- CPU processing speed comparisons for .avi conversion to VCD
- Posted by Sparky on October 23rd, 2004
Does anyone have a fast machine like AMD 64 3800 or Intel 3400 that
they run TMPGEnc on to convert .avi to VCD? I am looking for the time
it takes to convert/process 1 hour of video. I download .avi (XVID)
TV shows and concert them to VCD and watch on a standalone DVD/TV.
Quality is watchable and not the issue. It takes my AMD 2100 about an
hour to convert what is really 38 minutes of .avi minus commercials.
I would like to speed the conversion process and am looking for info
to upgrade. Thanks.
- Posted by Sparky on October 23rd, 2004
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:08:14 -0400, Sparky <3@2.com> wrote:
Never mind as I just found what I was looking for and posted here for
others:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3370921__7
- Posted by AnthonyR on October 23rd, 2004
"Sparky" <3@2.com> wrote in message
news:akfkn0pd9t3fv8n60ntgq53gtbsfjanp2a@4ax.com...
Sparky,
Didn't really see a difference big enough to justify going out and buying a
whole new system to save a few minutes of encoding time for every hour of
video you download off the web. But if you feel it worth it, time is money.
AnthonyR.
- Posted by Sparky on October 24th, 2004
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:56:33 GMT, "AnthonyR"
<toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
AnthonyR,
Do you recommend AMD instead? What combo MOBO/CPU/RAM? Intel is
cheaper for now because AMD is crushing Intel in the press. I need to
upgrade my 4 year old AMD 2100 system anyway for other features.
Sparky
- Posted by John on October 24th, 2004
After looking at lots of charts on Tom's site I got an Athlon 2500 and
ECS mobo from Fry's thinking it would blow the socks off my old video
editor, a crummy olf 1.2G Celeron. I use Premiere 6.5. I've pushed the
Athlon by 20%, and renders and mpg conversions are now about 25%
faster than on the Celeron. But I kinda expected that the Athlon would
be something like 2500/1200 as fast as the Celeron.
There's not too much difference between the two systems otherwise -
the Celeron actually only has 128MB of memory, both are running XP
Pro, and the AMD probably has a slower hard drive - it's a 120GB while
the Celeron has a 200GB. Both are running Ultra 5.
So I've done something wrong to lose the supposed AMD advantage.
Sparky <3@2.com> wrote:
- Posted by AnthonyR on October 24th, 2004
"Sparky" <3@2.com> wrote in message
news:ugknn0tfbt5gf117gmu2vlt9cl1c5kfp8f@4ax.com...
Sparky,
That's a tough call for me, I have 2 computers an AMD Athlon XP 2400+ and an
Intel P4 3.0ghz HT, and I see much better rendering speeds on my Pentium4
but that is to be expected, it's faster.
However, I am very happy with the rendering speed on the P4, so maybe you
don't need to pay top dollar for the latest greatest cpu's when you can get
nice improvement on current models that are cheap now.
But tough call, also, because 64 bit software and OS is around the corner
that probably will make huge rendering increases when run on the new breed
of cpu's, right?
So it's a personal decision, I guess.
I think my next cpu upgrade will be after the 64 bit OS and software has
proven itself and prices are reasonable, for now I can get by on current
speeds.
Hope this helped,
AnthonyR.
- Posted by Ken Maltby on October 25th, 2004
"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:u6Wed.96737$Ot3.67683@twister.nyc.rr.com...
The main reason your P4 with HT renders faster is that the
software is optimized for P4-HT. Check out the feature page,
for the encoder you're using, on its web site.
Luck;
Ken
