Input On DVD Rebuilder Guide

Sophocles and Donald
Don't worry about poking the bear. I made my point and it was relevant. Your results aren't typical because the two of you are playing with modified systems not used by most consumers. There's a difference between modified and designer PCs and the stock units that are factory built. Those are the differences the 2 of you are constantly bragging about. I was merely pointing out what was best for the average consumer and what they as a group in the marketplace tend to favor.

I've been using IDCT=2 to be on the safe side. I didn't get any improvements from using the SSE2 settings though my system supports it.
As you can see from the capture, there are 2 settings with SSE.

 

Sophocles,
Only one SSE2/MMX setting. However, from the capture it shows 32 Bit SSE/MMX and 32 Bit SSEMMX (Skal). Those were the 2 that had me confused.

 

Now we have Decoder Default. The 32 Bit Simple MMX (XVID) was the default in the earlier Beta versions, iDCT=7? That one left me wondering. Is iDCT=7 considered a default still or does one go with Decoder Default? Also, does Decoder Default actually use one of the other settings according to the need of the decoder in use?



Just curious as to how it works. I'm getting excellent results the way things are. The discussion on IDCT so far has clarified a lot.

 

Note the second setting from the top and the third from the bottm.

 

I'm reading 2nd from top as 32 Bit MMX and 3rd up from bottom as 32 Bit SSE2/MMX, only one has SSE2 listed in it. One can wonder at the difference between 32 Bit MMX and 32 Bit Simple MMX, is the first one complicated? LOL

 

Hmm, right I guess I overlooked that. I suggest that you use my settings since the Northwood core also uses SSE2 instructions and SSE2 instructions increase encode speeds.

 

As I mentioned before, I tried it with no apparent difference. I encoded the same files with only the IDCT settings different. I'll give it another try just to make sure.

 

SSE2 instructions should provide some speed gains however small.

 

The two Socrates mentioned are different one is SSE and the other is SSE2.

The two SSE/MMX versions are just different algorithms that use the same precision levels, one was designed by SKAL.

 

@jdobbs

As for the 2 SSE/MMX settings, is one algorithm any better than the other or just different?

 

For not paying attention, I left a little gift for Donald and Sophocles in the hardware section. Talk about fast encodes, wish I had one of those...
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/6/235934

 

Yawn.
I read about the AMD x2 beating the Pentium D EE some time ago. Late to the party Mr Bear.

 

As for Idct you should use SSE2/MMX for accuracy and DVDcompliance with a P4 or AMD 64.

 

fast it is, but saying it is not as accurate as the others is different to what is said here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=682312#post682312


concerning manually setting sse2/mmx vs default

default has been slightly faster for me:
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/234309

second test was done with cce
270 OPV matrix: angelverylow idct: default - encoding time 62 min
270 OPV matrix: angelverylow idct: sse2/mmx - encoding 63 min


athlon64 venice core

 

You have to be really careful in constructing quality tests for iDCT of MPEG. You have to do it from an original source that has no compression at all. I've seen instances where people use DVD VOBs as a source. You can't do that because you'd need to do some method of iDCT in order to get a picture against which to do the comparison.

 

Donald
Don't know what you were looking at. Like most of the time, with the integrated memory, the AMD did better with games. The Intel EE won out on the other benchmarks. So, the Intel will encode better and the AMD will play games. Still boils down to what one wants. If you're a gamer, go with AMD, if you want a computer go with Intel. I always figured PS2 and XBox were for games, but I'm sure the extreme gamers will disagree. LOL All these threads on video, I thought you might be using your PC for encoding.



In case you have trouble reading them, the stock 3.2GHz Intel is running Whetstone iSSE2 - 13286 MFLOPS and overclocked at 3.52 the MFLOPS go to 14458. The corresponding figures for the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ are 9895 MFLOPS at 2.4 GHz stock and 11077 overclocked to 2.7 GHz. Just depends on what you want to brag about, gaming or working.

Changed the capture so it could be read better. The FX 57 is the single core processor that gets all the bragging. Look at the low scores on that one compared to the AMD dual core and the Intel dual core.

Here's Sophocles' Venice Core for comparison. It doesn't stack up to the stock FX 57. LOL I know, it's a lot more expensive.

 

brobear

That's an old benchmark that was made when my CPU was running at only 2.45 GHZ, it's now more than 224 MHZ faster than that and my most recent scores to compare is 12,782 for Drhystone (a minor difference), 4387 (an insignificant difference) for Whetstone, and whetstone iSSE2 6982 (over a 1000 MFLOP faster a significant difference) I once broke 7000. The only reason I lose a little on the first two is because that CPU has a native clock speed of 2.6 GHZ and it's overclocked to 2.8 GHZ or an increase of 200 MHZ. The new FX57 sorts the San Diego core which is the same core as mine except mine has a smaller L2 Cache (i meg versus 512k). So you are in effect supporting my claims. My CPU is clocked at 2.664 GHZ which is an increase of 444 MHZ. Another point is that all of my bench marks were done with ZoneAlarm security suite, and Microsoft AntiSpyware running in the background. Another point to consider is that my Chip sells for $219.00 and the FX57 sells for over $1000. This weekend if I get a chance I'll post some new benchmarks.

Could you provide a link to the web site where you obtained the bench?

 

I conceded cost factors. However, both Intel and AMD are raising prices on their better processors. So the market is even there. I'm just glad there are "enthusiasts" who can benefit from some of their cheaper releases. I've been finding out that overclocking for speeds sake alone doesn't always achieve the desired results.

Sometimes PCs become unstable when they're overclocked. A bit too much and the system actually loses performance as it gains speed. A good analogy would be a cargo jet that had to drop the cargo to go faster. That's the reason for doing the benchmarks, losing or gaining for any given reason is part of the count. Hope you don't fry your PC trying to get to the performance level of the FX 57. I think we need to move this back to the hardware section. The Donald pokes and then you guys get flustered when I provide proof Intel is still in the game. LOL Here's the link: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/7/235934

 

brobear


Systems can become unstable when one over clocks but every CPU of the same core has the same potential. Let's say that the Venice core was built for clock speeds at the bottom of 2.0 and at the top to 2.4. Since they have the exact same core they have the same potential. So over clocking the bottom 2.0 to 2.4 is not a stretch. In fact since the FX57 uses the same core but with more L2 cash and it runs at 2.6 then there's a good chance that the 2.0 Venice can match it. And with the increase in clock speed also comes increased encoding speeds.