Encoder computer

[tominator]

Hi
I convert DVDs to WMV-streams.

I need an as good computer as I can get for as little money as possible.

From what Ive understood I need a dual core AMD cpu with at least 1GB dual channel DDR memory. I also understand my FSB should be as fast as possible.

I can buy stuff from http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/ and http://www.hp.com/.

I will be buying the stuff from their Swedish retailers.

Could someone please help me try and put something together here?

Thanks.

[Skelsgard]

The faster the processor and FSB and the bigger and faster the RAM, the faster the PC will be. This is obvious, but to create a PC destined to encode only, u don´t need very much.
Hell, a PIII 600 - 64Mb RAM can encode without a problem in X264/AAC or WMV. Of course, it would take like 15 to 20 hours to create a 2hs clip.
To play, that´s different. HD movies today require fast CPUs with graphic cards, to play smoothly.
If your final goal is an encoder PC, u don´t need much really.
Cheers.

[ilovejedd]

@Skelsgard
Oh, hey, you just described my PC. It's still running Win98SE, btw. Encoding with that is a moot point, though, since it doesn't even have a DVD drive and only has a 20GB HDD and 2GB free space. :)

@tominator
Like Skelsgard said, for plain encoding, you wouldn't need a very powerful PC. So long as the minimum system requirements are met, then, it will work, just very slowly. It's a trade-off between price and performance/speed. I suggest you set a maximum price you're willing to spend for this PC and then try to find PCs within that price range. Here's a thread comparing current processors' encoding speeds. (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=113181) I would, however, suggest getting a couple of large hard drives. It's a lot easier to rip a bunch of DVDs to your hard drive in one sitting and then, just leave the DVD rip conversions to overnight batch encoding/processing, than it is to 1) rip DVD, 2) convert DVD rip to WMV, 3) delete ripped DVD to make space, 4) repeat process.

[tominator]

Thanks a lot but Im afraid I might not have been clear.

My goal is to encode as fast as possible. Any recommendations?

[Suchy]

2 core Pentiums (most important)
DDR2 on DualChannel
Fast disc

[Skelsgard]

Same recommendations here.
Put as much money into the processor and RAM, the mobo of course with as bigger FSB as possible too, other components are superflous for encoding.
SATA HD of course.

Cheers.

[nibbles]

Encode as fast as possible for as little money as possible?
Basically that means that you want to use the other's statistics,
but you want to hit what I call the "meat and potatos" area
of the market. More on that in a minute. Some general thoughts:

2 GB DDR2 in 2 pieces so it's dual channel is affordable, though
1 GB DDR2 in 2 pieces is certainly fine for basic to intermediate
encoding jobs that might involve 2 pass CCE + 2 layers of motion
analysis and other de-whatever filters in AviSynth/VDubMod.

PCI-E system and a 512MB video card if possible so you can run
fft3dpu encodes. 256MB works for now.

WD Raptor 10K rpm 150GB SATA-1 drive, because it's like your
trusty old HP-15C calculator... balls accurate. (http://www.storagereview.com/articles/leaderboard.html) :)
You can use whatever SATA-1 for your second drive, just make
sure it has fluid bearing not ball bearing mounted spindle (quiter!)

Scope out the Vista64 specs. Be sure your choices mean you
will 100% compatible when it comes out, even if you choose to
wait till they release SP1.

To hit the meat and potatos part of the market, you're looking
to shop for A quality parts that have proven themselves in the
overclocking arena and have been out long enough to become
the defacto testing rig for many hardware testing sites and have
become very reasonable in price, hanging just before the steep
rise into rich-mans playtoys that dominate all the high end cpu
pricing.... and consequently rapidly lose their value.

Some examples. The defacto Intel rig for years:

Asus P4C800-E Deluxe for all your P4 needs. (ran hot)
Asus A8V-Deluxe Rev 2.0 for AMD64 cpus, replaced by
DFI LanParty UT NF4 Ultra D.

The DFi has phenomenal stability under stress, running
2.2 GHz cpus @ 3.0 and forcing memory manufacturers
to put out some amazing RAM that can run at CAS3 and 1T
and at DDR600 speed.

It seems time has has left the DFI behind. New meat? Well,
in the last couple of months... new socket AM2 processors.
Most likely a better choice for Vista and your future.

From those graphs, it looked like the Core2's were probably
too new to be meat and potatos and defacto and tested.
The same can be said for the AM2. It's not proven who's
making stable equipment. One option for the AMD X2 AM2 is
the newer DFI LanParty model with DDR2, which is based
on their earlier NF4 UT model. It looks like the 4200+
in X2 AM2 form is in the sweet spot, where cpus are just under
$200. Check out the guides and prices at Sharkey Extreme. (http://www.sharkyextreme.com/)

CPU speed.
L2 Cache
RAM size.
HTT speed.
2 Drives.

