Experiencing Difficulty Using DVD RB and CCE? If So, Then Ask Your Questions Here.

Just wanted to send a thanks it must have been that i had the settings wrong on rebuilder.It just finished and that saying sure is right on it is slow good.about 5 and a half hours from start to finish for a 2 hour 30 minutes tv episode dvd.Thanks for the help.
It came out very nice from what i have watched so far.Very nice program.

 

No problem as Sandra generates the reports with the Wizard. My system is just a work "mule" processor, 2.8GHz P4N (Northwood) running at 2.79GHz. Though I don't have the best memory, I did get a lot of it, 1GB RAM. Here's the log on the Sandra benchmarks I ran:

***** Start of Report *****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<<< General >>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: SiSoftware Sandra Professional Unicode (Win32
x86)
Version: 2004.10.9.133
Registered Owner: N/A
Done By: N/A
Host Name: N/A
System ID: N/A
Run ID: N/A
Done On: Saturday, July 23, 2005
Done At: 5:00:29 PM

<<< CPU Multi-Media Benchmark >>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< Benchmark Results >
Integer x8 iSSE2: 17334it/s
Float x4 iSSE2: 21808it/s

< Performance Test Status >
Run ID: N/A on Saturday, July 23, 2005 at 5:00:
29 PM
NUMA Support: No
SMP Test: No
Total Test Threads: 1
SMT Test: No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance: No
Processor Affinity: P0
Rendered Image Size: 640x480

< Processor >
Model: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Speed: 2.79GHz
Performance Rating: PR3072 (estimated)
Type: Standard
L2 On-board Cache: 512kB ECC Synchronous ATC (8-way sectored, 64
byte line size)

< Chipset 1 >
Model: Dell Computer Corp 82875P,E7210 Memory
Controller Hub
Front Side Bus Speed: 4x 200MHz (800MHz data rate)

< Features >
(W)MMX Technology: Yes
SSE Technology: Yes
SSE2 Technology: Yes
SSE3 Technology: No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technolo:No





<<< Cache & Memory Benchmark >>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< Benchmark Results >
Combined Index: 8693MB/s
Speed Factor: 12.4
2kB Blocks: 30130MB/s
4kB Blocks: 30683MB/s
8kB Blocks: 24110MB/s
16kB Blocks: 21338MB/s
32kB Blocks: 21527MB/s
64kB Blocks: 21749MB/s
128kB Blocks: 21541MB/s
256kB Blocks: 20645MB/s
512kB Blocks: 17083MB/s
1MB Blocks: 2471MB/s
4MB Blocks: 2533MB/s
16MB Blocks: 2539MB/s
64MB Blocks: 2546MB/s
256MB Blocks: 2544MB/s

< Float SSE2 Cache/Memory Results Breakdown >
Data Item Size: 16-bytes
Buffering Used: No
Offset Displacement Used: Yes

< Performance Test Status >
Run ID: N/A on Saturday, July 23, 2005 at 5:00:
51 PM
NUMA Support: No
SMP Test: No
Total Test Threads: 1
SMT Test: No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance: No
Processor Affinity: P0
Page Size: 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages: No

< Processor >
Model: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Speed: 2.79GHz
Performance Rating: PR3072 (estimated)
Type: Standard
Internal Data Cache: 8kB Synchronous Write-Thru (4-way, 64 byte
line size)
L2 On-board Cache: 512kB ECC Synchronous ATC (8-way sectored, 64
byte line size)

< Features >
SSE Technology: Yes
SSE2 Technology: Yes
SSE3 Technology: No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technolo:No

< Chipset 1 >
Model: Dell Computer Corp 82875P,E7210 Memory
Controller Hub
Front Side Bus Speed: 4x 200MHz (800MHz data rate)
Width: 64-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth: 6400MB/s (estimated)

< Logical/Chipset 1 Memory Banks >
Bank 0: 512MB DDR-SDRAM 3.0-3-3-8CL 1CMD
Bank 1: 512MB DDR-SDRAM 3.0-3-3-8CL 1CMD
Channels: 2
Speed: 2x 200MHz (400MHz data rate)
Width: 64-bit
Performance Acceleration Techn:Yes
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth: 6400MB/s (estimated)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***** End of Report *****

 

mace71299

Glad you got it up and running. It sounded to me as though it was a minor setting problem and the sound with frames pointed to what I thought was the likely culprit. Encoders are slower because they review and reallocate space across the entire DVD.


Thanks brobear

That's a little more info than I was looking for, go to the benchmark thread at www.zentarium.com and post it there.

 

Sophocles
One thing not included in the log that I noticed in the Sandra program is the comparison chart of various CPUs. Seems that there isn't a lot of difference in the comparative benchmarks for CPUs running at 2.8GHz to about 3.2GHz.

