|
|
| DarrellS |
| Posted: Jul 16 2011, 09:24 AM |
 |
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 567
Member No.: 1061
Joined: 28-November 02
|
The E6500 took a while to run the test. Both the Q6600 and the I5 took less than five minutes.
Overclocking makes a big difference in encoding times. A stock Q6600 (2.4 Ghz) encoded the test file at 16.07fps while a Q6600 overclocked to 3.6 Ghz encoded the test file at 23.59fps. A stock I5-2500k (3.3 Ghz) encoded the test file at 28.50fps and a I5-2500K overclocked to 4.5 Ghz encoded the test file at 38.17fps.
Here is a link to the test results from the x264 benchmark...
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?ar...rtno=669&pgno=5
With my Q6600 at 3.2 Ghz, I can use the external encoder in Virtualdub with x264 set to superfast and encode a 640x480 file at over 200fps with mp3 passthrough. You have to use an aftermarket cooler if you're going to overclock. I've got a Coolermaster Hyper 212 in both of my machines. I'd like to get a Corsair H55 or H70 liquid cooler for the Q6600 machine. I could run 3.6 and maybe even 3.8 Ghz. I've run it at 3.6 for the x264 benchmark test but it wouldn't run using Prime95 to stress the machine. |
|
| rjisinspired |
| Posted: Jul 16 2011, 12:31 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1256
Member No.: 20008
Joined: 12-October 06
|
Those are pretty decent examples. I would be happy with those stats
The Q6600 is an LGA775. According to Intel the highest processor that my board can use is an E4700. I don't know if that CPU or any Core 2 would work in my board?
The price of it seems a bit highish considering you could get a quad core now for about that price. I've notice that with stores that whatever is older and still in stock is many times higher in price. My Digital 8 camera for example; some stores still carry it but for $999.99 when I paid $250.00 for it back in 2006, lol.
I have been thinking more about the graphics cards and they say you need DirectX 10 or 11. Hmmm I guess I'm going to have to eventually upgrade from XP? Thing is I don't want to just yet. There are unofficial packs for DX10 for XP but I'm not installing anything I don't have a clue about.
My best guess is by having DX9 I wouldn't have any of the advanced video stuff but for just processing it should be ok? Or is DX10 a requirement for just having the card? |
|
| -vdub- |
| Posted: Jul 16 2011, 03:54 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 613
Member No.: 27087
Joined: 24-February 10
|
Shame http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?ar...rtno=669&pgno=5 doesn't list any exact same setup difference for oc and non oc  |
|
| mayhem |
| Posted: Jul 16 2011, 08:31 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 62
Member No.: 24668
Joined: 13-December 08
|
Its impossible to cover all the variables, alot of performance can be affected by how your OS is setup too.
I know a couple years ago when I went from a single-core 2.93Ghz rig to my current
Core 2 Quad 2.66Ghz rig the difference was down right obscene. Re-encoding a test
file, I think it was 720x480 with the same codec, think it was xvid, and same two filters
applied for instance went from about 25fps to over 125fps, which was nuts.
Comparing my win7 laptop to the xpsp3 desktop mentioned above is also
a little bizzarre. The laptop is dual-core and the desktop quad, so I never
expected the laptop to match it, and it didnt, but I thought it would at least
be no worse than half speed, since the Ghz rating is about the same,
and they both have 4GB memory, and the laptop is actually a newer
chip type with more instruction sets,etc. But doing a test file between
them again, different file this time obviously, but the laptop got 52fps
and the desktop 130fps, which is more than double, even with the laptop
plugged in and the power-saving features off.
Not sure how I account for that, obviously it has 2 more cores,
but other than that the only real differences are the laptop is win7
and the desktop XP. Also the laptop has integrated video obviously,
ATI HD4250-based and the desktop is still HD4000-class though,
but a 4870 or something like that.
Even using 64-bit versions of vdub and codec it was still
slower than 32-bit XP, oh well, maybe laptops are just
slower by design somehow. Certainly OS-wise its different,
even with unessential services trimmed the laptop still
commonly has 35-40 running while the desktop only 20,
and thats with firewall and anti-spyware going, else it'd
be 17.
Certainly though, as mentioned in my first paragraph,
going from a single-core P4 to a dual or quad core system
he will see significant improvments.
I'd consider looking for a local store that does computer
liquidations, sales of "off-lease" systems, which is to say
used, but not used in the sense of individual consumers,
I mean corporate systems that get rolled over every couple
years, these are often well-kept machines that have gotten
pretty light duty.
At the place in my town here my mom got an off-lease
dual-core AMD-based machine, 2.2Ghz with 2GB DDR2,
320GB sata drive, dvd burner, 256MB videocard for
all of $240 with XP pre-installed, obviously no monitor
or anything with it though, just the tower.