I agree those probably affect your encoding speed the most.
You can also split the source file in 2 and encode on two systems.

[tominator]

CPU speed.
L2 Cache
RAM size.
HTT speed.
2 Drives.


Thanks a lot.

Why two discs?
From what Ive gathered hyperthreading and dual core will only help me if the WMVs are encoded multithreaded. How do I find out if they are?

[tominator]

2 core Pentiums (most important)
DDR2 on DualChannel
Fast disc

Why Pentium? Isnt AMD better considering the price?

[tominator]

Same recommendations here.
Put as much money into the processor and RAM, the mobo of course with as bigger FSB as possible too, other components are superflous for encoding.
SATA HD of course.

Cheers.

Why is the SATA HD important? I was thinking I would never encode fast enough for a PATA drive not to keep up.

[writersblock29]

@tominator

Qouted: "Why Pentium? Isnt AMD better considering the price?"

That, my friend, is opening a can of worms around these parts: AMD users will say AMD... Pentium users will say Pentium... Processors get flamed and compared then flamed again... The entire thread digresses into name-calling and insults... And in the end, no conclusion is reached, and those who may have had enough knowledge to be helpful stay away because they don't want to step in it. (Actually, I was thinking of a word that ryhmes with "it.") Amoung computer enthusiasts, it's the equivalent of the old Ford-Vs-Chevy debate. It's also the reason why our mods ask that we not start any "what's best?" threads.*

BUT, having said that, I'll say that a dual-core will definately help you make your system as efficient as it can be. Yes, some encoders take advantage of multi-threading, and can speed things up for you. Even the ones that don't will run more efficiently on a dual-core system, because you're always running stuff in the background whether you realize it or not. Hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del and opening your task manager, you'll be able to see all the running processes, and you'll see what I mean. So even if all that's handling your encoding is one core, the other's freed to handle these tasks without affecting your encoding speed.

*I'm an AMD man myself. Let the flame-war begin!

Qouted: "Why two discs?"

When you only use one drive, you have to share that drive's bus speed with every process going on at a particular time. Information from your original files is fed to your processor/RAM, then sent back along the same path to return to the same drive to create your copy. Think of it as a two lane street, with traffic heading one way on one lane, the other way on the other.

But if your original's on one drive and you're copying to another drive... well, you've basically opened both lanes to head the same direction, while adding a new two lane road to head the opposite direction. When you consider that you'd be using a dual-core processor, it follows that you can now handle much more work without an unnecessary bottleneck with your hard drives. Speaking of which:

Quoted: "Why is the SATA HD important? I was thinking I would never encode fast enough for a PATA drive not to keep up."

The beauty of SATA is that you can create a RAID 0 if you use two identical drives. The computer will recognise these two drives as one drive (two 250GB drives will be seen as one 500GB), making at least one of the "roads" I mentioned above a four-laner, capible of using the speeds of two different buses. (No pun intended by speaking about buses and roads!) The impact on speed will mean that you're limited more by your processor speed rather than your read/write speeds.

PATA speed: Up to 133MB/second, maximum.
SATA speed: Depending on the motherboard and drives selected, between 150MB/second to 300MB/second in a perfect world.

NOW... if your focus is more on hard drive speed than it is on processor speed and keeping enough RAM on hand to let the processor do its job, then you're shooting yourself in the foot. Your processor, at 100% workload, can't work any harder without overclocking (which can led to problems such as lockups if not done carefully). So if you're not packing a lot of information per clock cycle, you'll never come close to taking advantage of the hard drive's access speed.

Hope that helps! :)

[Mug Funky]

my 2 cents:

encoding can be done overnight in batches, so speed doesn't matter as much as it might seem. this means workflow has to be structured to allow for delays, and also means a lot of manually juggling CPU priority when there's urgent stuff (and a fair bit of panic when it's just not fast enough...).

also, if you come up with a solution that can be installed on all the machines at your disposal and used at a moment's notice, suddenly you can turn an office into a renderfarm :)

that said, just go for the best bang for your buck. dual-core or at least some form of multi-CPU (even hyperthreading) is very useful, as an encoding process can make everything else chug to the point of unusability.

