best cpu for encoding blu ray
what about this Intel Core i7 920 £209
Best cpu for encoding blu ray
alchav21
#4
Well I have a Pentium 4 2.6Ghz, with 2Gb of RAM, and I make beautiful Blu-ray Back-ups. I use DVDFab and ImgBurn and can Back-up to BD-R and BD-R DL with no problems.
RJL65
#5
[QUOTE=alchav21;2492255]Well I have a Pentium 4 2.6Ghz, with 2Gb of RAM, and I make beautiful Blu-ray Back-ups. I use DVDFab and ImgBurn and can Back-up to BD-R and BD-R DL with no problems.[/QUOTE]
Only if that content had already been encoded somewhere else. The Pentium 4 is simply too weak to recompress Hi-Def originals to a format which can be backed up onto BD-R (or more correctly, that P4 can do that, but it would take a lot longer than even the most die-hard video editor cares to wait for). And the Windows Vista/Windows 7 performance assessment tool (which gives Windows Experience Index scores for the individual components and overall), useless though it may be most of the time, is good for one thing: It does its best at showing just how well balanced the performance of a given system really is; in the case of my new i7 system, the hard drive performance is now the weakest point while on the 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 I am posting this from, the CPU is barely adequate to run the Windows Aero theme and with a noticeably lower score than everything else in the system).
As for the i7-920, it is a great chip. But be sure to get a newer chip with the D0 stepping since it can easily be overclocked to at least 3.6 GHz with stock cooling and stock voltages (even on the reference Intel DX58SO motherboard my particular 920/D0 is running on). The earlier C0 stepping needs a lot of help to achieve this high of an overclock.
By the way, I don’t normally overclock my systems. Rather, I make minor tweaks to my systems in order to enhance stability (such as fixing the core voltage to the reference 1.2V as to not drop to levels that may become detrimentally low).
[QUOTE=cha333;2492455]fancy a i7-920 build what sort of times toback up blu ray bd 9 and bd 25[/QUOTE]
A BD-50 to BD-25 backup will probably take 5-6 hours, using BD Rebuilder. Just recently, I upgraded my Q8200 (2.33 GHz) to a Q9650 (3.00 GHz), and it cut the time from 10 to 7 hours.
You can use 1-pass method and it might cut the time in half, but quality won’t be as good. Overclocking is also a possibility.
alchav21
#8
[QUOTE=Some Random Guy;2492464]A BD-50 to BD-25 backup will probably take 5-6 hours, using BD Rebuilder. Just recently, I upgraded my Q8200 (2.33 GHz) to a Q9650 (3.00 GHz), and it cut the time from 10 to 7 hours.
You can use 1-pass method and it might cut the time in half, but quality won’t be as good. Overclocking is also a possibility.[/QUOTE]
You guys are right, it was taking too long to re-compress the Video and you would also lose some of the resolution. So I don’t re-compress anything, I do Movie Only and either burn a BD-R or BD-R DL. This only takes me a couple of hours, one hour to take the Video Files off and one hour to burn. 
RJL65
#9
[QUOTE=Some Random Guy;2492464]Just recently, I upgraded my Q8200 (2.33 GHz) to a Q9650 (3.00 GHz), and it cut the time from 10 to 7 hours.[/QUOTE]
Part of the improvement that you’re getting involved tripling your CPU’s L2 cache from 4MB to 12MB when you upgrade from a Q8200 to a Q9650. The rest involved an increase in the stock (non-overclocked) core frequency.
Mark_Venture
#10
[QUOTE=cha333;2492455]fancy a i7-920 build what sort of times toback up blu ray bd 9 and bd 25[/QUOTE]Using BDRebuilder set with default settings on my I7 860, most movies take 3 to 4 hours to backup/re-encode various BD’s to SL and DL DVDs*. Only a couple have taken about 5 or 6 hours. If I switched my HD’s from the WD Caviar Green to faster ones I imagine I could shave a little more time off.
I would think an I7-920 would be even faster.
(*NOTE: does not include RIP or BURN time. Done under Windows XP Pro 32bit, see my signature for system details.)
RJL65
#11
[QUOTE=Mark_Venture;2495871]I would think an I7-920 would be even faster.[/QUOTE]
If anything, a stock i7-920 is slightly slower than a stock i7-860 for this re-rendering. This is mainly because a stock 920 runs at a slightly lower clock speed than a stock 860 (2.66GHz versus 2.8GHz) and because most HD video re-rendering software takes no advantage of an additional memory controller channel (in fact, a 920 in triple-channel memory controller mode has higher overall latency and barely higher memory throughput than an 860 in dual-channel mode at the same nominal memory speed). Hence, the 920 is popular for overclockers.