For $450 they sell 3Ghz dual-cores with 4GB DDR3
and 500-1TB drives, with 512MB vidcards and win7.
Odds are theres a place like this in alot of cities, they just
might not have big fancy websites like Newegg,etc.
So looking for a package deal might be farther along than
trying to replace individual parts, by the time you add
up the shipping on all the parts orders. Plus you'd be
upgrading everything besides the CPU, the memory
would be faster, faster disk subsystem (I assume that
in a P4 its IDE or SATA1-based, not SATA2), better
video card,etc.
|
|
| DarrellS |
| Posted: Jul 16 2011, 10:24 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 567
Member No.: 1061
Joined: 28-November 02
|
| QUOTE (rjisinspired @ Jul 16 2011, 05:31 AM) | Those are pretty decent examples. I would be happy with those stats
The Q6600 is an LGA775. According to Intel the highest processor that my board can use is an E4700. I don't know if that CPU or any Core 2 would work in my board?
The price of it seems a bit highish considering you could get a quad core now for about that price. I've notice that with stores that whatever is older and still in stock is many times higher in price. My Digital 8 camera for example; some stores still carry it but for $999.99 when I paid $250.00 for it back in 2006, lol.
I have been thinking more about the graphics cards and they say you need DirectX 10 or 11. Hmmm I guess I'm going to have to eventually upgrade from XP? Thing is I don't want to just yet. There are unofficial packs for DX10 for XP but I'm not installing anything I don't have a clue about.
My best guess is by having DX9 I wouldn't have any of the advanced video stuff but for just processing it should be ok? Or is DX10 a requirement for just having the card? |
No, the Q6600 would not work on your board and if you could find it, the price would be way too much (the E6500 won't work on your board either). I was going to pick up another Q6600 when the I5s came out since they had dropped to around $180 and I figured they would drop even more but as soon as the I5s came out, they skyrocketed in price ($40-$50), taking them out of the market. I paid $224 for my Q6600 when it came out and my brother paid $209 for the I5-760. The unlocked I5-2500K is only $180 at Microcenter right now. The I7-960 is $230.
The I5-2500K or a I7-950 on a Gigabyte X58A motherboard would be the way to go for the money.
DirectX 10 is for gamers. As for 64bit, there are not many programs that can take advantage of it. CAD programs and the newest versions of Photoshop can take advantage of the extra memory but few other programs can.
The CUDA graphics cards make encoding way faster than CPU but there are only a couple of programs that can take advantage of it. Mediacoder and Bodaboom but X264 produces a lot better quality. X264 at the Superfast preset is as fast as CUDA. The main advantage of a newer graphics card is that it supports 1080p H264 and VC-1 video whereas your 945 integrated graphics doesn't. When software manufacturers start writing software that supports CUDA and the Intel CPU with onboard graphics then we'll see major gains in encoding speeds but right now, CPU power is still king. |
|
| DarrellS |
| Posted: Jul 16 2011, 10:27 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 567
Member No.: 1061
Joined: 28-November 02
|
Check a different page. I just linked to the page that listed all CPUs (OCed and non OCed so he could see the difference) and 2nd pass since that is where the encoding is involved. |
|
| -vdub- |
| Posted: Jul 17 2011, 01:59 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 613
Member No.: 27087
Joined: 24-February 10
|
Thinking now of upgrading myself but keeping to xp os only since win7 has to many problems. Beside many hardware devices i have are not supported or will ever be on win7.
Looking at the non oc on that list they even are good compared to single core, well above single core ht i use now. usb3 i could do with and need a pci-e for that and many other reason to upgrade. Intel had a bad few years not so long ago, and odd hicup again now and then. Never wanted to or need to oc a cpu, not sure any intel i have had could do so if i tried.
BTW. With new mb would it be better to go with more than one gfx joined together. This i read was the way many did a new mb a good while ago. Or is one gfx all that is needed now.
x64 or x86 unsure probably x64 since has more pipes. And use x86 for softwares that no improvement is made with x64. Would be all new to me and will see. Not jumping aboard just yet, will do homework first by travelling the sites, may take a month or few. New year sales maybe my target for a new build, egt cheaper bargains. Not a gamer so don't have any need for cutting edge technology usb3 would be the latest. Since that seems to be the best speed for pasing data between pcs atm.
Wow i just looked its all sata now, not many pata hdd drives left (if any at all). Seems haven't looked at new hardware for a while 
Mediacoder
Not many good things to say about that software. bloated, opencandy (tracking), internet connection (who has one on their capture, tanscoder or encoderdedicated pc !.
Transcode to xvid for exapmle then mux with ffmpeg where ffmpeg will change the file again based on its settings. Go look in container tab select ffmpeg and look at the options. For example transcode an xvid with I frame set to 200 and on ffmpeg set that to 100. Oh look and the output file is 100 for each I frame. Yes other ffmpeg settings also are added at mux time. Use another muxer there is no other ones that work good with xvid for example.
