TMPGenc vs. CCE equal quality performance?

[ou8thisSN]

Hi, I've recently started messing around with DVDs using DVD2SVCD, which currently supports CCE. I've read some of these posts where people praise TMPGenc, because of quality and performance. I have dual Athlon's running at 1200mhz each, with 1024megs of DDR-SDRAM PC2100-ECC off. I know TMPGenc supports 2 processors and CCE does not. On a 2:16 minute movie, it took me 14 hours for the entire SVCD creation process using the following:
max: 2499
min: 1000
max avg: 2325
min avg: 1850
5-Pass VBR
224kbps audio
everything else is default

is my encoding time normal for these settings? is it running slower than it should? i'm doing this in win2k. have any of you, with dual processors, benchmarked speed using similiar settings in TMPGenc? is it substantially faster? what about quality... will i get as great as quality i get using CCE? Thanks for the help guys

[da franksta]

1)CCE does support dual cpu
2)you will not notice this, because avisynth (which uses most cpu time during encoding) does not. cpu usage it typically 60%
3)true, tmpgenc supports dual cpu very well (up to 100%), but is still not as fast as cce

On a system like yours, you can get approximately 1.0 RT in tmpgenc and 1.4 RT in CCE. Well, something like that.

Tmpgenc gives good results, but i don't think it can compete with 5pass vbr in cce.

Hope this helps.

Frank

My rig:
tyan s2460 Rev1.03, dual 1700, 1024MB DDR, IDE RAID 120GB, ATI R8500 retail

[ou8thisSN]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by da franksta
<<<
On a system like yours, you can get approximately 1.0 RT in tmpgenc and 1.4 RT in CCE. Well, something like that.

>>>>

For my specs, i usually get .98RT.. all the time, i've never gotten higher, and my memory usage is always around 500 +/- megs, does yours use the entire 1024 megs or close to it? 800-900 maybe? is it becuase I have my HD partitioned as FAT32 and not NTFS?

[da franksta]

i too get around 500 meg mem usage :(
perhaps i was a bit optimistic, didn't realise you cpus are non-palomino :o
the comparison cce-tmpgenc still stands, though :cool:

[ou8thisSN]

oh ok, so i should be getting, what i am getting? wow, palamino makes that much of a difference? perhaps i'll get two MP 2200s to stick into mine...

[Milkman Dan]

Err...those MP chips ARE palomino-based. They were (the 1.2's) the first Palomino chips availible. Check out some hardware reviews from the time, and you see them talking about how the XP's would perform very similar to the MP chips.

[Holomatrix]

HI, just wondering how you can tell how much memory is being used?
Thanks

[ou8thisSN]

in win2k/xp, push ctrl alt delete, and in the task manager, under performance, should list Mem Usage, with a pretty graph next to it.

[Holomatrix]

Thanks

[HeeD]

On my 2200Mhz P4 Northwood, 512MB of DDR-RAM I get slightly over 1.8 RT in CCE for progressive 24fps DVD, and slightly over 1.5 RT for 29.97 interlaced (more FPS=more frames to encode, thus slower). The memory usage is around 404MB.

It takes me 6-7 hours to do a 90 minute DVD from time I press GO in DVD2SVCD (4-pass VBR).

I tried TMPGEnc 2.51 2-pass VBR and after about 20 minutes it was 5-6 hours left (don't know exactly because I went to sleep)

I am using Windows XP Pro.