Processor upgrade for faster encoding times

But which one???

I currently have a 2500XP Barton. I realize that in general, processor clock speed is not the be all end all rating and that Athlons match up quite nicely to higher clocked Pentiums.
But what about video encoding performance??? Should I stick with an Athlon or go for a higher clocked Pentium?? Will the Athlon architecture at 2.0ghz give me the same or close to the time benefits of a 3.8ghz Pentium??
I am just starting my foray into creating my own DVDs from DV tapes I have lying around and I plan to upgrade my current system in a couple of months. Right now I need to start budgeting and to keep my eye on the base Mobo/processor combination. I would appreciate any feedback I can get.

Thanking you in advance my fellow CdFreaks…

For a long time, video encoding has been one of the tasks the P4 was still the best CPU for. Nowadays, the AMD CPUs perform, when it comes to video encoding, about equal to the Intel CPUs.

I’d go for an AMD based solution. Why? More and more software producers are optimizing their products for the K8 architecture (the 64 bit extensions if you run in 64 bit mode etc) and for dual core processing. Although the Pentium D (P4 dualcore) also support the 64 bit extensions (Intel calls the AMD 64 bit instruction set EMT64), Intels implementation of these extenions is rather poor. Also, due to the architecture of the P4, Intel dualcore solutions can’t really keep up with the AMD solutions. The P4 was never intended to work in multiCPU environments while the K8 architecture was intended to do so from the very beginning. As more and more software producers are optimizing their software for multiCPU (= dualcore in this case), a good dualcore implementation might be a wise investment in the future.

Thanks for the response… I have a few more questions…

What are the known plans for media software that will take full advantage of dual core processors?? I understand about planning for the future but I am on a budget. It would suck to plunk down the cash for a dual core Athlon just to wait for a couple of years until software that can take full advantage is mature. By then more impressive dual core processors will be available with better pricing schemes.
Also, just for clarification, among non dual core CPUs - an AMD @ 2.4 ghz will perform in the same league as a 3.8ghz P4 for encoding??

To expand on the emminent Dee-ehn’s wisdom: Small differences in clock speed do not make a big difference in encoding times, nor does larger L2 cache or faster RAM or more RAM.

What will make a difference is a dual-core processor that’s got one core assigned to the encoding while the other is handling everything else. “Analysis” times in DVDShrink and Recode will improve a lot with larger L2 cache and faster RAM. To put that in perspective; When I went from Athlon XP-2600 OC to 2.2GHz to Athlon-64 San Diego 3700 OC to 2.5 GHz, my analysis times driopped to about 1/3 of what they were,(300% faster). Encoding times, (including AVI to MPG and other such tasks) were improved by about 50%.
Currently, there really isn’t anything that the P4’s can do that the Athons can’t do as well or better. Dual core Opterons are amazing everyone with their easy overclocking and excellent performance. Don’t be fooled by their lower clock speeds, the dual core Athlons will kick ass. And, whith more and more applications taking advantage of multiple cores, this will only improve.

Stay tuned for the next big Athlon step: 4 cores and DDR3. :eek:

Fifty percent improvement sounds damned good to me…
I did take a gander at the San Diego 3700 you have but was more interested in the AMD 3800+ Venice @ 2.4ghz. According to the advice you both gave me I would be better off spending the extra for the AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800 dual core @ 2.0 ghz??

The Opterons are most popular right now. they overclock very easily, so the only real difference between them, besides the L2 cache, is the available multipliers. Yes, go with dual core and also get some good RAM.

Thanks for all of your assistance. The dual core Opterons are too pricey for me.
Hopefully the prices will drop by the time I am ready to make purchases towards my new system. Untill then either the 3800+ Venice @ 2.4ghz or the 3800 dual core @ 2.0 ghz looks best for me.

Thanks again.

The dual core 3800 outperforms the single core 4100 in amd64’s in video transcoding and encoding and for the record both dvdshrink 3.2 and nero reencode are multithreaded, same with xvid encoding. I have seen the benches and recently some task manager screen shot that tell the story. A week ago I argued the opposite
side, I went out and researched it, I was wrong.


shrink benches go just about hand in hand with Xvid

Thanks!!! That chart actually makes it easier for me. It seems that the differences in time range from a few seconds to just under a minute for some of the processors I had in mind. A minute is no big deal for me so I wont have to pay too much of a premium and thus I can save money by getting a ‘lower end’ model.
If I had to upgrade now I would go for a A64 3800 Venice.

the x2/64 3800 is 20% faster than the 64/3800
at 14% more price, the x2 is a better deal
take a 3 hr encoding , that’s ~40 minutes

Yeah… but right now I dont think I have the extra $100.00 bucks for the x2.
IF I had to grab a mobo and processor now, as in my current system had a catastrophic failure, I would have to go for the less expensive option.