Ok transcode individual streams, no good since if need to copy audio it won't work with muxer and remuxer disabled.
Anyway this is virtualdub forum and reason why we are here is because virtualdub is so much better. Altough when all is said and done mediacoder does produce good xvids if you know how to get around the ffmpeg muxer. That is not to use any muxer or remuxer and demux away from mediacoder first then transcode later remux later away from mediacoder.
Then again what really do all those xvid settings really mean. If cannot understand each one how do you know what to set correctly. Since hardly none are the same id name that xvid normaly has in the xvid encoder settings. |
|
| DarrellS |
| Posted: Jul 17 2011, 06:52 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 567
Member No.: 1061
Joined: 28-November 02
|
If you stay with XP then your only choice is x86. Well, there is a 64bit XP it is sucks.
AMD has Bulldozer coming in August I believe (they keep pushing it back) and Intel will have something new at the first of the year.
The only need for two graphics cards would be for gaming. With the quality of the new onboard graphics and integrated graphics built into the new Sandybridge CPUs, a separate graphics card is not a must like it was a couple of years ago. Talk is, that in the near future, there won't be a need for a separate graphics card at all. Even for gamers.
The reason that I would opt for an I7 build is because the new motherboards don’t have IDE and they only have 6 SATA connectors. I have two IDE DVD burners, seven SATA HDDs and a WD MyBook and an external enclosure. The X58A has IDE, FDD, ten SATA connectors (2 SATA 6Gb/s and 8 SATA 3Gb/s), 2 x USB3, 2 x 1394a, 2 x e-SATA.
If you have no desire to overclock then a GIGABYTE GA-H67A-UD3H-B3 with I5-2500 and DDR3 1333 memory would be all you’d need to upgrade for around $400. Oh, you’d have to buy an expansion card for more HDDs. It has Firewire and e-SATA but it only has 5 SATA connectors (you could use three 3TB HDDs for storage if you go with Windows 7).
The reason that I downloaded MediaCoder was to try out the CUDA encoder with my Nvidia card. It was about five times faster than x264 with x264 set to fast. There is a guy on the Videohelp board that is really pushing people to come up with software that will use CUDA and Intel’s Media SDK. The technology is there for superfast encoding but no software makers are creating anything to take advantage of it. CUDA has been out for years now.
I tried using the CUDA commandline encoder that is in Mediacoder in Virtualdub’s external encoder but I could not get it to work.
|
|
| -vdub- |
| Posted: Jul 17 2011, 08:06 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 613
Member No.: 27087
Joined: 24-February 10
|
Ah so pci ports are still on newer mbs that is good. What is not that i would have to buy many controllers cards and fill those pci slots to use all the pata hdds i have. Have no sata ones and don't need any atm.
I would choose intel based board after all everyone writes for intel based mb and cpu. Better to stick with what coders develope for. Then at least know if something is wrong if not performing to specification the software expects it should do.
Cuda well if every mb is to have onboard and is future proof. Wasn't that the whole reason behing external gfx boards since in time time at all onboard gfx was a dead duck, maybe different now then ?
If everyone had onboard graphics like i would have an intel one with intel mb. Then there would be no cuda unless have onboard nvidia. Nvidia past history is frought with non fixed bugs and mb problems. I even had gfx nvidia that had bugs that nvidia stated they would never fix. Even though the user could easily fix them (after users found out how to). How can a company be so bad and expect customer loyalty when they give poor service to customers. Since then i have been with ati and everything is rosey working very well, no problems. Now i see that amd have taken over ati, i'm sure the gfx will be crap now.
Intel sdk may work if intel look at it, but maybe it is intel doesn't want to bed down with nvidia. Since it will the their sdk will need changes to adapt to cuda maybe. Maybe reason why no one will develope cuda using intel sdk. Or they waiting for amd to get their act together for decent ati offering with intel sdk.
1394a - take it back it should have been a 1394b (1394b come about before usb3)
I would try x264 with avisynth and add to mediacoder and virtualdub for testing. Not tried x264 transcoding yet to many variables just yet, besides all the new options to learn for it. But would be interested if same size file as xvid was pssible but with better picture qulaity. And play on all pcs even the older ones many use as a video server. Then i'm sure we would all know of it, since would be the new xvid repacement. I'm sure by then xvid team would have updated their encoder to be better again.
A reason i do not buy new released mb as its not until a a mb is a year or two old. Does it have its last microcode update for all cpus it can use. If mb manufactures updated their mb firmware upto five year that would be a different story, Buying new relased mb would be ok. They shoot themself by not doing this, i don't know any mb manufacture that don't update bios for five years. Another reason i don't like updating very often, feel like getting a raw deal, not value for money. |
|
|
