What processor for DVD Shrink?

[madoka5]

I have a neighbor that has asked me to build her a computer capable of backing up her DVD collection so she can travel with them. Otherwise she will only be doing light web surfing, email, Word, etc. The most processor intensive task she would be doing is DVD Shrink.

1. I was wondering if a Celeron would be much slower than a P4 as cost is an issue.

2. While I have your attention, I noticed that my 2400+ Sempron is actually faster than my P4 3.2 Prescott at encoding video using DVD Shrink 3.2 with both the same settings. Something to be concerned about?

Thanks in advance.

[rpboy]

Originally posted by madoka5
The most processor intensive task she would be doing is DVD Shrink.

1. I was wondering if a Celeron would be much slower than a P4 as cost is an issue.
Then why not go with an AMD processor?

Since cost is an issue, going with an Athlon XP processor (like the 3200+) will be an inexpensive solution that will handle everything she needs it to do. My old Athlon XP 2100+ had no problems with DVD Shrink. In fact, I can't say that I've noticed a performance increase on my P4 3.0 GHz system now.

[rpboy]

Originally posted by madoka5
2. While I have your attention, I noticed that my 2400+ Sempron is actually faster than my P4 3.2 Prescott at encoding video using DVD Shrink 3.2 with both the same settings. Something to be concerned about?
Do you have hyper-threading enabled?

I did notice that if I disabled hyper-threading on my P4, DVD Shrink seemed to finish a little faster. I didn't do any extensive tests to see if that held true for many DVDs or many runs. Just something I noticed when I was trying to troubleshoot another problem on my system.

The Sempron processor is also built on AMD's 64 bit processors as I recall (with the 64 bit extensions turned off). It could be that the advanced core (which did run 32 bit code faster than native 32 bit processors) is providing that speed bump. It could also be that improved memory cache on those processors.

[mrbass]

Personally in my testing the I/O was the limiting factor not the CPU. However, that was doing it from the dvd-rom drive. So if you ripped it and are processing it from the hd then yes the CPU would be used 100% of the time. http://mrbass.org/dvdshrink/ripspeed

[Paulcat]

In any application where there is a lot of math, AMD kicks the crap out of Intel.

Hyper-threading is designed for multi-tasking, something I doubt a lot of people do here when processing video :-), if you leave it off and do one thing at a time, you'll get better results.

p.s. My system is an Athlon XP 1900+, not the latest, but if I can play Doom3 and Half-Life 2 on it, I'm happy!

[madoka5]

Originally posted by rpboy
Then why not go with an AMD processor?

Thanks for the replies guys. She wants to stick to Intel and already has a 478 socket motherboard. Otherwise, yes, I would go AMD.

Also some more details of my own P4 v. Sempron problem:

On the same disc the P4 will take upwards of 40 more minutes encoding the video. Even though it's a P4 3.2, 300gig SATA HD, 1 gig Geil Ultra memory vs. the Sempron 2400+, 250gig UATA HD, 512mb Kingston value ram. The disappointing thing is that the P4 processor alone cost almost as much as the entire Sempron setup and can't copy a DVD any faster than the Sempron.

Am I too conclude that for DVD Shrink purposes the AMDs are much, much faster than Intels?

[Chetwood]

Originally posted by madoka5

2. While I have your attention, I noticed that my 2400+ Sempron is actually faster than my P4 3.2 Prescott at encoding video using DVD Shrink 3.2 with both the same settings. Something to be concerned about?


Nope, only that the whole Intel marketing crap where they kept lying about that GHZ is everything finally flew in their face. Back since the day my AMD Duron 800 Mhz outperformed my Celeron 850 Mhz I stuck with AMD and I'm quite happy with it. After bitching about 'true' GHZ for years Intel started switching to a new procssor naming scheme, go figure.

[NaN]

@Madoka5: you don't seem to listen carefully to the people you ask. MrBass already gave you an excellent answer including a link.

The encoding speed is set by your dvd-rom drive. I'm 100% sure if you put the drive from your AMD machine in your Intel box, you will see a speed increase.

Some infos to the P4 vs. AMD war: the P4s only 2 great strengths are video and multitasking. Hyperthreading uses unused ressources of the cpu and should *always* stay on, otherwise these ressources can never be used.

The Athlon64 is generally the more efficient aka faster cpu with the exception of SSE1/2 optimized video encoding. Furthermore it needs less power, runs cooler. The Sempron >3100+ is great value for the money.

Decide for yourself.

Cheers, NaN

[Surf]

My AMD XP 2000+ glows in the dark. :D :D .

Since this is about cpus, I'm curious about Athlon64. I was told that this cpu can process a 32bit prog while perform another 32bit prog....true? I can have Decrypter at full speed and DVDshrink transcoding another movie? *still doubtful*

[TPoise]

Originally posted by Surf
I'm curious about Athlon64. I was told that this cpu can process a 32bit prog while perform another 32bit prog....true? I can have Decrypter at full speed and DVDshrink transcoding another movie? *still doubtful*

That's not true. However, dual core Athlon64s are on the horizon. Then you'll be able to do something like that (provided the transcoder isn't multithreaded). Dual Core CPUs will be basically like having 2 CPUs, not a pseudo-CPU like HyperThreading is.

[fewtch]

Originally posted by Surf
My AMD XP 2000+ glows in the dark. :D :D .
Heh... my Thunderbird 1.2GHz makes my entire PC glow in the dark... :p

[Abnormal1]

Im curious, when you say
She wants to stick to Intel and already has a 478 socket motherboard
Does this mean that you have just bought a motherboard or that she already has a PC and that you are using the Motherboard from that.

In fact does she currently have a PC and what is it.

Abnormal1

[shevegen]

i am using AMD whenever i have the chance to choose