Experiencing Difficulty Using DVD RB and CCE? If So, Then Ask Your Questions Here. [page 110/130]

Mort81

AfterDawn Addict

6 product reviews

21. September 2005 @ 11:48

Link to this message

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.

Rig #1 Asus Rampage Formula Mobo, Intel Core2Quad Q9450 CPU @ 3.55ghz, 2gb Corsair DDR2 1066 Dominator Ram @ 5-5-5-15, TR Ultra 120 Extreme w/ Scythe 9 blade 110 cfm 120mm Fan HSF, HIS Radeon 512mb HD3850 IceQ TurboX GPU, Corsair 620HX P/S, CM Stacker 830 Evo Case, Rig #2 Asus P5W DH Deluxe Mobo, Intel C2D E6600 CPU @ 3.6ghz, 2gb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800 Ram @ 4-4-4-12-2t, Zalman CNPS9500LED HSF, Sapphire Radeon X850XT PE GPU, Corsair 620HX P/S, Cooler Master Mystique Case, Viewsonic 20.1" Widescreen Digital LCD Monitor, Klipsch Promedia Ultra 5.1 THX Desktop Speakers, http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=348351 http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=236435

AfterDawn Addict

21. September 2005 @ 11:52

Link to this message

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.

UncasMS

Member

21. September 2005 @ 14:35

Link to this message

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

AfterDawn Addict

1 product review

21. September 2005 @ 15:26

Link to this message

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.

"Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:

Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/.

This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. September 2005 @ 15:27

64026402

Senior Member

21. September 2005 @ 15:36

Link to this message

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.

Donald

jdobbs

Senior Member

21. September 2005 @ 15:45

Link to this message

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.

This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. September 2005 @ 16:54

64026402

Senior Member

21. September 2005 @ 15:51

Link to this message

SSE Silly Silly Extensions to help sell processors.

Donald

AfterDawn Addict

1 product review

21. September 2005 @ 16:06

Link to this message

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

"Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:

Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/.

jdobbs

Senior Member

21. September 2005 @ 16:55

Link to this message

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.

AfterDawn Addict

1 product review

21. September 2005 @ 17:06

Link to this message

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

"Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:

Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/.

brobear

Suspended permanently

21. September 2005 @ 17:55

Link to this message

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

'Brobear'

I was an earth-rim walker, a lurker at the threshold of the abyss. - Grendel -

64026402

Senior Member

21. September 2005 @ 18:04

Link to this message

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

Donald

AfterDawn Addict

1 product review

21. September 2005 @ 18:04

Link to this message

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.

"Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:

Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/.

brobear

Suspended permanently

21. September 2005 @ 23:48

Link to this message

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.

'Brobear'

I was an earth-rim walker, a lurker at the threshold of the abyss. - Grendel -

AfterDawn Addict

1 product review

22. September 2005 @ 03:30

Link to this message

Intel's clock speeds are higher out of the box but they aren't faster, because clock speed doesn't tell the whole story. A lower clock speed doesn't mean slower. Amd does 4 instructions per clock cycle, where Intel only does 2. Thats why AMD's have trouble running at the same ghz frequency than Intel's do, but the 4 instructions per clock makes up for that. Hence the PR rating with AMD. AMD has its memory controller on chip which means it makes better use of memory than Intel chips do. AMD compares its Processors to Intel because Intel has a strangle hold on the CPU market by using tactics that are much the same as Microsoft uses. Check out the different benchmarks done by sites such as Anandtech and you see that AMD is beating Intel in low and high-end chips. As far as heats concerned my CPU over clocked to 2.64 GHZ using the stock fan is running at 35 degrees celsius where a P4 not over clocked using a stock fan runs close to 50 degrees celsius.

"Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:

Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/.

