DVDrebuilder CCE, with DVDremake and Other Tools for Beginners

Front Side Bus (FSB) - The Front Side Bus is the most important bus to consider when you are talking about the performance of a computer. The FSB connects the processor (CPU) in your computer to the system memory. The faster the FSB is, the faster you can get data to your processor. The faster you get data to the processor, the faster your processor can do work on it. The speed of the front side bus depends on the processor and motherboard chipset you are using as well as the system clock.

For a good read on the workings of your PC in layman's terms, here is the link. http://www.directron.com/fsbguide.html

Donald is right. XP would be the most important addition if you're just wanting to up the system to run rebuilder. Even with a slower running PC, XP is needed for handling the larger files.

 

The front side bus is just the processor to chipset bandwidth. The memory still bottle necks the new faster bus technology. You can have 1066 mhz bus but the memory won't be that fast.
Dual channel fast DDR can come close. But the processor has cache so the need for memory speed is dependant on what your doing.
Encoding is more proc dependent than memory dependent. Even with 2100 DDR the proc stays at 100% usage in the encode stage. You never starve for memory feed.

 

Note how low the FSB is on RitekRG's PC. That low would make a difference as would the slower CPU. Sounds like we're getting into a discussion that isn't necessary. With a program like rebuilder where the required process is one of repetitive processing, then a high FSB isn't as necessary as pointed out by Donald. Yet it needs to be of moderate speed or it will be a bottleneck, as a slow CPU would produce slower processing times. And another factor, there are a lot of areas where the FSB is important; where the computer needs to make fast calculations from quickly changing and large data sources. Gaming and using the PC for assisted design are a couple of examples. These differences may not be as important to using rebuilder, but for overall PC usage it is.

 

Games are definately memory dependent at times.
Fast memory can make a PC a lot snapier at times.
I am assuming Ritek is using 2100DDR. He confused it a little with the 133 in front of the DDR. 266 mhz DDR runs at 133 double pumped so I figured 2100.

 

There we agree. The point I was making was speed of processing data to the CPU is slowed down by a slow FSB. Appears we are pointing out different aspects of the process.

 

Guess we just have a different point of view on the importance of FSB. I'll just look for the fastest available when I purchase a unit and make sure I have the better chipsets and MoBo when I go to build one.

 

Brobear, I don't think that much differntly on the need for FSB speed. Especially when upgrading, the faster the FSB and memory bandwitdh the faster the computer and the better the upgrade path.
A few things might not be affected as much by FSB as others but it is always a factor in performance.

Thats why I like the Optetrons with multiple Hyperlink channels. With enough fast memory the bandwitdh is phenomenal. Especially nice for multiple processors were memory can really bottleneck. Dream Dream Dream.

 

Adjustment to the front side bus is the current most common method of over clocking a CPU. Intel locks the multiplier on all of its CPUs. If you want it to work beyond specifications, you'll have to adjust its front side bus. The only other place to make a gain is with the quality of memory purchased.

The speed of your front side bus is divided in half. For instance, a 33 MHz input, and 33 MHz output, equals 66 MHz or the sum of the speed of the front side bus on a 6 year old system. It still works the same today, but with a much wider effective front side bus speed. My current memory is technically just 133 MHZ but the speed is effectively quad pumped.

When we’re discussing the differences between a 533 MHz front side bus to that of an 800MHz front side bus, we have to take into consideration, a few factors. For instance my native front side bus speed is 533 MHZ which is 133 MHZ quad pumped. I’ve set my front side bus speed to 600 MZ (I’ve raised it higher and it was stable but just to be cautious I set it back to 600) which raises my 2.8 Northwood’s speed to 3.150 GHZ. Now you would think that I’d be suffering a serious loss in speed against a machine with an 800 MHZ front side but, but I’m not.

Although my front side bus speed is set at 600 MHZ my memory is really making use of what I’ve got. I’m using Corsair PC3200 C2 Low Latency memory. My memory timing settings are “2-2-2-6 which is an incredible setting for a 600 MHZ front side bus. Virtually all commercial PC’s come with C3 memory which is slower, largely because the consumer is unaware of the differences in them and its less expensive then C2 memory. A common timing for a commercial machine is 3-3-3-8, lower numbers are better because that’s how many times it has to read during a single clock cycle.

