1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

AMD 3800 X2 Dual core good for High Definition Video Encoding if so how good ??

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by No One Realy, Sep 19, 2005.

  1. No One Realy

    No One Realy Guest

    AMD 3800 X2 Dual core good for High Definition Video Encoding if so
    how good ??

    Just at the moment HD video is my hobby.

    Anyway i have Xp Pro. So i would think that would be good for a dual
    core CPU.

    But just wondering how much better speed wise would a DUal Core 3800
    be over my Barton Mobile at 2.4 ghz be.

    If you have any links to websites about HD encoding with the X2 ranage
    of cpus please link me baby.

    Thanks for any help.

    /PS What would you recomend i use WMV HD or Divx HD or other. I would
    like to keep the Native resolution which is mostly 1440by1080 in my
    Country of Austalia.

    Thanks for any info.

    /ps2 Does WME or Divx create or any other encoding software use
    multithreading and or Dual Cores abilitys ??

    Bye.
     
    No One Realy, Sep 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Just to make sure you get the message this time:

    For crying out loud, STOP THE MULTIPOSTING. Crosspost if you must, but you
    should NEVER multipost. You obviously didn't read through the links I've
    given you before so here they are again:
    http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
    http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm
    Noticably, though not factor-of-two faster or anything. Although I don't
    know of any sites that directly compare the X2 and the XP for encoding
    benchmarks (the XP's being considered to old by the time the X2's came out),
    you can get a bit of an idea by looking at benchmarks and comparing against
    P4's. Your 2.4GHz K7 would probably ("probably" as you don't say what speed
    you're running your RAM at, which is important for encoding) be about the
    speed of a 3GHz Northwood in encoding, give or take a hundred MHz or two.
    Additionally, it's would probably be about the speed of an A64 3200+, again
    give or take a bit for different codecs.

    Looking at the various X2 3800+ benchmarks (google is your friend for this,
    there are many) puts it at about the level of a 3.8GHz Prescott, and about
    40% faster than a 3200+. So the overall speedup is probably around the 30-40
    percent mark, codec dependent. Of course, a single-threaded codec will
    probably run slower on a stock X2 due to the much reduced speed, but the
    main three codecs on the PC - WMV, DIVX, and XVID - are all multithreaded to
    a reasonable extent nowadays.

    [...]
    Most, if not all, codecs should be able to handle any sort of vaugely
    sensible resolution. I would be surprised if any codec couldn't handle
    1440x1080. In any case, I would personally recommend an H.264-based codec.
    Quicktime seems to do a good job, but then you're stuck with a Quicktime
    format file in the end. x264 also is rather good, though still very much in
    development. If you don't want to go for an H.264 based codec, the next one
    on the list IMO is XVID.

    [...]
     
    Michael Brown, Sep 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. No One Realy

    No One Realy Guest

    Mikey iam So sorry i told you to Screw yourself. Forgive me. Iam off
    my medication :(


     
    No One Realy, Sep 19, 2005
    #3
  4. No One Realy

    Ed Light Guest

    If multiposting means posting the same thing separately in separate
    newsgroups, how come?


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org

    Fight Spam:
    http://bluesecurity.com
     
    Ed Light, Sep 19, 2005
    #4
  5. No One Realy

    Bill Guest

    Wastes server space. Each multipost is treated as a unique separate
    message. Crossposts get treated as one post with multiple pointers to
    it.

    Gets around filters that have been set to killfile crossposts.
    I generally KF clue resistant multiposters after they've been warned.

    Bill
     
    Bill, Sep 19, 2005
    #5
  6. No One Realy

    Ed Light Guest

    Seems like that's something from the very early internet days. Shouldn't
    kill a server nowadays.
    Guess nobody will try to post in such a way that you can killfile them
    automatically.

    Some people take offense at crossposting, and say to post individually
    instead.

    So I guess it's not important except for posting to unrelated groups in a
    crosspost.


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org

    Fight Spam:
    http://bluesecurity.com
     
    Ed Light, Sep 19, 2005
    #6
  7. No One Realy

    Bill Guest

    If they don't, they don't. If they do, I don't see it.
    Hobson's choice. I'm in the " it's better to crosspost than multi-
    post " camp. My filters are are set to drop crossposts to greater than
    3 news groups. More than that and the probability of the post being a
    troll quickly approaches one.

    There ya go. I saw mention of a crossposted message in another group.
    It hit my filter so I didn't see it although I did see some of the
    followups. The key to the crossposts were that they all had "barb" in
    the crossposted groups title. Now do you really think
    alt.fan.barbra.streisand is really interested in pulled pork barbecue
    sandwiches?

    Bill
     
    Bill, Sep 19, 2005
    #7
  8. No One Realy

    Bill Guest

    I know, bad form to follow myself up, but I got to thinking about what
    you said below:

    A lot of the worlds Usenet users are still on dial-up connections.
    They may have to pay by the minute connection charges. Why should they
    have to pay more than once to download a message?

    Did a little digging. Yesterdays total news feed was over 1 Terabyte
    of data. You can do the math if you want, but lets just say that works
    out to roughly 102Mbs a second. What goes in must go out so lets say
    conservatively 204Mbs. Thats a full feed in and a full feed going out
    to peers, other news providers, and readers. For one day. Ten days
    average retention across all groups, plus back ups, 20 Terabytes.

