Processor type for encoding?

[mijman]

In regards to encoding video, how does a celeron (even a fast one) compare with a Pentium?

[BJ_M]

a celeron is a Pentium

a celron what compared to what pentium ?
pentuim 60 was non to quick -- the 133 i liked , the 333 are pretty good and i still use a dual 333 server at home , though i would not encode anything on it..

[ZippyP.]

Processor type for encoding?

The faster the better!

[mijman]

What I mean is,

If I had a choice between a 1+gh Celeron, or an equal 1+gh Pentium, which performs better for video encoding?

[Dubber]

If I had a choice between a 1+gh Celeron, or an equal 1+gh Pentium, which performs better for video encoding?

You still didn't tell us which 'Pentium'.
Is it a P4, P3, Xeon or whatever...

[BoogieMan]

Using Duallie AMD MP 2.4, works SWEEEEEETTT.

[ZippyP.]

Check out this chart: http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-26.html

Encoding really tests the number crunching ability of a CPU. I think you'll see that a similar speed Celeron and a Pentium have about the same performance for this task. After all, a Celeron is really just a Pentium that's been hobbled.
Did you just want to compare or are you thinking of which to buy? There can't be that much difference in cost, get the better one.

[mijman]

believe it or not, there is a substantial difference in cost.

I know that a celeron is a "hobbled" processor. I was just wondering how this hobbling affects encoding performance.

[freak_in_cage_10k]

m8, basically ovoid the celerons at all costs, they are severly cut down versions of the P4s and the speed loss would be significant for CPU intensive processes such enoding. even a slower P4 which beat a faster celeron eg P4 1.6 Gig will beat a 1.9 Gig Celeron.

The P4 vs AMD debate will go on for ages, they are VERY close, generally (except the VERY fastest processors) AMD are better value for money. An AMD XP 2200+ processor is just as good, if a little better, that a 2.2 Gig Pentium 4. An AMD XP 2600+ will JUST beat a P4 2.6 Gig processor etc.

dual AMD or Pentium processors are very good, but expensive and so unless you are seriously into encoding the speed benefit wouldn;t be worth the extra money m8

hope this helps!

[DoblANy]

Their are other factors to take into consideration.

* The software that you will encode with (MMX Enabled etc..)
* The OS you will be using
* The state of you harddrive - what I mean by this, are their loads of fragmented files? a well kept harddrive makes a difference to the overall speed process and quality outcome.


I use a XP2000 running @ 1.67Ghz and with CCE it takes about 1 hour for a single pass VBR @ 3000-9800 Q9
Whereas if i use TMPGEnc with a setting of 4000 CBR it can take about 3 hours (approx movie length 2 hours.)

!!!The real answer is the best you can afford!!!

[nurotc]

The main difference between an Intel Pentium Chip and a Celeron Chip is L2 cache. A Pentium has more. The L2 cache is the on board memory the chip uses for repetitive operations. This is most useful in things like spreadsheets, database operations, and graphics rendering.

I've used several versions of both chips and can attest to the fact that you get what you pay for when it comes to things like rendering mpeg clips. A Pentium chip will give you a performance increase over an equivelent speed Celeron chip for certain tasks. Graphics work is one of those. For everyday wordprocessing etc, it's not worth spending the extra money. The Pentium family chips were designed with floating point intensive processes in mind and their price (and performance) reflect it.

[dpcpro]

I have a P4 1.6 and an AMD XP2000. When I encode with CCE using the same movie (and same number of passes), the AMP XP2000 pc will encode in half the time as the Intel P4!

About 4 hours for AMD XP 2000
About 8 hours for P4 1.6

There is a big difference in encoding times, the quality seems to be the same though.

dpcpro

[Dubber]

In that regard, AMD XP2400+ seems to be the ticket for now...

[morey]

celerons above 2ghtz use the p4 northwood core at 0.13 , very overclockable but fsb only 400 and l2 cache cut down, id be interested to know how these compare. maybe the L2 is the limating factor.