average encoding time for 1.1.0 build1c?

[andybno1]

now your readme file says that dvd2svcd should take upto 24hrs well I done Star Wars Ep2, I started encoding about 10pm I woke up in the morning around 8am it was doing a test avs encode in tempgenc, I went to college. Got back home around 5:35pm still doing a test avs encode so just left it, it came to around 10pm that night still doing the test avs encode so I go to sleep around 10:30pm, wake up in the morning and it said tempgenc had started encoding the video, I check with tempgenc and it said it started it an hour before I got up. Went to college got home again around the same time as the day before and its still encoding the video, so anyway it eventually finished encoding the video around mid afternoon the following day. So that must be a good 50 odd hours, how come it took this long to do SW Ep2?

[chainsaw135]

Depends on alot of things, one of them is the speed of your computer post your system specs and your log file from dvd2svcd and we might have some ideas to speed you up.

[markrb]

Still doing the test encode?
Now that is way too long for that part.
If it's the full real encode then it's computer specific and sometimes can take a good bit of time.
However the test encode is just a short section.

If your sure it's the test part then unless you are on a P2 then something might be wrong.

Post your PC specs and what you have so far of the DVD2SVCD_log.txt file using cut and paste, don't attach it and well will have a looksee.

Mark

[andybno1]

I don't have the log file, I deleted the folder once I encoded the movie and burned it.

Comp Specs:
WinXP
Intal Celeron 1.1ghz
128mb ram
20gb hd

thats just off the top of my head.

[markrb]

Ok with that setup yes you will be dog slow.
In combination with TMPG being the slower encoder of the 2 supported
you will take forever to finish.

Adding 128Mb might help some, but in reality your CPU and system bus are slow compared to most computers being used by the other forum members that are being compared against.

Going to CCE might speed you up a bit too, but again not by a huge amount.

Mark

[andybno1]

well I am planning on getting a futrther 250mb of ram next week, will that help or do you think I need to upgrade anything else?

[markrb]

That will help some, but do not expect much.

CCE speed is very much tied to the amount of ram (up to 256mb), speed of the ram and the strength of the CPU.

When you increase the ram it will help, but your Ram speed and CPU are both relatively weak for todays standards.

If you are using a motherboard that uses PC133 memory my first step would not be to get new RAM for the current motherboard, but save up for a motherboard that will take DDR. Then save up more to swap out that CPU for a P4. I know cost is probably an issue, but if you do have the ability to save up for these things and it's not that far off then hold off on the RAM unless it's DDR.

Mark

[andybno1]

I don't know anything about the motherboard memory, how can I find out what your on about?

[markrb]

Read up on computers. Best places to start to try and learn is like www.anandtech.com or www.sharkymachine.com or www.tomshardware.com

In short the only way to get a real speed boost is to get a faster computer. Even adding Ram to what you currently have will not do alot, although it will help some.

Something like a P4 2.0 or faster or an AMD XP1800 or faster will bump you right up in speed.
Celeron CPU's are not the best when it comes to encoding video. They are fine for most everyday tasks, but slow when it comes to doing what we do here.

Mark

[andybno1]

I am a little shocked when you say my computer is slow compared to others as I only got it on feb 13th of this year, I got it for £630 its a Emachine 140dvd. I have heard I could het it upgraded for £65 from where I bought it so I may ring them to se how much it would cost.

so you would recomend me getting a p4 2ghz and a motherboard with ddr?

[markrb]

For doing this stuff the faster the better. Get the fastest system you can afford. A 3.06Ghz P4 would be killer, but anything above the 2.0Ghz mark will give you a huge speed increase. Right now the P4 sweet spot seems to be the P4 2.53.

Like I said Celeron CPU's are fine for everyday tasks, but they are not fast CPU's. They are budget CPU's meant for the cost concious that doesn't need alot of speed. For instance business machines or those that just want to surf the net and do word processing and other light tasks.
However video encoding is a very intensive task and requires a much faster/more powerful CPU if you want it to be done faster. Keep in mind you can still encode. It will just take longer.
Just look at the cost of each of these CPU's :
A Celeron 1.1 can be bought for around $40.
A P4 2.53 costs at least $235.

