Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

AMD 3800 X2 Dual core good for High Definition Video Encoding if so
how good ??

Just at the moment HD video is my hobby.

Anyway i have Xp Pro. So i would think that would be good for a dual
core CPU.

But just wondering how much better speed wise would a DUal Core 3800
be over my Barton Mobile at 2.4 ghz be.

If you have any links to websites about HD encoding with the X2 ranage
of cpus please link me baby.

Thanks for any help.

/PS What would you recomend i use WMV HD or Divx HD or other. I would
like to keep the Native resolution which is mostly 1440by1080 in my
Country of Austalia.

Thanks for any info.

/ps2 Does WME or Divx create or any other encoding software use
multithreading and or Dual Cores abilitys ??

Bye.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Just to make sure you get the message this time:

For crying out loud, STOP THE MULTIPOSTING. Crosspost if you must, but you
should NEVER multipost. You obviously didn't read through the links I've
given you before so here they are again:
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm

No One Realy wrote:
> AMD 3800 X2 Dual core good for High Definition Video Encoding if so
> how good ??
>
> Just at the moment HD video is my hobby.
>
> Anyway i have Xp Pro. So i would think that would be good for a dual
> core CPU.
>
> But just wondering how much better speed wise would a DUal Core 3800
> be over my Barton Mobile at 2.4 ghz be.

Noticably, though not factor-of-two faster or anything. Although I don't
know of any sites that directly compare the X2 and the XP for encoding
benchmarks (the XP's being considered to old by the time the X2's came out),
you can get a bit of an idea by looking at benchmarks and comparing against
P4's. Your 2.4GHz K7 would probably ("probably" as you don't say what speed
you're running your RAM at, which is important for encoding) be about the
speed of a 3GHz Northwood in encoding, give or take a hundred MHz or two.
Additionally, it's would probably be about the speed of an A64 3200+, again
give or take a bit for different codecs.

Looking at the various X2 3800+ benchmarks (google is your friend for this,
there are many) puts it at about the level of a 3.8GHz Prescott, and about
40% faster than a 3200+. So the overall speedup is probably around the 30-40
percent mark, codec dependent. Of course, a single-threaded codec will
probably run slower on a stock X2 due to the much reduced speed, but the
main three codecs on the PC - WMV, DIVX, and XVID - are all multithreaded to
a reasonable extent nowadays.

[...]
> /PS What would you recomend i use WMV HD or Divx HD or other. I would
> like to keep the Native resolution which is mostly 1440by1080 in my
> Country of Austalia.

Most, if not all, codecs should be able to handle any sort of vaugely
sensible resolution. I would be surprised if any codec couldn't handle
1440x1080. In any case, I would personally recommend an H.264-based codec.
Quicktime seems to do a good job, but then you're stuck with a Quicktime
format file in the end. x264 also is rather good, though still very much in
development. If you don't want to go for an H.264 based codec, the next one
on the list IMO is XVID.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Mikey iam So sorry i told you to Screw yourself. Forgive me. Iam off
my medication


On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:04:34 +1000, "Michael Brown"
<see@signature.below> wrote:

