Nero digital and Dual core question

[dvd_maniac]

Would Nero's Recode benefit from the new Dual Core chips or does Nero\Ateme have to enhance the code first?

What CPU generally gives better encode speeds for AVC creation?

[iwod]

Interested too.... any ideas?

[Doom9]

Haven't you guys read any dual core reviews? Unless dealing with a single thread application, any app will profit. How much? That's up to how the app has been written.

Now, right in this very forum you'll find the changelog of the upcoming ateme high profile encoder. Amongst many other things, this might interest you:
- multi-threaded encoding support

[berrinam]

What CPU generally gives better encode speeds for AVC creation?

Intel is faster at video encoding

[ChronoCross]

Intel is faster at video encoding
I disagree wholeheartedly. from my experience with encoding AMD has beat every intel chips hands down.

[Doom9]

Intel is faster at video encodingI like facts better than THG fiction:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=6

[berrinam]

Sorry for my statement without backup. I was referring to the anandtech reviews on video encoding with single cores. I should have provided a link. Here goes:

Intel chips are faster here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2382&p=6) and
here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2429&p=5) and here. (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=8)

Agreed, Dual Core AMDs are faster, as Doom9 said, and in the cutdown chip market (Semprons and Celerons), AMDs are faster as shown here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2395&p=5)

[Doom9]

the weird thing is that I recall Anandtech tests that show AMD single core is faster than Intel when using XviD (and the reverse when it comes to DivX5 and WMV9.. though in those cases one thing to consider as that at the time of the tests AMD didnt' have SSE3, and that DivX5 and WMV9 are heavily Intel optimized). Either way I think generic statements will never be enough.. it really depends on the application and cpu specific optimizations and with the latter, you basically cannot have a fair comparison.

[buttfacepoop]

I like facts better than THG fiction:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=6

Too bad AMD's only offers dual core at the top tier of their pricing scheme.

Intel has the revenue to push dual core even to the lower tier processors, which is why it's probably a better buy to get an intel dual core over the competing AMD processors in your price range if you can't afford the lowest priced AMD dual core.

[berrinam]

Either way I think generic statements will never be enough.. it really depends on the application and cpu specific optimizations and with the latter, you basically cannot have a fair comparison.

Agreed.

[lazyn00b]

Last night I benchmarked DVDShrink on a Pentium D 820 (2.8 Ghz x 2) with 1 GB DDR2-533 on a DVD ripped to hard drive. The results were incredible: 500 frames per second on the deep analysis pass (took less than 5 minutes) with cpu usage at 100% - both cores were redlined!

x264 v. 255 also benefits with "--threads 2": 9 fps (vs. 5 fps single threaded) with 80-90% CPU usage on 720x480 film source.

[dvd_maniac]

I am mostly interested in Nero Recode to AVC.

I have read all the reviews I could find (at least a dozen) and they all point to xvid and divx and Windows Media Encoder.

I do use Xvid to compress all my tv captures but I still have over 300 DVDs to compress using Standard AVC in Recode. If anybody with either brand of dual core test a small clip out for me I would appreciate it.

[chilledoutuk]

If you are a serious encoder you would steer clear of intels cpus as there very high clock makes them run a lot hotter under load than equivalent AMD’s.

[lazyn00b]

I am mostly interested in Nero Recode to AVC.

I have read all the reviews I could find (at least a dozen) and they all point to xvid and divx and Windows Media Encoder.

I do use Xvid to compress all my tv captures but I still have over 300 DVDs to compress using Standard AVC in Recode. If anybody with either brand of dual core test a small clip out for me I would appreciate it.

Hi, OK, so I just did a 5 minute chapter from "The Life Aquatic" DVD in latest Recode with Standard AVC profile (720x304 at 720 kbps), and the results were not so exciting: ~8 fps for each pass with only 55% total CPU usage of Pentium D 820. Both cores are being used, but not to their full potential. In task manager graph, it looked like one core was at 75% and the other was at only 25%.

Based on these results, I would consider going with x264, as it seems much more optimized for multiple CPU.

[lazyn00b]

If you are a serious encoder you would steer clear of intels cpus as there very high clock makes them run a lot hotter under load than equivalent AMD’s.

I think if you were a serious encoder who wants best performance per watt, you would choose the low power/high performance Intel Pentium M, although motherboards for this CPU are rare, they can be bought if you look around.

And I think if you were a very serious encoder, you would not care about anything but speed, and you would install whatever cooling solution was necessary to keep your AMD or Intel CPU running reliably. :sly:

[Doom9]

Based on these results, I would consider going with x264, as it seems much more optimized for multiple CPU.At this point, and until the High Profile encoder is added to Recode, that's certainly a reasonable decision from a pure utilization point of view. I'd still consider quality though. With dual cores becoming widely available in the 2nd half of the year, I'm pretty sure we'll see SMP optimizations in other codecs as well (XviD, DivX, etc.).

