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

You may want to experiment with the Decoder iDCT setting. Sometimes you can squeeze some extra speed out of that.

 

Good luck, I tried it and couldn't see any noticable difference with the P4 I have in use.

 

What kind of processor was it that Sophocles recently picked up that showed such an improvement?

 

Was looking at putting 2g of Ram in, can't afford the 4g. I figured if I was going to get a new one I would get the bigger processor and video card.

 

Hmm... (picture me dreaming of a high end machine). My problem is that I need to do all my encoding on a mid-level machine so I can get a realistic feel for how the average machine will perform. Well... that and also the fact that I'm exceptionally poor.

 

iirc he's using an oc'ed athlon64 3500

 

arniebear,

Just my 2 cents. I have a 2.8 ghz P4 oc'ed to 3.2 ghz 1 gb ram and my encode times are just a little under 2 hrs. I cut about 15 min off encode times by setting Decoder iDCT to 32 bit SSE2/MMX.

 

I figure if I going to splurge do it big, however still haven't pressed that order button yet, my old one has not let me down yet and I hate to get a new one and find out it doesn't measure up.

@Mort81

Thanks for the tip I will try that and see if it shaves some time off. The funny thing is that when I used the 2.5 ver of CCE, the one with the big logo, my time was under 2 hours.

 

taling about cce speed with athlon64s

with cce 2.5 or 2.7 i get a speedfactor of around 3-4x which means a 90 min movie should be finished in less than 90 min using 3 passes

 

Encoding is one of the few processes that relies quite heavily on clock speed. That's why P4's with their higher clock speeds always nudged ahead of AMD processors for encodes when they otherwise out processed a P4 in most other areas. But an AMD and Intel at a one on one clock speed would see the end of current Intel chips. That's what's happens when you over clock one of the new AMD cores.

I've over clocked a 3500+ Venice core to 2.64 stable so far, and with its on board memory controller (effectively serving a 2 GHZ front side bus)the high clock speed advantages held by Intel begins to fade. I am also using 2 gigs of Corsair XMS 3200C2. It doesn't get any faster using a single core AMD CPU.

My average slow speed encodes run at no less than 3.4, and they are often above 4 and sometimes they even hit 5X and a little above. To do better than that is going to require a very high clocked 3.7 GHZ P4, or more than one core working multi threaded applications.

 

Right now the Athlon 64 Venice cores give the most bang for the buck with CCE. A couple hundred will now buy Sophocles processor. Board prices are reasonable. To get the same performance in a P4 you would have to pay substantially more.

 

That's always been true for AMD -- the cost to performance ratio is consistently higher than Intel. But occasionally you run into speed bumps that give Intel advantages in some areas, like when SSE2 was first implemented.

 

SSE Silly Silly Extensions to help sell processors.

 

I didn't include SSE extensions because both AMD and Intel now share them equally.

 

Hey -- I always buy AMD. If it weren't for the competition from AMD, Intel would make us all pay a $1000 for their processor.

 

If we're not careful they're both going to make us pay a $1000. LOL

 

For the good ones... aren't they? How bout them dual core P4s running with RAID drives? Too expensive for me right now, but I can dream. LOL

 

$323 for 3.0 dual core PentiumD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116212
Not to pricey.

 

brobear

P4 dual cores are based on dated prescott technology, they do okay but they're limited to a 3.2 GHZ clock speed and they run quite hot. The AMD dual cores are better, cooler running, and the're coming freakishly close to matching their clock speeds. The AMD 2.2 GHZ dual cores are about equal to an Intel 3.2 P4 in encoding and beat them at everything else. Now imagine an AMD Toledo dual core with a clock speed of 2.8 to 3.0 and you have an absolute Intel prescott killer.

 

Intel's claim to fame has always been speed. AMD does some things well and Intel is good at others. I've reviewed some of the benchmark tests. In fact the numbers used for many of the AMD processors weren't for the actual processor speeds, but how they compared to Intel. So AMD liked to compare themselves to Intel; just some interesting trivia. AMD processors lend themselves to overclocking, but the P4s are faster out of the box. Speaking of heat, that is one of the major faults with overclocking. I'm aware cooling systems are made to address that. I'll keep an open mind in case I decide to go for a top end PC. Currently though, I'll just stick with the workhorse Intel units for the grunt work. In the working class PCs, Intel still appears to have the best bang for the buck. Otherwise, some fairly intelligent people are getting the wool pulled over their eyes. Most offices I see are using Dells and Gateways for bulk purchases and others are using brands with Intel chips.