|
Experiencing Difficulty Using DVD RB and CCE? If So, Then Ask Your Questions Here.
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
23. July 2005 @ 13:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
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
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. July 2005 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
" 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
|
23. July 2005 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
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
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. July 2005 @ 15:07
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
23. July 2005 @ 14:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. July 2005 @ 14:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
" 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/. |
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
23. July 2005 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
one on one a Northwood at the same clock speed is faster than its Prescott cousin
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
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. July 2005 @ 14:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
" 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
|
23. July 2005 @ 15:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
23. July 2005 @ 15:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
23. July 2005 @ 15:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear,
I was wondering about that too. Same goes for memory.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. July 2005 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
" 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
|
23. July 2005 @ 16:56 |
Link to this message
|
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%...
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.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. July 2005 @ 17:10
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. July 2005 @ 17:14 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles,
BTW... Quote:
I figured that the posted graphics results would be harder to alter than posted text reports are.
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. July 2005 @ 18:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
" 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 23. July 2005 @ 18:12
|
|
sghrush
Newbie
|
23. July 2005 @ 21:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
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?
-Peace and happy burning.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. July 2005 @ 21:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
sghrush
If your encoded movie is an ISO file yes, but it's more probably that it's in file mode. You didn't mention any other burning softwares that you might have installed so I can't comment further.
" 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
|
24. July 2005 @ 09:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Here's an interesting situation. I just encoded "Diary Of a Mad Black Woman" in 84 minutes using CCE Basic 2.69. It took 153 minutes using SP Trial 2.70 set to 2 passes. However, the output for the SP was sized better. The SP output was 4.32 GB while the Basic was 2.77 GB. So, this movie poses a problem for CCE Basic that is overcome by whatever is different in the SP. The way I have RB set up, the only difference was the encoders. The same RB, decoder, and AviSynth were used.
Would someone who knows these programs shed some light on the situation? I was under the impression that the Basic and SP used the same encoding algorithm, with SP having more "bells and whistles" and the ability to do more passes. This seems to indicate that the SP encoder, even when set to 2 passes like the Basic, does a better job. The SP trial has the big blue logo "watermark" on the video output which renders it useless as a good backup tool. And I'm sure not going to fork over $2000 for the retail dongle version to do backups. Anyone with any ideas on how to get this movie sized correctly with Basic? I've tried inserting the command to resize the file with no success. Has anyone else had problems with this movie or successfully encoded it with CCE Basic with Rebuilder?
Without sifting through the individual files, I did an overall count and found the SP Video_TS to have 58 files while the Basic had only 55. If there is something wrong with the Basic, seems like it would show up on movies other than this particular one. I'd just used the Basic previously on part one of "Fellowship of the Ring" and the file came out about 4.3 GB. So, there was no problem there. The file structure on the "Fellowship" movie was more simple compared to the multiple files involved in the "Diary" DVD.
Sort of a different situation with this particular DVD; this is the one that Sophocles was having so much fun with.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. July 2005 @ 10:01
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2005 @ 10:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear
I had no problem getting it to complete a backup and I thought I had it when I placed in my standalone. But when I played it I had audio all the way to the menu but once the movie began to play there was no audio, it went silent so might want to try watching it.
You're going to love this. I compared CCE Basic and SP with the same movie and SP came in faster by over 10 minutes.LOL
You're right about sizing SP has been giving me 4.28 to 4.3 while basic comes in at 4.32 to 4.34. I like the slightly smaller size because it doesn't burn quite as close to the outer edge.
Check your settings again, it's probably there someplace.
" 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 24. July 2005 @ 10:20
|
|
VJbob
Member
|
24. July 2005 @ 12:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
When upgrading to 1.0 pro will I have to shell out another $25 for 1.1Pro or do I have access to all new updates?
What kind of "pro" features are we talking about? Anything significant that a casual newbie would be excited about?
Does 1.0 undo the 'menu locks' that I've been talking about?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2005 @ 12:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
VJbob
You'll get all updates by email at no extra charge as soon as they're released, which means getting them a few weeks before the freeware versions with fewer options are available.
" 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 24. July 2005 @ 13:41
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. July 2005 @ 13:08 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
As I stated, I used the same RB setup, so all that changed was the selection to use the Basic or the SP Trial. No adjustments to be made with the CCE that I know of. Maybe I missed another memo. LOL All the other settings remained the same. Both CCE versions are loaded in Program Files, so the app is accessing them from the same Windows folder. The apps are set up in separate folders, so no interference. Just to see if the problem may be with my version of Basic, I'll just go ahead and do an install of 2.7 Basic and see how that works. I'd been meaning to update anyway.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2005 @ 14:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Versions are usually not the problem. In fact I can't remember any versions outside of some of those that were caused by earlier CCE trial versions. Many knowledgeable people still prefer CCE SP 2.50 over newer CCE versions, such that they would rather continue with its service rather than to update. We all cut our teeth using CCE Basic 6X. And in that time I've never debated with anyone over a few minutes shaved by an update or newer version. It's the machine that has to count and court the differences.
" 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 24. July 2005 @ 14:22
|
|
Gnomex
Member
|
24. July 2005 @ 17:18 |
Link to this message
|
Ran into problem that I have not seen before.
Backed up the incredibles, the movie played fine for about 1:15 hours. At this point the video froze and the audio continued. I skipped the chapter to finish watching the movie , but ran into this problem 2 chapters later. Does anyone know what could be the cause? I reripped the backup to the HD and got the same errors. It looks like it was not in the burn at least.
- Versions :
-- CCE Basic Version: 2.70.1.2
-- DECODER Version: UNKNOWN
-- AVISYNTH Version: 2.5.5.0
- DVD-RB 1.00 RC2 Pro
No editing of the source done prior to processing it through DVD-RB.
Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. July 2005 @ 19:14 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
Quote:
... I've never debated with anyone over a few minutes shaved by an update or newer version. It's the machine that has to count and court the differences.
I do find it interesting that the PC "counts and courts the differences" better with the SP than the Basic. Normally I wouldn't let a little sizing issue bother me at all, a few minutes is trivial. However, when it comes to well over one quarter of the capacity of the disc, then I take exception. 1.55 GB unused on a DVD5 when compressing a DVD source of about 6.8 GB affects the quality of the encode.
Luckily I have other software to use, so backing up this DVD poses no problem. It's not on my classics list, so I used one of my transcoding apps to get a full disc backup. Even at 2.77 GB, the CCE Basic still furnished a decent video and audio. BTW, the finished backup plays well on the standalone. I didn't run into the same problems you encountered. Must have been something in the settings. ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. July 2005 @ 19:16
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
24. July 2005 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Gnomex
With that one, I would think it was just a poor rip of the original source. I'd check the original for surface flaws and then check with DVDInfoPro (or similar app) to check for read/write errors. Normally I don't suggest slowing down the read speed, but if redoing the backup from the same original disc, I'd give it some thought. Then play the files (movie segments) that caused the problem to make sure they're not hanging on the PC player. I've run into similar problems and in each case it's been a bad rip due to one of the situations I noted, faulty source or just a bad read for some inexplicable reason. I don't go dissecting problem files when a fresh rip solves the problem. One can waste a lot of time and still not find the source of the original problem if it doesn't repeat itself consistently. I backed up "The Incredibles" and there wasn't anything out of the ordinary to cause problems.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. July 2005 @ 19:35
|
