|
RipBot264 + which CPU?
|
|
|
BSouders8
Junior Member
|
15. January 2009 @ 14:22 |
Link to this message
|
I've been using Ripbot264 to convert a lot of my M2TS files to blu-ray format, some single layer DVD's and some DL's. Depending on the movie, the quality and such forth.
I upgraded my PC, but I believe that my CPU is lacking.
Motherboard is for AMD chips
I purchased a 3.1 Ghz Dual core. I went from a 2.4 Ghz to the 3.1 and honestly, I can not tell much of a difference. I'm running 4 gigs of memory on a 32 bit version of Vista. The most I ever max the memory while JUST running Ripbot is around 2 gigs.
So, can someone recommend to me the fastest AMD processor out there that I could benefit from on encoding a video?
My brother is running a 2.4 or 2.5 Ghz Intel Quad Core and he smokes me on converting a movie. For example, I converted a 720P movie that was about 2 hours, 12 minutes and it took 21 hours. It looks great on the blu-ray player, but my bro did it in about 9 hrs.
Thanks.
Brian
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. January 2009 @ 19:24 |
Link to this message
|
It has been my experience that Intel Processors, pound for pound and all things being equal, will ALWAYS outperform an AMD processor for video processing.
I am not 100% sure why, but the CPU appears to be "optimized" for multimedia operations.
Could be just perception on my part.
Speeding up the processor won't help you. Switching over to an Intel platform will.
|
|
BSouders8
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 19:02 |
Link to this message
|
Dailun,
Thank you for your opinion. I'm locked into AMD at this time with my current motherboard. I spent $200 on the motherboard, so I really don't care to buy another one just to run Intel if I can encode movies well with AMD processors.
I am thinking about purchasing an AMD Phenom II X4 940 Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM2+ 125W Quad-Core Black Edition. I have read a lot of over clocking sites and I've seen some clocked up to 3.6 Ghz. I know there are Intel chips that will outperform this but surely it will outperform the 2.5 Ghz Intel quad core that my brother is running.
Please, I'd like to hear some feedback from people who are running an AMD with a little umph behind it.
Brian
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
16. January 2009 @ 19:32 |
Link to this message
|
the problem is probably the os as vista is a memory pig. you are not able to use the full 4gig of ram, most likely you are using 3 to 3.5gig because of 32bit os which includes xp.
|
|
BSouders8
Junior Member
|
16. January 2009 @ 20:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
I may upgrade to the 64 bit version of Vista one day. But unless I KNOW that the memory would benefit me. IF I was running Vista 64 bit, and more memory would help, then I'd buy another 4 gigs.
BTW - My brohter is running Vista, same version, Ultimate.
I may format my HDD and put a fresh copy of Vista on it this weekend and see what happens.
I'm really looking for processor related replies........
|
|
BSouders8
Junior Member
|
18. January 2009 @ 10:12 |
Link to this message
|
So I changed to 64 bit Vista. No real improvement. My Frames per second went from around 11 FPS with 32 bit on the first pass to 12.5 with 64 bit.
Is there any GPU software that can out perform the Ripbot264? Is there any software that can also do what I am using Ripbot264 to do? I take odd HD formats, 720P and 1080P and resize them with the 2 pass to full 1920 x 1080 so that my father's blu-ray player will play the movies.
Any thought would be appreciated.
Brian
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. January 2009 @ 19:34 |
Link to this message
|
Well then "it is what it is."
I am running all AMD at home, a Q9500, (2) X2 5600+ and an FX64.
Plenty of "oomph" here, I've just learned to live with the limitations. It will never be as fast as a comparable Intel.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. January 2009 @ 11:50 |
Link to this message
|
If you want to get your encode times down, I'd recommend a Core 2 Quad or Core i7. Phenom II is the only competitive AMD CPU for this task, and it costs more than a comparable Core 2 Quad, so there's no point in buying one.
A 2.4Ghz Core 2 Quad (old technology, i.e. Q6600) will perform up to 90% faster than a 3.1Ghz Athlon X2.
A 2.83Ghz Core 2 Quad (new techology, i.e. Q955) will perform up to 150% faster than a 3.1Ghz Athlon X2.
A 2.66Ghz Core i7 920 will perform up to 190% faster than the 3.1Ghz Athlon X2.
|
|
BSouders8
Junior Member
|
19. January 2009 @ 15:45 |
Link to this message
|
Thank you for the informative reply. I'm going to an Intel platform with the I7 chip. Looks like the 2.66 I7 is around 299 on T.D.'s website. Is that reasonable?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. January 2009 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I believe it's less at Newegg (I think 289.99), as will be most of the parts. I tend to find Newegg a better store than Tigerdirect, though I only have the word of everyone I recommend to to go on, as I'm not from the US so can't shop there myself.
|
|
BSouders8
Junior Member
|
23. January 2009 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
I traded my dad for his Intel platform motherboard.
I bought an Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00Ghz.
I got all of the drivers installed and my PC running back to normal. It's A LOT faster cruising around in Windows.
I am running Vista 64 bit with 4 gigs of RAM.
I loaded up a 1920 x 800 .m2ts file in Ripbot264, around 9 gigs.
It's running A LOT faster, around 22 FPS on the first pass. I'm transcoding the video to a 1920 x 1080 resolution using the Blu-Ray output tab. Size is locked for a DL disk.
On my brother's PC and my old AMD dino processor, I always maxed the processor at 100% and my brother's processor is maxed at 100%.
I have the CPU gadget on the display that shows all 4 cores running and they are averaging around 75% max CPU capacity.
I'm running 22 FPS @ 75% capacity. Yes, this is nice. However, what can I do to max it out at 100%?? I changed the priority level in the task manager, but that seemed to not have any effect. I'm very happy, but I would like to be able to use full capacity. Any suggestions?
Brian
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
23. January 2009 @ 20:54 |
Link to this message
|
you don't want 100% capacity but as low as possible with the highest fps as possible.
|
