Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

:::Huge difference in encoding time H.264 between processors?:::

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 17, 2009 4:27:07 PM

Hey,

Are quad core processors best/fastest/most economical way for encoding blu-ray file format to H.264 files? How big of a difference is it?
Will buying a more expensive processor make a huge impact on encoding time in H.264?

Answer away ;) 
September 17, 2009 4:43:33 PM

rlubocki said:
Hey,

Are quad core processors best/fastest/most economical way for encoding blu-ray file format to H.264 files? How big of a difference is it?
Will buying a more expensive processor make a huge impact on encoding time in H.264?

Answer away ;) 


Check the CPU charts here in Tom's and from there you can compare the CPUs in the price segment that you're looking at.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 4:48:11 PM

well if your looking for the best Price/performance ratio then i would say get the I7 920. it will handle just about anything you can throw at it.

General rule of thumb is:
1. The more cache it has the better the cpu it will be.
2. Faster GHz the better it is
3. the more cores it has is (sometimes) better
4. the more threads a cpu has is (sometimes) better
m
0
l
September 17, 2009 5:09:06 PM

Awesome! Great advise!! Thank you

Rob
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 5:11:04 PM

no problem. glad to help.
m
0
l
September 17, 2009 8:49:39 PM

Looks like Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad Core is the winner for my CPU selection, for $189 in newegg, cant beat power/price ratio, especially in video encoding...

Cheers
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 9:04:00 PM

rlubocki said:
Looks like Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad Core is the winner for my CPU selection, for $189 in newegg, cant beat power/price ratio, especially in video encoding...

Cheers

If you have a microcenter nearby, get an i5-750 or an i7-920 instead. They have amazing discounts on those CPUs with in-store purchase.
m
0
l
September 17, 2009 9:12:25 PM

Thanks guys!! How about memory? I am really outdated on the sticks. A good balance of power and good price, the trick is to get a band for the buck
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 9:40:45 PM

If you go with the i5/i7, I'd get either 4GB (for a socket 1156 CPU) or 6GB (for a socket 1366 CPU), in the form of either 2 or 3 2GB sticks. DDR3-1333 or DDR3-1600 would be a good choice - either can be had for fairly low prices now. Make sure the voltage is rated at 1.65V or lower though.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 9:58:26 PM

That depends on if your board has a memory multiplier option for DDR3-800 - if it does, 1333 will work fine up to around a 222 bclk (higher than you are likely to ever need). If not, 1600 is definitely a good thing to have.
m
0
l
a c 117 à CPUs
September 17, 2009 10:09:48 PM

rlubocki said:
Looks like Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad Core is the winner for my CPU selection, for $189 in newegg, cant beat power/price ratio, especially in video encoding...

Cheers





Anand hit 3.25GHz on the A-II X4 620 with stock volts and cooler - and upped the FPS to 18.9.

Athlon II X4 620 Propus: $99


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2009 10:52:13 PM

True, but if you are willing to spend the extra $50 (assuming a nearby microcenter), the i5 750 is a better choice. At stock, it's faster, and when overclocked, it should be faster still.
m
0
l
September 18, 2009 12:08:17 AM

Thank you for responses, this helps on my decision!

Cheers
Rob
m
0
l
a c 102 à CPUs
September 18, 2009 2:57:14 AM

rlubocki said:
Hey,

Are quad core processors best/fastest/most economical way for encoding blu-ray file format to H.264 files? How big of a difference is it?
Will buying a more expensive processor make a huge impact on encoding time in H.264?

Answer away ;) 


More cores/threads are always good. Personally, I'd look at two chips:

1. The absolute best bang for the buck would be the Athlon II X4 620, as it is a decent but very low-priced quad-core CPU. All of the other quads are far more expensive than this guy, and you won't come close to the Athlon II's encoding times with any other $100 chip, as it would be a dual or triple-core and not a quad.

2. If you want a good amount of bang for the buck but want a bit more bang than the Athlon II X4 620 offers, look at the Core i7 920 or i7 860. Both are a little under $300 and will be considerably faster than the Athlon II because they have 8 threads versus the Athlon II's four, plus more clock speed. But they are almost three times as much and i7 motherboards (especially LGA1366 ones for the i7 920) are more expensive than Socket AM3 motherboards for the Athlon II.

If you are still wanting more speed, look at a pair of Xeon E5520s or Opteron 2427s as those give you 8 cores/16 threads or 12 cores/12 threads, respectively. I haven't seen rendering benches between the E5520 and Opteron 2427, but the six-core Opterons generally hold their own against the higher-clocked, HT-enabled Xeons in other applications. However, those are going to cost you a pretty penny as each E5520 costs $385 and each Opteron 2427 is $449.
m
0
l
September 18, 2009 3:45:29 AM

Hey,
Thank you for great advice!! I will definitely use your guideline when purchasing a new processor!
There are so many flavors of CPUs, person needs to be on top of this. Any recommendation on memory?

Thanx again!!











MU_Engineer said:
More cores/threads are always good. Personally, I'd look at two chips:

1. The absolute best bang for the buck would be the Athlon II X4 620, as it is a decent but very low-priced quad-core CPU. All of the other quads are far more expensive than this guy, and you won't come close to the Athlon II's encoding times with any other $100 chip, as it would be a dual or triple-core and not a quad.

2. If you want a good amount of bang for the buck but want a bit more bang than the Athlon II X4 620 offers, look at the Core i7 920 or i7 860. Both are a little under $300 and will be considerably faster than the Athlon II because they have 8 threads versus the Athlon II's four, plus more clock speed. But they are almost three times as much and i7 motherboards (especially LGA1366 ones for the i7 920) are more expensive than Socket AM3 motherboards for the Athlon II.

If you are still wanting more speed, look at a pair of Xeon E5520s or Opteron 2427s as those give you 8 cores/16 threads or 12 cores/12 threads, respectively. I haven't seen rendering benches between the E5520 and Opteron 2427, but the six-core Opterons generally hold their own against the higher-clocked, HT-enabled Xeons in other applications. However, those are going to cost you a pretty penny as each E5520 costs $385 and each Opteron 2427 is $449.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2009 6:07:07 AM

rlubocki said:
Any recommendation on memory?
Memory speed isn't nearly as important as CPU speed because the large caches in modern CPUs mean that memory is only accessed by a small percentage of instructions. For simple video encoding a basic amount of memory (say 2 or 4GB) will probably be plenty. But if you intend to do very much editing of the video then you'll probably want more.
m
0
l
September 25, 2009 6:15:43 AM

Thank you!
m
0
l
January 8, 2010 4:36:55 AM

Unless, I missed something, nobody seemed to mention using a GPU vs. a CPU. GPU's are exponentially faster, ATI has free encoding software for their GPU's called avivo. ATI also makes the fastest GPU's. Although, there is a for pay application that encodes video using NVIDIA's GPU's.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2010 12:09:52 PM

Well that doesn't matter now as the OP not even here now. ;)  3months late on saying it.
m
0
l
!