Something strange seems to be going on here. There is nothing in the way I did things that should make my encodes come out faster. But times for other encodes are similar to the one I did with Fellowship (extended)part 2. Currently, unless there is something out of the ordinary, my old "mule" does an encode in about an hour and 15 min to an hour and a half (RB v1RC2 with CCE Basic 2.9 retail). Guess I need to check out the SSE2 and MMX settings to see what happens there. I'll start keeping tabs on the logs to see if there's any significant changes in time for future encodes. I know it's system related because the encoding is very processor intensive, but I don't see the great time variances, 4 and 5 hours down to slightly over an hour. I know the older P3s with 750MHz processors are going to be significantly slower, but that doesn't account for the big difference in the P4s running at 2.4GHz and above.

 

Sophocles
LOL Beware what you ask for, that was just the contents of the 2 benchmarks you requested. What's scary is a complete SiSandra report. I'm afraid my PC may give the result [bold]"TILT"[/bold], if I tried to do an all inclusive Sandra report.

 

OK, no more "parading my specs" since my dog seems to have been setting on the porch.

Soph,

Something I'm curious about. CPU-Z shows my FSB 152.7 MHZ and my Buss Speed 610.9 MHZ. Does that sound right to you. Sandra does show my cpu speed @ 3.21 GHZ. I posted the results on zentarium.

Mort

 

Mort81

It's almost perfect, the front side bus measures' of a P4 are quad pumped, which means to get your effective front side bus you have to multiply 152.7 MHZ by 4. I did that and it comes out to 610.8, it can't get any closer than that. In my case since I use hyper transport I multiply by 5.

 

Guess I missed the link on where to post the results on Zentarium. I started a new thread in the RB section for the comparison. Where did you guys post them or want them posted? Guess I missed another memo. LOL

 

brobear,

Here's the thread Soph made especially for that. http://www.zentarium.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3516#post3516
I posted my results there.

Mort

 

brobear

No big deal we can sort it out later. I was asking for screen captures because they listed other previously referenced computers that used Sisoft. These were systems with similar setups to review so that they can be compared against others such as ours. We can use this info to a small degree to correlate our systems performances against the performances of others with comparable configurations. I understand it and BTW, one on one a Northwood at the same clock speed is faster than its Prescott cousin except where SSE3 instructions are called for and I can't think of a single app that uses SSE3.

 

I found this out after I had already ordered my prescott core. I almost bought a P4 3.2 GHZ 800 fsb w/ ht technology and northwood core to replace my prescott but knew that nobody would want to buy my prescott even at an extremely discounted price. I would have needed some dual channel memory also to benefit from the 800 fsb. Needless to say my Social Security disability checks just wouldn't accomidate this.

Mort

 

Mort

While the Prescott core was the new boy on the block, Intel used the Northwood core for the P4 EE (extreme edition) which sold for about $900. The Northwood ran cooler, and had shorter pipes than the Prescott did. The advantage that AMD always had over Intel was a performance to clock ratio. AMD's have even shorter pipes by as much as 60% so an AMD simply processes more data than an Intel chip does per clock cycle.

Intel chooses to use brute force to achieve their processing capability by relying on higher voltages (which results in processing loss by heat)and clock speed as their main catalyst to improve performance.

 

Sophocles,
For the chart comparison you're referencing from Sandra, only a few can be done from the extensive list supplied by the program in the drop down window. For everyone to be playing on the same field, it would be necessary to determine which CPUs to compare in the chart; selections 1, 2, 3, 4 from the drop down window.

 

You know what is ironic. When I was deciding on what to go with when I was preparing to order parts for my home built pc, all I heard was how hot AMD's run. Well I should have known better, my old pc had an AMD thunderbird 1.3 GHZ and I never had any heat issues. It had issues but they weren't heat related. I think it had a problem with the bios or chipset. I sometimes wish I would have gone with an AMD cpu and mobo to accommodate. Oh well live n learn.

 

brobear,

I was wondering about that too. Same goes for memory.

 

The bench test are only for basic comparisons and I figured that the posted graphics results would be harder to alter than posted text reports are. This will not only improve the accuracy rate of our measures but you'll get snapshots of previously benched systems to compare your results with as well.

 

Sophocles
Guess I need to add some software for doing screen captures. The clipboard sort of sucks. If you want to see a comparison, download this zip file and open it. It should come up on your clipboard viewer. http://www.msnusers.com/iqe3l4kncduq6higd5ct2b1ib4/Documents/CPU benchmark.zip

With WinRar, just click open when the file download window comes up and double click the file named CPU benchmark.

The only thing that really smoked my old "mule" was the P4 at 4GHz. It was sort of strange, my P4N at 2.8GHz performed better than the 3GHz P4 used in the comparison. Must have been something to do with the Northwood architecture.

 

Sophocles,
BTW...

LOL Who would want to, unless maybe they're shooting for bragging rights. My little 2.8GHz P4N Dell sure isn't in the top gun bragging section.

 

brobear

I didn't' want to turn this into a speed contest and the graphics do offer more rapid data. It also provides another 4 or 5 comparable systems at a glance. I wasn't worried about any of the systems making the Guinness book of world records.

 

Okay, here is another super newbie question. After using RB with Million Dollar Baby, it is now ready to burn. Can I use Decrypter to burn the files?