Video encoding as we all know is CPU intensive which is why hyper threading is useless when encoding video or performing any CPU intensive task. Because of the quality of my memory an 800 MHZ machine when all is equal is only moderately faster than mine. At the same CPU speed my machine is actually faster than the vast majority of commercial 800MHZ machines (yes brobear including the Dells). Why is that so? Because video encoding is so CPU intensive that it’s going to create bottlenecking and the CPU is going to choke. The faster the front side bus speed the less our CPU’s increase their use of it.

To backup my previous statement here’s a test of front side bus speeds done by Tom’s hardware .com. Before reviewing the benchmarks, take a look at the setup. You’ll note that the DDR2 memory settings are 3-3-3-4 which is a very aggressive setting; the last number is usually 7 or 8. You’ll note that the P4 EE with the lower front side bus speed of 800 MHZ is holding its own against its 1066 MHZ front side bus self.

Note you'll have to copy and paste the URL to get to the tests.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041012/p4ee_925xe-05.html

 

DVDremake is definately a place where FSB will make a difference, as well as HD speed. I would like to have much faster in both areas but can't afford it right now.

For the record 266 FSB is marginal for CCE. Below that the encoding process takes a much bigger hit.
I have tested it on 200FSB DDR and 133Sdram early on.

 

Feels like time for the Paul Harvey line, "and now you know the rest of the story..." I was wondering how long it would take for Sophocles to prepare his dissertation once we started mentioning speed.

Dell? Yes, I currently own one. However, I think Intel supplies the same chipsets and processors to many other PC manufacturers and vendors. So, Dell has no great advantage or disadvantage there, typical manufactured PC. The reason I went with a Dell was because after looking at the cost of components, I was able to buy a completed package cheaper than I could buy the components and build. Dell just had the best bang for the buck at the time.

 

I'll put my overclocked 2.8 GHZ with 600 MHZ front side bus against a Dell with 800 MZ front side bus and using Remake easily beat its encoidng time using the same movie by more than 30 minutes.All of my encodes come in under 3 hours.

bigo and I used to time our encodes and compare them and my encodes were coming in as much as 40 minutes or more faster than his. He has a Dell with a 2.8 GHZ Prescott and an 800 MHZ front side bus, but he also has stock memory. Now if I built the machine and it had a 800 MHZ front side bus then my old faithful would take 2nd place and it should, it's over 2 years old.

 

A point to consider is this, if you used RB farm on two 266 MHZ machines with slower CPU's, that would give a combined front side bus speed equivalent to a 533 MHZ mchine with a faster processor. I'm betting that the two machines using RB farm will be faster then one machnie with 800 MHZ front side bus.

 

Knowing Dell they probably bottled neck the 800mhz bus with slow single channel ddr. It depends on the mother board. Fast bus is nice but you need the memory to support it.
I know you tweak your memory for speed so there would be a difference, as well as the Prescott versis Northwood thing. Did BigO have or use Hyperthreading. It could actually slow down the encode.

 

And as far as overclocking, I belong to the school of thought that believes in working within the safe range of a processor instead of pushing the limits and creating heat problems. I get what I want up front and leave it alone. Maybe not as adventurous as some of the experimenters, but I've learned from others failed processors that it can be a good idea to leave stock alone unless one wants to make an even larger investment in extra cooling and sturdier power supplies. I don't like gambling with expensive components such as the CPU.

 

Dells are usually a good buy. If you buy one it can usually utilize much faster ram making a big difference in performance. It would be the fisrt thing I would do if I purhased one.

 

Donald,
Nope, this Dell has dual channel. The RAM is sufficient as well, currently 1GB. If necessary the layout is capable of expansion to 4GB. Interesting comment Sophocles made about his and bigorange's encode times. BigO and I have basically the same chipsets, yet my times have been noticably faster than his for some reason. I doubt I'd fare that well against Sophocles' overclocked PC, but I doubt my stock unit would fall that far behind; especially with encode tasks depending primarily on the CPU for grunt work.

 

I'm somewhere in between. I like to push the chipset a little but I'm not nuts about it. Faster memory is always a safe bet. A mild overclock isn't a big deal or a necessity.

I hadn't even seen Sophocles dissertaion until it was mentioned. The tests reminded me of how much I need an upgrade.

 

When you buy the dell you have the option to get faster memory. Bigo might not have the faster stuff. So many options, so much money.