Input On DVD Rebuilder Guide

Brobear,
Unfortunately for Intel one synthetic benchmark for their SSE2 performance does not help when loosing almost every other test. AMD has always been faster at SSE than SSE2. Sisoft has a note to the effect in the test area.
CCE belongs to AMD hands down, as well as gaming and folding and any real world uses one can think of. The only real world test that shows promise that I saw was DVDshrink was slightly faster for Intel when the EE was running at 3.2 and the AMD was at 2.4. They even lost that when both were OCed.

 

I'll ask the same thing that Sophocles asked of me. Where are the benchmarks to support your assumptions? I've seen several. Seems even the one where Comp Power Users did the skewed one with a gaming platform, Intel still came out ahead in the work category.

BTW, I feel sorry for the purchasers of the high end AMD processors. According to Sophocles they're getting seriously hosed. All they need do is buy the cheaper one. Even if they have to pay someone to do the overclocking, it would still be cheaper. That is if there aren't any differences. I'm sure AMD would be more than happy to disagree that one can have the same level of performance with a cheaper Venice core than with their higher end FX 57 processor.

Just a little note for the reader that doesn't understand overclocking: Factory components and BIOS don't readily lend themselves to the process. After all, the retail manufacturer is looking for a stable platform that lasts. They're not into "racing" and designer PCs, except for promotional purposes. Overclocking is best done with aftermarket components designed for the independent builder or enthusiast. So don't think you can get into overclocking with your factory Sony, Gateway, Dell or whatever. Overclocking is mainly a pursuit left to enthusiasts that know what they're doing or willing to take the chance of blowing their system. [bold]This is about building designer PCs, nothing more.[/bold]

I'm waiting to see Sophocles new benchmarks meet even the stock benchs on the FX. His Venice will be smoking out of the case if he tries to achieve the specs of the overclocked FX. Take pictures, not everyday you see a "mad scientist" (PC enthusiast) injecting liquid nitrogen into a PC case. LOL

Gentlemen. I believe you need to move your discussion back to the hardware section. As long as there is competition, there is going to be a disagreement over who has the best chip, who has the best setup, and who is going to win whatever contrived test is being set up. [bold]This is the last I have to say about the matter in threads off topic. Be more than glad to chat with you in the hardware section.[/bold]

 

following questions on and discussions about the impact iDCT has on the conversion speed, i decided to test all available iDCTs in rebuilder (pro):



i converted Van Helsing once more - 126 min main movie + 35 extras - on an athlon64 @ 3500, 1gb ram with cce 270 in OPV mode

all conversion were done via batch-processing and of course the pc wasnt touched at all

idct

decoder default 66 min
32 bit mmx 67 min
32 bit sse/mmx 67 min
64 bit floating point 81 min
64 bit IEEE-1180 reference 83 min
32 bit sse2/mmx 67 min
32 bit ssemmx idct (skal) 64 min
32 bit simple mmx (xvid) 61 min


it is no wonder that the most precise modes (64bit) take longest but ~1/3 speed difference is quite a lot and i guess and wont ever use them until i got myself a dual-core 6ghz machine

xvid idct being the winner is no surprise either - it is considered very fast but not as good/precise


according to rockas the default settings is:

jdobbs on: 32 bit ssemmx idct (skal):

this one is runner-up in terms of speed; the quality of which i cannot comment on as i wont spend time on something that will have to be made by means of image-comparison software and thus cannot be detected by the human eye


i'm a little bit puzzled as to my encoding time using DEFAULT as it does not match ANY other time - according to what i cited above default equals sse/mmx and thus it should have been 67 min not 66 but anyway :confuse5:

a little more surprising to me is the fact that sse2/mmx is NOT faster than mmx//sse/mmx which some people say it outperforms


taking into account that the default setting is #3 out of 8 when talking speed, i should think i will stay with this setting - it has provided good results before and it is not horribly slow compared to other settings

old dog, new tricks you know

of course results may differ with different cpus

 

i have repeated the test with hank315's encoder and opv mode

final output size was also added this time
again i can clearly state that sse2 is NOT the fastest mode like some people claim every now and then


HC 016 TR-2

decoder default 111 min 4.434.924
32 bit mmx 113 min 4.434.924
32 bit sse mmx 113 min 4.435.880
64 bit floating point 137 min 4.437.452
64 bit IEEE-1180 reference 144 min 4.444.302
32 bit sse2/mmx 113 min 4.434.924
32 bit ssemmx idct (skal) 110 min 4.440.598
32 bit simple mmx (xvid) 111 min 4.433.900

 

UncasMS_3

In all of your tests you're only finding a variance of 2 or 3 minutes across all settings which could be within a predictable error ratio (except for the 64 bit tests0. I'm betting that if you ran the same test over and over again that the results would vary from the previous results each and every time on each and every setting. The point that's being made is that if you have a CPU that is SSE2 compatible then if the software is also SSE2 compatible then one should see some speed gains. The problem here is that as far as I know only the DGDecode.dll can appreciate this advantage. It is also possible that CCE also can use SSE2 instructions.