[iwod]

How did i miss that? It seems i have been following the Nero HP thread without ever reading the first post :P

AMD Dual Core will be the fatest without a doubt. But price / performance for encoding i think the best would be Pentium D 820. I honestly doubt any CPU at that price point could beat its encoding speed with proper Dual thread optimization. Can't wait to see the new Nero Encoder with Pentium D in action.

( The only thing i wish is not to pay for my computer electricity.... coz the Pentium is a Power hungry monster !! )

[chilledoutuk]

to put it simply intel sells overclocked CPU's. they use too much power and create too much heat and for what just to have the highest clock speed which means fcukall when you have a 20 stage pipeline.
The pentium m is the correct way to make processors. They are powerfull for there clock speed they use little power and subsequentally create little heat and thus easy too cool and overclock for extra speed.

Also the retail heatsinks intel gives out with P4's are complete crap in comparison to amds ones for heat dissipation despite them being much bigger.

Intel when there not trying to impress numpties with high clock speeds can and do make very effcient mobile processors that are aguabbly the best in the industry.
Why they are making processors that could alternatively be used as space heaters remains a mystery.

[iwod]

to put it simply intel sells overclocked CPU's. they use too much power and create too much heat and for what just to have the highest clock speed which means fcukall when you have a 20 stage pipeline.
The pentium m is the correct way to make processors. They are powerfull for there clock speed they use little power and subsequentally create little heat and thus easy too cool and overclock for extra speed.

Also the retail heatsinks intel gives out with P4's are complete crap in comparison to amds ones for heat dissipation despite them being much bigger.

Intel when there not trying to impress numpties with high clock speeds can and do make very effcient mobile processors that are aguabbly the best in the industry.
Why they are making processors that could alternatively be used as space heaters remains a mystery.

Um..... Sorry to turn this into a complete off topic discussion.....

The latest Pentium 4 , has 31 stage pipeline as far as i could remember.
As a matter of fact. Intel sell "underclock" CPU to prevent heat and power. it has been a known fact that intel could push the current chip up to 4Ghz + with ease.
And to be honest i think a lot of people are very satisfy with the new Sunflower intel heatsink. That comes with it since the E step core.
I can not disagree that previous core steping intel chip were hot. But latest has already improved. And it is by comparison hotter than AMD. But still not to a point where it is unmanageable. I would call TB core Athlon XP hot.
The major problem with current reviewer is that they put out the power usage and most reader instead of thinking it is a power hungry monster but a boiler.

I am not a intel fan, but comments like that doesn't do intel justice....

[plonk420]

the weird thing is that I recall Anandtech tests that show AMD single core is faster than Intel when using XviD (and the reverse when it comes to DivX5 and WMV9.. though in those cases one thing to consider as that at the time of the tests AMD didnt' have SSE3, and that DivX5 and WMV9 are heavily Intel optimized). Either way I think generic statements will never be enough.. it really depends on the application and cpu specific optimizations and with the latter, you basically cannot have a fair comparison.

oooo! ooo! pwned!

actually, i too recall many tests in the a64 3000+ to 3800+ generation did better than most P4 solutions... dunno about you, but i think at least i am afflicted with selective memory. ;)

and yes, the 64 made me an amd fanboy again :D

[3ngel]

As far as i've read on TomsHardware comparison of latest AMD64 and Intel64 single core solutions, the top Intel CPU beat AMD only in 2 or 3 test out of about 20, at cost of a killer heat dissipation.
On the dual core side (also on TH) comparing the new AMD X2, AMD beats Intel in every test except one or two with a only a fragment of heat dissipation compared to Intel.
Personally, i think that a manufacturer that changes Cpu Sockets like dresses, is at a minimum ridiculous :)

[dvd_maniac]

I have 4 PCs in my house. 3 P4s (1x2.8 and 2x3.0 478s) and one AMD 2800. From what everybody here is saying AMD is the better cpu. I like all the points made as to why except that my AMD machine REALLY sucks when trying to Multitask. If I got one of the AMD Dual Cores or even the Pentium D without HT and used a SMP based software would the multitasking suck?

[slow4mula]

Hi, OK, so I just did a 5 minute chapter from "The Life Aquatic" DVD in latest Recode with Standard AVC profile (720x304 at 720 kbps), and the results were not so exciting: ~8 fps for each pass with only 55% total CPU usage of Pentium D 820. Both cores are being used, but not to their full potential. In task manager graph, it looked like one core was at 75% and the other was at only 25%.

Based on these results, I would consider going with x264, as it seems much more optimized for multiple CPU.

hey guys...first post...lol...anyway

the other day i started encoding using the avc standard profile (since i see the available standalone players seem to only be standard ND certified anyway). on my p4 3.0 northwood laptop if i enable expert mode and leave the setting alone with high quality i get about 4-5 fps on the second pass...if i move the slider down to good instead of the highest quality i get about 7-8 fps on the second pass.

i will be upgrading to a dual core opteron or a presler soon (both overclocked) so i am too interested in dual core speeds with nero avc...

i would try x264, but i want compliance with a standalone dvd player and im not sure that will be offered with standard x264? am i wrong about that?

(edit: im backing up dvd's btw for the source...so using the standard profile the resolution is 720 by 4/5XX).