speeding up encoding time, what hardware plays a part?

[Enchanter]

toastem,

I simply cannot believe that two CPUs having such a large gap in speed can have such a different video encoding speed, with the faster chip losing out. As pointed out previously, video encoding depends solely on memory and CPU speed, and hence what you described is simply unbelievable. Have a look at the links I posted in this thread. Surely three (3) respectable sites cannot be wrong at the same time, don't you think?

I do not mean any aggression here; I suggest you examine your Intel rig for any misconfiguration. Make sure dual-channel memory is enabled, instead of single-channel. What chipsets are you using anyway?

Fabiux,

Anandtech is another good place to read stuff at and one I highly recommend over THG.

[toastem]

@ Enchanter: I don't mean to be hostile either, but for me, my AMD rig is better for encoding than my Intel rig. While there are no misconfigs (none that i can see anyways) both systems run with a similar "conservative" setting both OS & BIOS wise. As for Chipsets: AMD- Via KT333 / Intel- Intel 865PE (dual-channel enabled)

While my tests and those of two of my freinds conlude that our AMD rigs (2200+ & 2700+) are comparative/slightly better than my Intel rig, both are fairly sound platforms for any purpose. Either way, an hour or so isn't that much diffrence (cause i do it overnight).

@ Fabiux: You are correct, mostly... DDR-400 can be slower than DDR-333, mainly cause DDR-400 has higher latency rates than it's counterpart. Also, in an AMD rig, it is imperative to run the memory at the FSB speed (syncronous) rather than faster / slower (asyncronous) if you want any kinda of performance. If properly configed and matched with the appropiate hardware, DDR-400 can, and most likely, be a bit faster than DDR-333

To all: almost any rig over 2GHz (or AMD 2000+) would be able to handle most video encoding / editing. No one platform has a distinctive advantage over the other in any one area.

[jedimaster]

Exactly my point too folks: a few FPS's in games or a few minutes longer in video encoding will not make anyone a bad gamer or "can't stand to wait a few minutes more" , but it will shorten your wallet.

I worked on P4 2.8 Ghz computers the other day, and it's not only me, but I had numerous complaints from the users only about the fact that " it takes too long to open a folder or a file ", especially if the folder or the file is huge ( above 1 Gb ). Don't know what the problem is, but I don't have any complaints from AMD users.

I stand by performance/price ratio all the time. As I said, anything above a 2GHz and 512 ram ( any config, including the AMD 2000+ ), the performance is neglijable. In games: we got to play them at above 300 FPS. The human eye can't do better then 60 FPS. the rest of 240 FPS ... is in the T&L and all the other gimmiks. It won't make you a bad gamer. And certainly I can wait a few minutes longer to encode a movie, I got a kid's butt to wipe every 2 hours

And as I said again: I refuse to let anyone pay more then necessary for a computer.

AMD 2400+ with 1 GB of DDR2700 ( overkill ) on an Asus A7V8X.

Invest in a LCD monitor, it saves a lotta space on the desk

[atifsh]

dam guys see the actual post.....hehe

well get a hardware encoder and that will solve any cpu speed question ...Duhhh

[Enchanter]

atifsh,

"get a hardware encoder"

Suggest one such model...

[jedimaster]

He probably means a video capture card, or one of those external devices from Dazzle or Pinacle. Or maybe a DC30 card. They go from $ 99 to $ 700 including Adobe Premier. But again, the encoding speed is dependant of the CPU speed, so I don't actualy see a reason for investing on a very crappy $ 99 external total junk ( tested it myself ), nor $ 700 because it comes with an older version of Premiere.

[chickeneater]

I think at 100 fps encoding with a brand new p4 3.0 ghz would be fine

[SKD_Tech]

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


Hmmm so what your saying is a Pentium Pro 200 MHZ CPU COULD maybe out proform a P4 3.06? Just maybe?

[atifsh]

Hey Enchanter..

here are few hardware encoders that will not use cpuu power and will give great quality.

get Snazzi's VCD Master if u just want to make mpeg1 files or Vcd's

Vcd Master round 120 $
Vcd Maker round 80 $ (one i have)
Both Analog Capture....

or get the full power...

Snazzi* III AV.DV lot of $$$$$ hehe
for both analog and Digital capturing

check www.snazzi.com for more products......

[Kevin AMD]

Intel is a little better then AMD on the same speed but Intel is much more $$$ to pay for, so I would take the AMD


But anyway I think there are already MPEG4 decoder chips like there are for MPEG1/2. And they are not THAT expensive