>Just to make sure you get the message this time:
>
>For crying out loud, STOP THE MULTIPOSTING. Crosspost if you must, but you
>should NEVER multipost. You obviously didn't read through the links I've
>given you before so here they are again:
>http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
>http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm
>
>No One Realy wrote:
>> AMD 3800 X2 Dual core good for High Definition Video Encoding if so
>> how good ??
>>
>> Just at the moment HD video is my hobby.
>>
>> Anyway i have Xp Pro. So i would think that would be good for a dual
>> core CPU.
>>
>> But just wondering how much better speed wise would a DUal Core 3800
>> be over my Barton Mobile at 2.4 ghz be.
>
>Noticably, though not factor-of-two faster or anything. Although I don't
>know of any sites that directly compare the X2 and the XP for encoding
>benchmarks (the XP's being considered to old by the time the X2's came out),
>you can get a bit of an idea by looking at benchmarks and comparing against
>P4's. Your 2.4GHz K7 would probably ("probably" as you don't say what speed
>you're running your RAM at, which is important for encoding) be about the
>speed of a 3GHz Northwood in encoding, give or take a hundred MHz or two.
>Additionally, it's would probably be about the speed of an A64 3200+, again
>give or take a bit for different codecs.
>
>Looking at the various X2 3800+ benchmarks (google is your friend for this,
>there are many) puts it at about the level of a 3.8GHz Prescott, and about
>40% faster than a 3200+. So the overall speedup is probably around the 30-40
>percent mark, codec dependent. Of course, a single-threaded codec will
>probably run slower on a stock X2 due to the much reduced speed, but the
>main three codecs on the PC - WMV, DIVX, and XVID - are all multithreaded to
>a reasonable extent nowadays.
>
>[...]
>> /PS What would you recomend i use WMV HD or Divx HD or other. I would
>> like to keep the Native resolution which is mostly 1440by1080 in my
>> Country of Austalia.
>
>Most, if not all, codecs should be able to handle any sort of vaugely
>sensible resolution. I would be surprised if any codec couldn't handle
>1440x1080. In any case, I would personally recommend an H.264-based codec.
>Quicktime seems to do a good job, but then you're stuck with a Quicktime
>format file in the end. x264 also is rather good, though still very much in
>development. If you don't want to go for an H.264 based codec, the next one
>on the list IMO is XVID.
>
>[...]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote

> For crying out loud, STOP THE MULTIPOSTING. Crosspost if you must, but you
> should NEVER multipost.

If multiposting means posting the same thing separately in separate
newsgroups, how come?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
spam@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Fight Spam:
http://bluesecurity.com

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

In article <JuoXe.253802$E95.38510@fed1read01>, nobody@nobody.there
says...
>
> "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote
>
> > For crying out loud, STOP THE MULTIPOSTING. Crosspost if you must, but you
> > should NEVER multipost.
>
> If multiposting means posting the same thing separately in separate
> newsgroups, how come?
>
>
>

Wastes server space. Each multipost is treated as a unique separate
message. Crossposts get treated as one post with multiple pointers to
it.

Gets around filters that have been set to killfile crossposts.
I generally KF clue resistant multiposters after they've been warned.

Bill

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Bill" <spamtrap@tinlc.lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d97c0fb2ebf4ea19897d5@news.supernews.com...
> In article <JuoXe.253802$E95.38510@fed1read01>, nobody@nobody.there
> says...
>>
>> "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote
>>
>> > For crying out loud, STOP THE MULTIPOSTING. Crosspost if you must, but
>> > you
>> > should NEVER multipost.
>>
>> If multiposting means posting the same thing separately in separate
>> newsgroups, how come?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Wastes server space. Each multipost is treated as a unique separate
> message. Crossposts get treated as one post with multiple pointers to
> it.

Seems like that's something from the very early internet days. Shouldn't
kill a server nowadays.

>
> Gets around filters that have been set to killfile crossposts.
> I generally KF clue resistant multiposters after they've been warned.

Guess nobody will try to post in such a way that you can killfile them
automatically.

Some people take offense at crossposting, and say to post individually
instead.

So I guess it's not important except for posting to unrelated groups in a
crosspost.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
spam@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Fight Spam:
http://bluesecurity.com

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

In article <gYpXe.253811$E95.200845@fed1read01>, nobody@nobody.there
says...
>
> "Bill" <spamtrap@tinlc.lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d97c0fb2ebf4ea19897d5@news.supernews.com...
> > In article <JuoXe.253802$E95.38510@fed1read01>, nobody@nobody.there
> > says...
> >>
> >> "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote
> >>
> >> > For crying out loud, STOP THE MULTIPOSTING. Crosspost if you must, but
> >> > you
> >> > should NEVER multipost.
> >>
> >> If multiposting means posting the same thing separately in separate
> >> newsgroups, how come?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Wastes server space. Each multipost is treated as a unique separate
> > message. Crossposts get treated as one post with multiple pointers to
> > it.
>
> Seems like that's something from the very early internet days. Shouldn't
> kill a server nowadays.
>
> >
> > Gets around filters that have been set to killfile crossposts.
> > I generally KF clue resistant multiposters after they've been warned.
>
> Guess nobody will try to post in such a way that you can killfile them
> automatically.