    That's a lot of 147Mb SCSI hard drives at a $1000 USD a pop.

    Now text groups are probably only one percent of that. The rest is
    binaries. Thats 5 DS3 lines at 45Mbs at least because there's the need
    for back up lines. Actually this is really conservative, because BIG
    news providers probably deal with oc48s and higher because they resell
    to a lot of smaller news providers. And they probably get charged not
    only for the data line, but for the amount of date that moves over it.

    Now you've got to store this data for a while. At 1 percent of the
    news feed the news providers can be generous with hard drive storage.
    News servers and server quality hard drives aren't cheap. Include the
    software that runs them. News servers aren't off the shelf items,
    they're built to spec. I've heard numbers of starting at a quarter mil
    apiece.

    This newsgroup, on Supernews, has 500.5 days of storage with a total
    of 12622 messages. Which is why you see people say Google for it or
    check the archives. Unless it's something relatively new, it'd probably
    been discussed before and the data is already out there. But, I
    digresse.

    The news admins have a saying, "It doen't scale." A few people
    multiposting is no big deal but it's a bad habit to get into.
    As more people start doing it the data retention drops because there
    quotas on the drives as to how much space a group can have.

    As an extreme example take a look at some of the binary groups. The
    retention there is measured in hours. Why, because some body will
    upload a 4 GB movie in 50 parts and one of the parts won't make it, or
    becomes corrupted. Then somebody will ask for a repost and 10 people
    might just post the required part and 2 more will repost the entire 50
    parts.

    Now you scale up to 25 people uploading 25 different 4 Gb movies. Some
    groups get so much traffic the first parts start aging off the server
    before the last parts get uploaded, so more people start asking for
    reposts. Next thing you know somebody creates alt.binaries.x.repost to
    handle the reposts to get the retention up.

    Say it's "The Way We Were" with Babs, should it be crossposted, or
    multiposted to alt.binaries.dvd, alt.binaries.movies.repost,
    alt.binaries.barbra.streisand?

    Thats a minimum of 4GB to 12GB of that terabyte feed going in the
    upload, who knows how many GB in the downloads.

    Lather,rinse,repeat.

    Bad analogy ahead warning.

    If I invite somebody into my home and they put their feet up on the
    table I'll ask them to take them off. If they take off their shoes, put
    their feet back up on the table and say there can't scratch it now,
    I'll ask them to leave and not invite them back. They're free to put
    their feet up on the table at their home and anywhere else that may
    tolerate that sort of boorish behavior.

    It wasn't putting their feet up on the table that got them thrown out,
    it was insisting they should be able to do it after I asked them not
    to.

    If somebody multiposts after being asked not to and they insist on
    doing it, nobody can stop them, but I don't have to see their
    posts/boorish behavior any more. My house, my computer, my rules.

    Y.M.M.V.

    Bill
     
    Bill, Sep 19, 2005
    #8
  9. No One Realy

    Ed Light Guest

    Nope! More wisdom! Let it flow!


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at

    Thanks, robots.

    Bring the Troops Home:
    http://bringthemhomenow.org

    Fight Spam:
    http://bluesecurity.com
     
    Ed Light, Sep 19, 2005
    #9
  10. No One Realy provides an excellent example of why not in this very thread.
    People who read a.c.h.o.a but not a.c.h.o will have no idea what he is
    talking about when he says he's sorry for telling me to go screw myself.
    This, essentially, is the problem (nowadays) with multiposting. The whole
    discussion gets fragmented across multiple groups. If it's a fairly simple
    question, then multiple people waste time writing the same answer, and
    people looking for the answer have a harder job of finding useful
    information. Additionally, I try and read all of the messages posted to the
    groups I follow, so seeing the same message again and again gets kind of
    annoying. In most cases I just don't bother responding to multiposted
    messages at all, but having already advised the OP twice in the previous
    month and a bit to cut down on the excessive multiposting, I realised that
    being nice wasn't getting anywhere :)

    The original message was multiposted to at least 15 groups:
    alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
    alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt
    alt.comp.hardware.homedesigned
    alt.comp.hardware.overclocking
    alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
    alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
    alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit
    alt.tv.tech.hdtv
    alt.video.avid_editors
    alt.video.dvd.authoring
    alt.video.digital-tv
    alt.video.divx
    aus.audio-visual.home-cinema
    comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video
    microsoft.public.windowsmedia.encoder

    In most cases, the message was off-topic or borderline off-topic for these
    groups. Incidentally, cross-posting to this many groups would probably
    actually have been beneficial to usenet as a whole - most of the servers
    would have simply dropped it due to excessive cross-posts :)

    In this case the main question (as far as I could tell) was where an X2 fits
    in on the performance scale for encoding, particularily with respect to a
    K7. If he had DivX or WMV specifically in mind, posting to the respective
    group (alt.video.divx and microsoft.public.windowsmedia.encoder
    respectively) would have been the best option. For the more general case of
    where does it sit for encoding in general (which there isn't an exact
    answer), alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64 would probably have been the best
    place for the message.
     
    Michael Brown, Sep 19, 2005
    #10
  11. No One Realy

    Bill Guest

    Hmmm, the post I was following up to seems to have not made it.
    Oh well, enough of something flowed in the followup to transport the
    gist of the first one.

    Bill
     
    Bill, Sep 19, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.