speeding up encoding time, what hardware plays a part?

[mrucs]

Im looking at a new system, and was wondering when encoding a movie etc, what hardware would speed it up? ram cpu are the ones i could think of, but what about lika a serial ata hdd? or something like that.

System im thinking of is a

p4 3ghz, 1gig ddr pc3200 ram, SATA120 HDD


Does a video card play a part?

Cheers

[Enchanter]

The CPU and, to a lesser degree, the BUS/RAM bandwith will play the major part in determining your encoding speed. Video card has no play in this.

[mrucs]

So I take it a pentium 4/3gh/800mhz core would be the best to encode with instead of a AMD say 2.8ghz?


cheers

[Enchanter]

There is no such thing called a 2.8GHz AMD AthlonXP. Even the confidently named AthlonXP 3200+ is set at the surprisingly much lower speed of 2.2GHz.

For bandwith-hungry video encoding, the high-bandwith Pentium 4, coupled with their comparatively much higher MHz speed, is the choice to go with.

[BoF]

I was wondering why encoders don't use hardware playback capabilities (mpg1&2)?

[setarip]

To mrucs

I'd suggest you do some additional research regarding actual PERFORMANCE comparisons between the AMD Athlon 3000+ or higher, with its stated 2.16 Gigahertz CPU versus the Intel Pentium 4 , with its stated 3.06 Gigahertz CPU. You'll discover that the AMD CPU (WITHOUT overclocking) handily outperforms the Intel CPU, whether or not the Intel CPU has hyper-threading enabled.

As many tech magazines and sites have stated over and over again, indicated CPU speed alone means little, if anything...

(The only historical negative regarding AMD CPUs is that they tend to run hot. So, if you purchase one, install an extra fan or extra large heatsink)

[Enchanter]

setarip,

The poster mrucs specifically asked or "was wondering when encoding a movie etc" what hardware would play a major part in this. In spite of your claim that an AMD Athlon 3000+ will handily outperform an "Intel Pentium 4 , with its stated 3.06 Gigahertz CPU, whether or not the Intel CPU has hyper-threading enabled", it does not happen that way. The AMD chip will not handily outperform the P4 chip, definitely not in the memory-heavy application of MPEG-4 and MP3 compression. At higher speeds (closer to 3GHz mark), the AMD chips are in fact playing a no-win game against the P4 chips. Only at lower speeds do the AMD PR ratings stay true.

Here are a few links to prove my points in the Multimedia applications:

Anandtech

X-bit Labs

Tom's Hardware Guide

Regards.

[jedimaster]

Folks, let's not start an " amd vs. intel" thing Although I am an AMD fan, I have to admit that in certain apps, Intel is better. The "better" part being calculated in "seconds" better. You have to take in effect also the price / performance ratio. I can live with a few seconds slower on my encodings.

I just refuse to let anyone pay more then $ 200 for a CPU. I think it's ridiculous, for a few mere seconds increase in speed.

[Enchanter]

jedimaster,

I am not doing what you think I am doing. I am simply setting some apparent misunderstanding that has been clearly presented in this thread by a poster. The links that I have included will further solidify my points.

For the record, I own a Pentium 4 and also an AMD AthlonXP. I am happy with both and see no reason for favouring one over another. I buy only what suits my budget and needs the most. Does that clear your doubts?

[jedimaster]

Clearly it does.

[shiny#3]

as a matter of fact!!!!!

most codecs are optimized for
special CPUs
and for encoding cpu speed matters
also with enhanced chipsets such as sse mmx ... blabla ba and furthermore
best is still the intel group and fastest
but it does never outweigh the high cost
so if you can wait 3 minutes longer to encode an 1 and a half hour movie, you

will be served better with an AMD cpu!

It consumes more power and creates more heat!!!

the Fpu unit is faster and more reliable!!

the intel processor is less energyconsuming it has a better sse and mmx technology but a poor fpu unit. the new integer unit is double speeded.

what you choose is a matter of use and taste.!!!!
intel is still a little ahead... but thats not worth paying almost double or three time the price....

processor speed dies fast!!

a balanced configuration is more worthy (bottleneck)

[jedimaster]

Well put, a balanced config is way worth. I think I am finaly done upgrading, I am sick of it actualy. In my opinion, you realy don't need more than a 2 Ghz CPU and 512 Mb of ram. I see no diference except a few FPS in games and a few FPS when ripping. A well balanced computer should be:

2 Ghz cpu ( or 2000+ ), 512Mb PC 2100 ram, 120 Gb 7200 rpm hdd, cdrw or dvd burner, sb live audigy 2 ( non platinum ) audio and some all in wonder video card, all way below $ 800.

[Enchanter]

Note that the thread author asked about what hardwares play a part in "speeding up encoding time". In this respect, AMD chips do not compare to Intel chips. Period.

AMD chips do offer the better value to the budget-conscious buyers indeed, but if budget is not too tight (Intel's mid-range solutions are not expensive at all), I still personally recommend the Pentium 4 chips (especially in light of the chip to be used for the above-said purpose). The SiS655 chipset offers the ability to use dual-channel DDR-SDRAM, while being priced FAR lower than Intel's dual-channel chipset. Performance has been noted to be similar.

[toastem]

AMD or Intel

I have to strongly disagree, Enchanter, AMD in some apps soundly trump the Best of Intel. AMD's have a much stronger Floating-Point Unit, which is intergal to the speed of MPEG-4 encoding. Let me just say that in both FlaskMPEG 0.7.xx beta and Adobe Premeire 6.5, the AMD chips have are MUCH faster than my Intel setup. My AMD rig took just over 4 hours to encode "God And Generals" (2-pass) while my Intel rig took nearly 6 1/2 hours to do the same in Premeire.

AMD= XP2500+ (1.83GHz) w/ 512MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (333MHz)
Intel= P4C 2.8GHz w/ 768MB PC3200 DDR-RAM(400MHz Dual-Channel)

Same HDD's in both. Segate 120GB 7200RPM 8MB cache

Unfortunaly, my AMD rig is a BIT slower in most of my games, but it really is negligable. (~4-8FPS slower, using GeForce 4 4600 @ stock)

[Fabiux]

i think all repliers are technically skilled and right but there`s something no.one has said: ¿what about having a slow chispset making data transfers between a fastest proccesor and DDR memory? I think as important as all that has been said is ti buy a good motherboard, fast and reliable but I completely agree those guys the most important is a well ballanced system without bottlenecks.
On the main thread about AMD Vs Intel, well AMD said recently that nobody buys a car for the rotational speed of its engine but for the performance on the road. who matters the CPU`s clock of intel but the performance of the whole PC in real world, No clocks or buses but real performance is the thing. in some tasks AMD is faster in other intel does but differences are never big. ¿would you pay some hundreds more dollars to save a few seconds?
it is your decision but I personally don´t because I dont earn money so fast that a few seconds could be more valuable than such amount of money.
One more thing: Don`t be confused with numbers, vendors say a lot technical of bluh, bluh, bluh that`s not always real and don´t forget that DDR400 has shown to be clearly SLOWER than DDR 333 and more expensive. a good place to see real-world comparisons is tomshardware page.