Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > :::Huge difference in encoding time H.264 between processors?:::

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

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - :::Huge difference in encoding time H.264 between processors?:::

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Word :    Username :           
 

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 ;)

Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

rlubocki wrote :

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.

------------------------------ Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference
Reply to dunklegend
------------------------------ Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference
Reply to dunklegend

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

Reply to warmon6

Awesome! Great advise!! Thank you

Rob

Reply to rlubocki

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

Reply to rlubocki

920's HT destroy's the X4 in encoding.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/def [...] =99&p2=102

Imagine how well a 920 encodes at 4Ghz

------------------------------ Core I7 920 D0 @ 4.2Ghz
MSI X58 Pro-E
32GB SSD, WD Blacks In R0
Sapphire HD 5870's In XFire
Reply to PsychoSaysDie

rlubocki wrote :

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.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

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

Reply to rlubocki

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.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

DDR3 1600 is the best buy because it makes getting the 920 to 4ghz a lot faster

------------------------------ Core I7 920 D0 @ 4.2Ghz
MSI X58 Pro-E
32GB SSD, WD Blacks In R0
Sapphire HD 5870's In XFire
Reply to PsychoSaysDie

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.


Message edited by cjl on 09-17-2009 at 11:58:42 PM
------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

rlubocki wrote :

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



http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athloniix4630_091109225733/20010.png


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


Reply to wisecracker

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.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
Reply to cjl

Thank you for responses, this helps on my decision!

Cheers
Rob

Reply to rlubocki

rlubocki wrote :

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.

------------------------------ Upcoming Overdue Build: Dual-socket workstation, ~32 GB DDR3, OS on a fast SSD, high-end GPU, all wrapped up in a huge tower case. Coming H2 2011.

Yes, I am actually still running the Pentium III 1.0B Coppermine in the picture.
Reply to MU_Engineer

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 wrote :

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.


Reply to rlubocki

rlubocki wrote :

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.

Reply to sminlal
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > :::Huge difference in encoding time H.264 between processors?:::
Go to:

There are 628 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them