Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

best CPU for video compression?

Tags:
  • Tuner Cards
  • Video
  • CPUs
  • Compression
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 23, 2005 9:52:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In terms of bucks for the bang, which CPU (intel or amd), for under $250, is
better for running tmpgenc (on top of windows XP) after overclocked?

Is there a web site that focuses on this kind of benchmarks?

More about : cpu video compression

March 24, 2005 12:14:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

peter wrote:
> In terms of bucks for the bang, which CPU (intel or amd), for under $250, is
> better for running tmpgenc (on top of windows XP) after overclocked?
>
> Is there a web site that focuses on this kind of benchmarks?
>
>
There isn't any special TMpgenc preference for either. Horsepower and
Ram are your main considerations. You can (and probably will) find you
have sparked an endless discussion over which processor might finish
that project 13 seconds earlier than the other. Since the AMD processors
are cheaper, usually, you can probably get a faster one for $250.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2005 5:25:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message news:4242d423$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> peter wrote:
>> In terms of bucks for the bang, which CPU (intel or amd), for under $250,
>> is better for running tmpgenc (on top of windows XP) after overclocked?
>>
>> Is there a web site that focuses on this kind of benchmarks?
>>
>>
> There isn't any special TMpgenc preference for either. Horsepower and Ram
> are your main considerations. You can (and probably will) find you have
> sparked an endless discussion over which processor might finish that
> project 13 seconds earlier than the other. Since the AMD processors are
> cheaper, usually, you can probably get a faster one for $250.
>

I agree with "RS". While more A/V software will be optimized for
the Intel, the effects of that optimization are most often swamped by
even a small increase in processing speed and efficiency. In some
cases the "optimization" being referred to is only the MMX and SSE
extension to the instruction set. The AMD processor may be one
generation behind with those Intel extensions but they have their own
"3DNow!" extensions.

At the highest end, multi-threading implementations in both the
hardware and software will eventually have an impact, but that
won't be a factor for some time yet. Most software venders are,
like the rest of us, waiting to see which approach (AMD's or Intel's)
gains the most acceptance before doing too much optimizing.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2005 8:12:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

See tom's hardware website for the CPU charts. part 2 has the
benchmarks of CPU performance from the lowest 486 all the way to the
latest & greatest. You can see performance across a variety of video
encoding and audio encoding apps and pick the best balance to suit your
needs.

Dual processor anything (physically, not virtual like the P4 CPUs) with
multi-processor apps will basically halve the encoding speed.

Also, if you do a Nitrogen cooled system, you can probably get the CPU
speed up to around 4.7Ghz stable like Tom did (which basically blows
every other CPU out of the water):
http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/index.html

---

While not directly applicable, the PovRay benchmarks will provide a good
idea how fast CPUs run for intensive calculations:
http://haveland.com/index.htm?povbench/index.php
!