"the extra $100.00 bucks "
$280 vs $320 newegg

I really think amd is putting it to intel right now, they have dropped
the x2 prices and are going for market share and succeding.

Yeah, let’s wait for 4-core CPUs since even XBox 360 has 3-core IBM processors. :slight_smile:

It seems AMD X2 3800+ (@2GHz, 2 x 512KB cache) is affordable enough now at just a little over US$300. As has always been, AMD X2 is cheaper in the US (than in South Korea) while Intel Pentium D is cheaper in South Korea.

If I had to buy new processors which I haven’t done perhaps for a full year, it’s either mobile or dual-core. An even better option is to wait for mobile dual-core processors. Electricity is even more expensive here in winter. So no heating in the living room of any kind though there is an electric heater just 10cm from the PC. It must be about 3-5 degrees Celcius. I want a hot CPU inside each of my feet. :slight_smile:

then you need the pentium extremes

Too expensive. US$2 to US$3 per hour is the common wage here.

Since we were talking about footwarmers, I thought cost wasn’t important,
just lots of heat.
I am pulling your leg!

Look on eBay and get a few old Commodore 1541 drives. :bigsmile:

Way back when, I had a friend that used to leave his 1541 powered on all night to heat his bedroom…and it worked.

In the mean time, if you are getting close to where you are going to do a new system, why not get a big heatsink (not that expensive) and jack up the clock on your athlon xp to see how it does?. With a cheap 15$ xdream heatsink I was able to oc my 2500 to about a 3200 and stilll run memory at stock. It gave a nice little performance increase. Fyi I cannot ever remember if the 2500 had diffrent cores but mine is a barton. Thats with pc3200 by the way.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2627

Intel Yonah Performance Preview - Part I: The Exclusive First Look at Yonah

Date: November 30th, 2005
Topic: CPU & Chipset
Manufacturer: Intel
Author: Anand Lal Shimpi

As the successor to the current Pentium M (Dothan) and the predecessor to next year’s Conroe, Merom and Woodcrest cores, Yonah is a very important chip. As a mobile processor Yonah will bring dual core to thin and light notebooks, basically anywhere you’d find a Pentium M, you’ll now be able to find two Pentium Ms. The implications for mobile performance are huge, as multitasking on notebooks has rarely been all that great of an experience. At the same time, Yonah is so much more than just a dual core mobile processor - it’s a predictor of the performance of Intel’s next-generation desktop micro-architecture. Sure, it won’t have all of the architectural bells and whistles that we’ll see when Conroe debuts at the end of next year, but it’ll have many and that makes it a reference point.

The problem with the Pentium M architecture has been that although it’s traditionally done well at office tasks and obviously in the power consumption department, it has lagged behind the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 when it comes to FP intensive applications such as video encoding, and to a lesser degree, 3D gaming. With Yonah, Intel has promised to address those performance issues, and even more so with their next-generation micro-architecture later next year. But we tend to want to see things for ourselves, and Yonah will at least give us an indication of how things have improved since Dothan, and whether or not Intel is on the right track to replacing the Pentium 4.

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/1121/ubiq131.htm

Yonah “L” and “UL” coming after Yonah “T”

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627&p=6

Yonah 2.0GHz vs. Athlon 64 X2 2.0GHz (3800+)

This is what we hastily scribbled down on the back of a fag packet from the documents we saw.

No. GHz FSB Cache Cash
Yonah DC T2600 2.16 667 2MB $640
Yonah DC T2500 2 667 2MB $420
Yonah DC T2400 1.83 667 2MB $295
Yonah DC T2300 1.66 667 2MB $240
Yonah SC T1300 1.66 667 2MB $210
Yonah LV DC L2400 1.66 667 2MB $325
Yonah LV DC L2300 1.5 667 2MB $285

SC means single core, DC means dual core, LV means low voltage. Intel has tweaked this Yonah numbering scheme since the last time it told its customers what was coming. The T stands for TDP power 25W to 49W, the L TDP power 15W to 24W, and the U TDP power less than 14 watts.

Other products are on the way in April and later that use the “U” prefix. These will be the ULV single core - a U1400, clocking at 1.2GHz, and having a 533MHz bus and 2MB of cache at $260, and the U1300, with similar characteristics and a clock speed of 1.06GHz at $240. Later in the year it will introduce the U2500, a 1.06GHz 533MHz 2MB dual core ULV processor, priced at $290.

On the 1st of January, Intel will also introduce the 3945ABG Intel Pro Wireless chipset. µ

Dual-core ULV notebooks still far away.