These are just the CPU costs.

Have a look at this article on the Celeron 1.7Ghz. Even the P3 1.2Ghz beats it hands down.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1622

I am not saying your system is junk or anything like that. It's just that if you are going to be doing a good deal of encoding you will want to consider a much faster computer.

Mark

[chainsaw135]

Not to sound rude, but E-machines are junk thats a fact. Getting and AMD or Pentium system would be fine i think pentium's are a bit more stable and the prices have dropped, but like i said its your call.
You can go to PriceWatch and check out some prices also and they have a huge selection so you might get a good idea of what you want.

[markrb]

Chainsaw135 he can't go that route. I think he is in England. Notice that the money has a pound symbol instead of a dollar.
I do agree that Emachines are not exactly the best computers out there now, but I have no idea what else is around over the pond.

Mark

[chainsaw135]

@markrb yeah i looked at his location and didn't see anything, tho now looking at his post i can clearly see his pound symbol "£" instead of a $ sign:cool:

[andybno1]

at the time of getting my computer I couldn't get a pentium computer as they where more that I could afford (£600)

[ux-3]

At that time I bought my athlon 1700+ system. Encodes real fast and wasn't awfully expensive. In fact I payed about that in Euro. Often in Computers, investing a little more than minimum will increase satisfaction tremendously. One has to do both eventually to find this wisdom though.

[chainsaw135]

ux-3 i could not agree with you more, a little research on prices and whats out there is the only way to shop for computers. Like you stated you bought your Amd system for not much more, yet your power is alot better.

[andybno1]

I will admit I did buy my computer on the spare of the moment, and it was closing time for the shop, I should of just gone back the next day and toook prices down and then shopped around.

[markrb]

In the lower priced range systems AMD is clearly the price/performance winner, but have you seen the prices for the new AMD CPU's?
They are more then their Intel counterpart.
For instance the AMD XP 2800+ cost about $45 more then the Intel 2.8 and it's about the same between the AMD 2600+ and the Intel 2.53.

According to Anandtech these CPU's are very closely matched in performance.

AMD also recently announced that CPU's are no longer going to be the companies prime focus. This spells real bad news for consumers in the future.

Still given all that the AMD CPU's from the XP 2200+ down are very well positioned. I figure that the 2100+ is the current sweet spot for AMD with the OEM price around $90 for that CPU. It's about a $40 jump for a XP 2200+ and not worth it IMO, although dumb me has one and paid a bunch more for it.

I am watching closely this CPU shake out. I thought for along time my next system would be a Nforce2 board with an AMD CPU, but I am starting to have my doubts now.

Mark

[chainsaw135]

Mark i totally had the same thoughts last year, even earlyer this year but now i'm thinking p4 is the way to go. Specially for the high end cpu's even the motherboards for p4's have dropped so like you i'll keep looking around and when its time for me to buy a new system then i'll make up my mind:) purchasing whatever is the best value for price:)

[markrb]

I just found this review for the 2.0Ghz Celeron and thought it might be of some help in this discussion. I will quote a paragraph or two from the conclusion, but if you wanted to read the entire article then go to www.sharkymachine.com and remember this is for the 2.0Ghz version which is almost twice as fast as yours.

One might argue that the Celeron offers considerable bang for the buck, as the 2.0GHz can now be found for as little as $100. If we compare the Celeron simply to the Pentium 4 that may be somewhat true (the Pentium 4-1.6A is approximately $120 and the 1.8A is around $140), however when the Athlon XP is thrown into the mix we have a totally different story. You can move all the way up to the Athlon XP 2000+-2100+ range before going over the $100 budget, and the Athlon XP 1600+ only costs half that of a Celeron 2.0 GHz.

As such, we simply can't recommend the Celeron unless you're a diehard Intel fan and can't save up the extra cash to buy a real 1.8A-2.0A GHz Northwood Pentium 4. Also note that this statement is highly inherent on the retail price of the Celeron 2.0 GHz, so keep an eye out in case Intel goes into cost-cutting mode on their Celeron line.


Mark