If they don't, they don't. If they do, I don't see it.

>
> Some people take offense at crossposting, and say to post individually
> instead.
>

Hobson's choice. I'm in the " it's better to crosspost than multi-
post " camp. My filters are are set to drop crossposts to greater than
3 news groups. More than that and the probability of the post being a
troll quickly approaches one.


> So I guess it's not important except for posting to unrelated groups in a
> crosspost.
>
>
There ya go. I saw mention of a crossposted message in another group.
It hit my filter so I didn't see it although I did see some of the
followups. The key to the crossposts were that they all had "barb" in
the crossposted groups title. Now do you really think
alt.fan.barbra.streisand is really interested in pulled pork barbecue
sandwiches?

Bill

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I know, bad form to follow myself up, but I got to thinking about what
you said below:

In article <gYpXe.253811$E95.200845@fed1read01>, nobody@nobody.there
says...
>
>
>
> Seems like that's something from the very early internet days. Shouldn't
> kill a server nowadays.
>
>

A lot of the worlds Usenet users are still on dial-up connections.
They may have to pay by the minute connection charges. Why should they
have to pay more than once to download a message?

Did a little digging. Yesterdays total news feed was over 1 Terabyte
of data. You can do the math if you want, but lets just say that works
out to roughly 102Mbs a second. What goes in must go out so lets say
conservatively 204Mbs. Thats a full feed in and a full feed going out
to peers, other news providers, and readers. For one day. Ten days
average retention across all groups, plus back ups, 20 Terabytes.

That's a lot of 147Mb SCSI hard drives at a $1000 USD a pop.

Now text groups are probably only one percent of that. The rest is
binaries. Thats 5 DS3 lines at 45Mbs at least because there's the need
for back up lines. Actually this is really conservative, because BIG
news providers probably deal with oc48s and higher because they resell
to a lot of smaller news providers. And they probably get charged not
only for the data line, but for the amount of date that moves over it.

Now you've got to store this data for a while. At 1 percent of the
news feed the news providers can be generous with hard drive storage.
News servers and server quality hard drives aren't cheap. Include the
software that runs them. News servers aren't off the shelf items,
they're built to spec. I've heard numbers of starting at a quarter mil
apiece.

This newsgroup, on Supernews, has 500.5 days of storage with a total
of 12622 messages. Which is why you see people say Google for it or
check the archives. Unless it's something relatively new, it'd probably
been discussed before and the data is already out there. But, I
digresse.

The news admins have a saying, "It doen't scale." A few people
multiposting is no big deal but it's a bad habit to get into.
As more people start doing it the data retention drops because there
quotas on the drives as to how much space a group can have.

As an extreme example take a look at some of the binary groups. The
retention there is measured in hours. Why, because some body will
upload a 4 GB movie in 50 parts and one of the parts won't make it, or
becomes corrupted. Then somebody will ask for a repost and 10 people
might just post the required part and 2 more will repost the entire 50
parts.

Now you scale up to 25 people uploading 25 different 4 Gb movies. Some
groups get so much traffic the first parts start aging off the server
before the last parts get uploaded, so more people start asking for
reposts. Next thing you know somebody creates alt.binaries.x.repost to
handle the reposts to get the retention up.

Say it's "The Way We Were" with Babs, should it be crossposted, or
multiposted to alt.binaries.dvd, alt.binaries.movies.repost,
alt.binaries.barbra.streisand?

Thats a minimum of 4GB to 12GB of that terabyte feed going in the
upload, who knows how many GB in the downloads.

Lather,rinse,repeat.

Bad analogy ahead warning.

If I invite somebody into my home and they put their feet up on the
table I'll ask them to take them off. If they take off their shoes, put
their feet back up on the table and say there can't scratch it now,
I'll ask them to leave and not invite them back. They're free to put
their feet up on the table at their home and anywhere else that may
tolerate that sort of boorish behavior.

It wasn't putting their feet up on the table that got them thrown out,
it was insisting they should be able to do it after I asked them not
to.

If somebody multiposts after being asked not to and they insist on
doing it, nobody can stop them, but I don't have to see their
posts/boorish behavior any more. My house, my computer, my rules.

Y.M.M.V.

Bill