good processor for video converting

[Bling20]

So I have been converting MKV to WMV and my cpu is hitting 100% every now and again. I was wondering what is a good processor for the money for this type of stuff? Im needing an AMD AM2 socket anyone have any input? this is what i am currently running
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103206
Thanks

[Dark Shikari]

If your CPU wasn't maxing out during encoding, I'd think something was wrong.

[peterhuh]

erm.. i think this should be in the PC Hardware & Software section.

anyway, your processor usage is suppose to be kept at 100%, with it kernel time near 0. If it izzn't, you might have a bottleneck somewhere. Most of the time, if you dealing with very high bitrates, the harddisk IO usually is to blame. If its not high bitrate stuffs, then this might means the software you used for converting does not make full utilization of your two cores.

generally, when buying processor for transcoding stuffs, there is this pharse going around, "buy the fastest chip you can afford". k, if you want the real answer, its the Intel Q9450, and i have been waiting like forever for this processor... If you arn't switching to Intel, then maybe I suggest you try O/C your processor to 3.0GHz first? no harm trying, since you are planning to buy a new one anywayz.

[Adub]

A good, cheap, overclockable chip is the Core 2 Quad Q6600. Lots of encoders use it, it comes in at under $300 (sometimes even $250), and overclocks like a dream (provided you have the motherboard and such to support it).

Of course, this is if you are willing to get an Intel, which has been kicking ass and taking names in the encoding field recently.

If you want to stick with AMD, someone else can help you, probably Sharktooth.

[soapBAR]

hi :). along these lines; i've been doing A LOT of video encoding (long story short, converting my large dvd + vhs collection to Xvid/DivX). the amount of time i'll be putting into this makes it worth getting a new processor, but not a new computer entirely (unfortunately, this means intel's out - it's an AMD mobo)

is it worth getting a mid-ranged opteron, or should i get a high-end athlon (quad core et al)? the prices are fairly similar. i've heard server processors are much much better than desktop cpus because of larger caches and less performance loss under a full load, but i've been unable to find a benchmark test directly comparing an athlon and an opteron in any cinebench/etc benchmarks. i don't mind losing processing power in any other department, i only need the juice for video encoding :).

thanks

[foxyshadis]

In video encoding, more cores is generally better than more speed these days. Cache size makes a few % difference, while twice the cores can add 80-90% speedup, if your processing chain is wholly multithreaded.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Indeed. Quad core processors typically FLY in video encoding. The real question for you is whether or not a Phenom (quad core Athlon) will work with your motherboard.

If you're not sure, which board do you currently have?

If you've got a little extra cash, don't be afraid to do a platform shift. A good Intel motherboard costs like $90, and the Q6600 is really unbeatable in encoding performance for your $ these days. At stock 2.4 GHz it's a monster, and at 3GHz (which is stupid easy, even with a stock cooler) it's even better.

You would just have to replace the motherboard and CPU, since you have an AM2 X2 already, I assume you've got DDR2 memory and a PCIe video card.

So either get a Phenom for your system, or switch to a Q6600.

~MiSfit

[Ar3d]

Try the core 2 quad and a good video card for editing. Matrox is one of the good hardware for editing although it cost high from the usual ordinary video card. They had 1gb+ you can choose thats why it was more expensive.

[communist]

Try the core 2 quad and a good video card for editing. Matrox is one of the good hardware for editing although it cost high from the usual ordinary video card. They had 1gb+ you can choose thats why it was more expensive.

There is little point in buying a Matrox card for conversions (the OP is not talking about editing). Memory is very cheap and even cheap cards can come with 1GB memory (I saw one for 70-80€).
Unless you're using some specific application that a Matrox card would work with and enhance workflow there is no reason to get one of those specialised and overly expensive cards.

[Konrad Klar]

Try the core 2 quad and a good video card for editing. Matrox is one of the good hardware for editing although it cost high from the usual ordinary video card. They had 1gb+ you can choose thats why it was more expensive.

What special is in Matrox cards that makes them good for editing?
I'm just curious.
Thanks in advance.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Gimmicky.

Unless I see some hard evidence that this mysterious Matrox card improves editing performance, I'm not having any of it.

CPU, memory (bandwidth), and I/O are the bottlenecks.

For encoding, it's usually the CPU. Even with 8 cores.

~MiSfit