[writersblock29]

@Mug Funky

I absolutely agree. It may be nice to have a machine that blazes through an encode, but it makes no sense to encode something in record time only to let the computer sit idle (or off) all night while you sleep. Nor does it make sense to invest in little details that only really shave off a few extra minutes of time--if you can find something to do for an hour and a half while waiting for your computer, why can't you stay busy for TWO hours? Save money! Why not? :)

@tominator

Not long ago, I ran into a delema: My videography business started taking off. I debated getting the fastest system together that I could afford... then wound up, instead, simply building two mid-level machines (which I call my "twins," since they both have identical specs). While one of them is tied up with an encoding job, the other's free to play on. When both machines are availible for encoding--while I sleep, for instance--then all's fair in love and war; I get 'em both going. So while either machine was fairly inexpensive to build, I get a lot more done these days.

Here's how bare-bones my "twins" are:
AMD64 Single-core 3200+ 939 socket processor
MSI Neo2 VIA motherboard
200GB IDE primary hard drive
2 X 400GB SATA RAID 0 (a recent addition)
MSI ATI FX9550 AGP (using onboard sound)
2GB PC3200 DDR1 (4 X 512)
Antec case with 450W power supply
Run-of-the-mill keyboard and mouse
Run-of-the-mill CRT "Big Berthas"
Run-of-the-mill 2.1 speakers
NEC 16X burners modded with Mad Dog firmware (for bitsetting)
Lite-On DVD-ROM

Newegg.com's a valuble resource, so if you can order from them, I highly recommend it. (You can even get Windows operating systems--with legit serial codes--as OEM since you're also buying hardware and building you own machine. OEM prices are normally quite a bit less than retail.) I averaged spending just under $800 American currency per machine, but I'm getting more done than if I'd have invested $1,600 on a single computer. You might also check into Tigerdirect.com, and see if they'll ship to where you're at. Either way, I'd definately recommend building your own; it's not really that tough to learn how to do it, and you're not paying for ridiculas amounts of add-on software that you'll never use. Plus you can do some homework and find exactly the components that'll fit your needs, meaning you won't have to settle for what they give you simply because it's all you could afford. :)

[dragongodz]

i basically agree with whats been said.

just will add that if for some reason you do really want a dual core cpu then there are some pretty cheap ones. i especially like the new 3600+ x2 that AMD have released. a very cheap way to go dual core and from this review(as an example)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-3600.html
you can see its not much slower than a 3800+ x2 while being both cheaper and only using 65w.

[tominator]

my 2 cents:

encoding can be done overnight in batches, so speed doesn't matter as much as it might seem. this means workflow has to be structured to allow for delays, and also means a lot of manually juggling CPU priority when there's urgent stuff (and a fair bit of panic when it's just not fast enough...).



I encode movies for a VOD-service which means I pretty much encode 24/7. The work is stacking up and therefore I need a faster system.

I might even have to get two new encoding computers.. :)

[writersblock29]

@tominator

If you do decide to build two computers, you can get away with simply building two towers and hooking them both up to one monitor, keyboard, and mouse using a KMV switch. Most are fairly inexpensive and reportedly easy to set up. I have no personal experience with them, so I can't really say how well they work... but it's something you can check into. I didn't go that route because it's easier for me to keep track of what's running on what computer simply by keeping them seperate.

[Mug Funky]

just wait till ffmpeg supporst VC-1 encoding :) then you'll be able to automate everything and have better quality (probably)...

as it stands, i think WMNicEnc should be able to automate things to a greater level than vanilla windows media encoder. you probably already know that though.

[tominator]

just wait till ffmpeg supporst VC-1 encoding :) then you'll be able to automate everything and have better quality (probably)...

as it stands, i think WMNicEnc should be able to automate things to a greater level than vanilla windows media encoder. you probably already know that though.

What is ffmpeg?

I all ready use Canopus ProCoder 2.0 and it has a very good queue function. The problem is that I manually have to crop everything before I queue it to make it 100% correct.

Ive hear a lot about WMNicEnc. Would you recommend me spending time on looking at it?

[tominator]

@tominator

If you do decide to build two computers, you can get away with simply building two towers and hooking them both up to one monitor, keyboard, and mouse using a KMV switch. Most are fairly inexpensive and reportedly easy to set up. I have no personal experience with them, so I can't really say how well they work... but it's something you can check into. I didn't go that route because it's easier for me to keep track of what's running on what computer simply by keeping them seperate.

I all ready use a KVM-switch for my other encoding computers and it works very good. I can really recommend it.

[Pookie]

FFmpeg - a command line encoder/transcoder that can convert many different file formats.

WMNicenc - great application to convert files to WMV, BUT you have to know basic Avisynth scripting (worth your time to learn).

nibbles- I like those DFI mobos as well. They post on the first boot (sound of applause).