If we were trying to compare dual core CPUs to single core CPUs we would run into a similar problem. CCE is a multi threaded application but the rest of the RB applications setup is not, so the question is how much would one benefit from a dual core system? It's hard to say but it's expected that the benefit will come from at least CCE. So if DGDecode.dll benefits from SSE2 which we know it does, then by how much?

I don't have the specs of your system but I'm assuming that it's a pretty good system because I don't think that you would be making a case on speed with a mediocre one. But that being said, if any of the applications in the RB setup can use SSE2 and SSE2 is known to increase speeds over its predecessors then that would be my choice.

 

i have posted my main system specs in the very first posting

and i have actually repeated the testes randomly with certain idct

mmx + 64bit fp + sse2 + xvid have been run TWO times and the conversion times were exactly identical

i thus rule out any *variance* due to these double testings


+++++

concerning dual cores athlons: procoder2 as well as cce results have been posted @ doom9 already and they clearly show an impressive speed gain

 

I must have missed them! Could you point me to them?

Which AMD 3500 core? I would also like to know your motherboard and memory make and specs. If you can add frontside bus settings, voltages used for memory and CPU. Memory timings would be helpful! Ie: CAS, RAS, cas to ras example. 2-2-2-5 T1/T2.

 

i hope i didnt forget any important detail:


CPU Properties:
CPU Type AMD Athlon 64 3500+
CPU Alias Venice S939
CPU Stepping DH-E3
CPUID CPU Name AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
CPUID Revision 00020FF0h

CPU Speed:
CPU Clock 2208.36 MHz
CPU Multiplier 9.0x
CPU FSB 245.37 MHz (original: 200 MHz, overclock: 23%)
Memory Bus 200.76 MHz
Voltage 1.4 V

CPU Cache:
L1 Code Cache 64 KB (Parity)
L1 Data Cache 64 KB (ECC)
L2 Cache 512 KB (On-Die, ECC, Full-Speed)

Motherboard Properties:
Motherboard ID 07/26/2005-NF-CK804-A8NSLI-B-00
Motherboard Name Asus A8N-SLI (3 PCI, 2 PCI-E x1, 2 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR DIMM, Audio, Gigabit LAN)

Chipset Properties:
Motherboard Chipset nVIDIA nForce4 SLI, AMD Hammer
Memory Timings 2.5-3-3-5 (CL-RCD-RP-RAS)
Command Rate (CR) 1T

SPD Memory Modules:
DIMM1 512 MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (3.0-3-3-8 @ 200 MHz) (2.5-3-3-7 @ 166 MHz) (2.0-2-2-6 @ 133 MHz)
DIMM2 512 MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (3.0-3-3-8 @ 200 MHz) (2.5-3-3-7 @ 166 MHz) (2.0-2-2-6 @ 133 MHz)

BIOS Properties:
System BIOS Date 07/26/05
Video BIOS Date 10/28/04
Award BIOS Type Phoenix - Award BIOS v6.00PG
Award BIOS Message ASUS A8N-SLI ACPI BIOS Revision 1011-002
DMI BIOS Version ASUS A8N-SLI ACPI BIOS Revision 1011-002

Graphics Processor Properties:
Video Adapter Gigabyte GeForce 6600 GT PCI-E
GPU Code Name NV43GT (PCI Express x16 10DE / 0140, Rev A2)
GPU Clock 501 MHz
Memory Clock 501 MHz

 

PIV's are supposed to be optimized for MMX, SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. You might have a point regarding Intel's longer pipes whch does affect a P4's overall speed. That's on of the reasons that the Northwood core ran a little faster and cooler than the Prescott core did.


You're also right about the speed of the PIII beating the P4 with equal clock speeds. The PIII architecture was never truly shelved, the core was shrunk and redesigned into the Pentium-M. Tomshardware.com placed a pentium M in a desktop overclocked it to around 2.5 GHZ and it beat everything in benchmarks. This of course a slightly older test and AMD has made some changes but it speaks columns regarding the P4 dead end.


http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-21.html

Rumors have it that Intel is looking at this core for future multi core CPU's. We think that dual core was a great advancement but rumors also reveal that Intel is looking to put 4 cores on a single chip.

 

vurbal

Sorry I thought I was agreeing with you, hence the words "supposed to be." I just took it a little further. LOL

 

good point, vurbal

i never gave a thought to this

now i wish even more that p4 owners would also run a complete test and post their findings!?

 

that'll be great

i would if i could, but... ^_~

i will run a test soon comparing speed differences of all AEC modes available in shrink when it comes to low bitrate scenarios - i.e. 150+ min to transcode

 

Would that be 2 upsmanship? LOL

 

I am enjoying dual core bliss with Nero express right now.
I just encoded a DVD from home video in an hour at 2.6 ghz. It use to take me 8 hours for a 4 gig DVD on dual 1.8 Athlons.

 

Later

 

64026402

Stop it, you're killing me. LOL


BTW it never took me more than four hours to do a home video including capture.