This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2005 @ 03:43

64026402

Senior Member

22. September 2005 @ 03:30

Link to this message

As Brobear has stated the low end PCs are largely dominated by the slower Intel procs especially from Dell and Gateway.
Companies are not concerned with the latest technology when buying bulking work stations.
It use to be AMD that had the budget procs but they seem to be concentrating on performance nowdays. Even the low end AMDs are getting the rep as P4 killers.

Donald

64026402

Senior Member

22. September 2005 @ 03:34

Link to this message

Why doesn't Intel come up with a P5, or some similar logical new proc that is not P4 or notebook based?

Donald

AfterDawn Addict

22. September 2005 @ 04:25

Link to this message

I don't know I have decided to stay away from AMD I have not had good luck with them. This current notebook has an AMD 2400+ and all it does is overheat. The computer I had before my current Dell with a Pentium had an AMD with a gigabyte motherboard and was totally flaky and still is the grandkids use it for school.

Mort81

AfterDawn Addict

6 product reviews

22. September 2005 @ 09:00

Link to this message

I was told to stay away from AMD when I was building my pc because they ran hot. Well nothing can run hotter than my P4 prescott core 2.8ghz @3.2 ghz. It runs about 48 deg C at idle and can get as high as 65 deg C when encoding. Thats with stock fan. It hasn't shutdown or caused any problems yet but if I was to do it all over I would go with AMD.

AfterDawn Addict

22. September 2005 @ 09:12

Link to this message

Well I ordered the new Dell got the 3.4 processor, 2g of Ram, 256 Ati Video and the sound blaster zs audio with the 19 inch digital monitor. Hope this all works out cause my old one has been chugging along great. Will know in a week in half when it gets here. Did not order any drives don't want any of Dell's OEM. Since I am giving the old one to the wife and do not want to remove, how is the benq 1625 any problems, I want to booktype and the HP that is in the old one does this.

Mort81

AfterDawn Addict

6 product reviews

22. September 2005 @ 09:18

Link to this message

arniebear,

I really like my benq DW1620. Don't know about the 1625 or 1640. You are going to put your plex in the new pc aren't you?

AfterDawn Addict

22. September 2005 @ 09:25

Link to this message

My Plex is USB I resisted an internal burner for a long time because when I got the comp about 2 and half years ago the TDK burner I got caused many problems and I ended up reformating. So I bought a USB NEC 1300a and it worked well still have it, then I bought two more USB drives before I finally bought an internal.

HKT3020

Member

22. September 2005 @ 09:44

Link to this message

Being that I tossed out the log awhile ago & this being a backup done sometime in the past 2 weeks, I just came to finally watching the backup. The movie, The Matrix. First Nero complained about one of the files which was listed as a 0kb VOB file. I went ahead and burned the file despite the warning Nero mentioned because usually Nero is known to be picky. I chose movie & menus only on DVD-RB PROV1 RC5.1. I'm interested if any members or perhaps you yourself Jdobbs have come across a problem with this DVD? If not then I'm open to suggestions. ;-)

brobear

Suspended permanently

22. September 2005 @ 11:38

Link to this message

Donald,
You and Soph seem to disagree once again. Soph said AMD controls the low and high end and you said P4s control the low end, but some AMDs were P4 killers.

Quote:
Check out the different benchmarks done by sites such as Anandtech and you see that AMD is beating Intel in low and high-end chips. -Sophocles-

Quote:
Even the low end AMDs are getting the rep as P4 killers. -64026402-

Low end AMD as P4 killers? Somebody's been in the mescal again, maybe a Celeron killer. LOL Donald, not the low end but the mid range market is what I was referring to. For stock PCs in the 2-3GHz range, I'll stick with the P4s. I've had excellent success with them, and as I pointed out, they're currently the tried and true workhorse of the industry. I'm sure Arniebear will find his 3.4GHz unit to his liking. I wouldn't mind having one myself, but I still think of those chips in terms of a premium cost for the slight amount of improvement over a 3GHz processor. Since I'm not a gamer, I don't feel I need the extra speed and as bragging rights, I'm saving up for a new motorcycle. ;)