also generates lots of heat) at the bottom of the tower. The disks are located at the top of the tower.

But returning to this topic :
My video are DV (full resolution). Encoding about 45minutes of video to MPeG-2 in TMPGenc costs me about 4hours.
Speed is also the direction of harddisk usage.
I store the video to be encoded at a storage disk (IEEE1394), the encoding uses the C:-disk for tempory storage but the result is located at another disk, at another (IDE) controller.
Speed is also dependent of RAM. I have about 256MB RAM, which is actually the minimal requirement for these tasks.

Anyway, hot troubles me a lot while I must open the tower in summertime and locating an external fan in front of the motherboard !
As soon I've got transport and prices are (back) interesting, I surely will buy myself a dual-Intel system.

[jdvpm]

sorry my english...

My system:
AMD Thunderbird 1.133Mhz(266Mhz) @ 1.200MHZ(200Mhz) cause Board don't do 266MHz.
512MB SDRAM
40+40GB (IBM+Seagate) 7.200rpm ATA100@66 (board )

Using DVDx, from DVD -> SVCD, or almost the same, from DIVX->SVCD, using TMPGEnc...
and using normaly the PC, (recording, net, email, mutch programs on, and working at webserver for Pc of my brother), only using idle times, take 5Hlong for 1H movie...

it's normal, i think...

[Nelson37]

Sure fastest processor is best, and Intel has the fastest today.

Dual CPU is also better.

BUT - consider cost-effectiveness. For the price of ONE top of the line Intel, or a dual CPU system, you could buy TWO slighlty slower machines.
Then you could finish TWO projects faster than the expensive machine could do both of them individually. Of course, this would not work if you only have one project, but then why would you spend so much money?

The point I am trying to make is that you get diminishing returns as you go closer to the top of the heap, twice the money does NOT buy you twice the speed. You reach a point where 50% more cash only buys 10% more speed.

My advice to my customers is NEVER buy the latest and greatest, unless you just want bragging rights. The most cost-effective setup is usually 2 or 3 or 4 notches below the absolute fastest.

MOBO and RAM settings and type have significant effects on speed, comparing processor times as suggested will be difficult to do on equal footing. I would be more interested in results with same processor and different boards. Board and chipset are often overlooked aspects of obtaining best performance.

Now there ARE people with money to burn who really want or need the absolute fastest there is. This is like the guy with the Ferrarri and the Playboy bunny wife, good for you but most of us just can't afford either one.

[Felix_2000]

Are there any low end MPEG encoder cards so to help re-encode stuff faster? Not looking to pay like $5000+ for pro ones

-=| Felix |=-

[caulnguyen]

THere is an article done by pegasys (owner of TMPGEnc) on their web.
http://www.pegasys-inc.com/e_main.html. This sounds like a good one. Single CPU as Dual.

[donpedro]

THere is an article done by pegasys (owner of TMPGEnc) on their web.
http://www.pegasys-inc.com/e_main.html. This sounds like a good one. Single CPU as Dual.

Maybe I am blind, but I can't find it.

[rhegedus]

Me neither....

Rob

[freak_in_cage_10k]

hi rhegedus

You asked about what the names mean on XP CPUs:

Well, take this as an Example:

AMD Athalon XP2000+ (1.667GHz)

The XP just means it is for 1 processor MBs, not dual

The 2000+ means that it would be able to complete (beat in some cases) an Intel Pentium 4 Processor running at 2000MHz eg 2.00GHz. The info in brackets just relates to the actual speed of the processor, although this isn't very relevant unless you are into overclocking etc. The reason the Processor is able to beat an intel which is running at a faster rate is due to thier Superior architecture. They perform more operations per clock cycle and so are more efficient. So, basically, An athalon XP 2000+ can usually beat, or comes v close to a 2 Gig pentium 4. Personally i think AMD are better than pentium but not wishing to start a war i will leave it at that.

The story gets much more complex when you get to Dual Systems but i dont know much about that so i will leave it for now!!!

[rhegedus]

Hey freak_in_cage_10k, thanks for the info.

I accept that an AMD may well beat an Intel with the same clock speed, but there must be some trade off in terms of stability, surely?

Example:
A friend of mine works for a medical software company that has about 40 PCs running 24/7, mostly for rendering 3D images and other tasks that require 100% CPU activity. Last year they bought 4 AMD based PCs because of the price advantage over Intel at the time. All 4 have blown their CPUs within a year. None of the Intels they already had, or bought since have.

This must mean something, but I suppose to the ordinary member of the public who only uses their PC for light stuff it shouldn't matter.

Regards,

Rob

[donpedro]

I don't know too much about this but I remember that AMD can overheat and burn so good cooling is required. Intel will just slow down or stop. It is some kind of design issue. Am I right ? So maybe their "cheap" PC's didn't have proper cooling. Just a thought. If I could afford P4 I wouldn't have AMD In Sep. 2001 everything (mobo, memory, CPU) for Intel was much more expensive than for AMD and performance was better from AMD. It might changed since then.

[Feuerwehr]

Relative MPEG2 encoding speeds compared with various AMD and Intel CPU's here:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020402/p4_2400-15.html

[mr. phantastik]

First of all, thanks guys for the info. I had no idea this post would generate such a response. I'm sure anyone interested in getting a new system can benefiet from this.

Sadly, I can't afford a dual system, nor would I be able to fit it in my planned case.

It would be nice to see tmpeg's benchmarks include an amd processor (the HT benchmarks), but so far those are some impressive numbers. I doubt though that the price for HT is worth the extra 2 minutes per GB of encoding time saved.

Does anyone know what kind of memory bandwidth tmpeg uses? or if it really matters? My thought is that intels are faster because of their available memory and because its a more popular processor, thus leading to optimizations.

[freak_in_cage_10k]

Hi rhegedus,

to explain your friends problem and confirm what donpedro said:

AMD CPUs do produce more heat that P4s, but as long as you have a good heatsink and a good Fan then you shouldn't have any probs. i paid £35 for a copper heatsink & fan- the heatsink is v good quality and therefore good at conducting the heat away from the CPU. this means that i can use a very quiet fan (which isn;t very powerful) to cool the heatsink without the temperatures going too high. this means i can go to sleep and the pc doesn;t keep me awake!!!

i suspect the reason why your friends AMDs failed was because of the following:

there are lots of computers in the same room producing a lot of heat- this means the air temperature is high and so the fans are only blowing warm air onto the CPU, not cold

also, if the computers were bought from a shop then they may not have had sufficient cooling as not many PCs are subject to full loads for long periods of time. So, AMDs are fine and NO RISK as long as you have either:

An average heatsink and a powerful fan (the more powerful the more loud they are!)

a really good heatsink and a super quiet fan

the debate between AMD & intel still can go on forever, but in short i think the vast majority of people will agree that Intel tend to win in most scenarios. however, taking into account value for money (and lets be honest, VERY few of us have limitless funds) AMD are significantly better. AMDs are similar to Intels prices for the TOP END processors such as the 2800+ but for the slightly slower ones (such as 2400+ etc) they are much better value. Just get an AMD, a good heatsink (although £35 is a bit expensive!) and a quiet fan and you will be fine!

Also, the mid "Thoroughbread" XP processors dont produce as much heat as the older processors, so basically a 2000+ processor will produce more heat than a 2400+ one, (due to design change).

[BoogieMan]

Dual 1.0 ghz PIII's with TMPG settings as listed: 38 secs. :P


BoogieMan