- Apr 4, 2010
- 5
- 0
- 18,510
Hi members, this is my first post.
I have recently tested the speed of encoding the same vidio clip, using the same program, but on different computers.
my comp is about 2 and a half years old, using an intel core 2 duo E6750 2.66ghz. 2 gig ram, nvidia gt 8500 vid card, windows vista
friends new computer (laptop) has a intel i7 720QM 1.6 Ghz 4gig ram, ATI HD5730M/ 1 gb vid card. windows 7.
The video took 160 seconds to encode from HD to SD on my old core 2 duo, computer,
It had taken 185 seconds on the new laptop with an i7 processor, (which the salesmen at the shop, had argued with me that these new i7 chips will blow away a core 2 duo and literally everthing else on the market because it can use 8 threads). I was skeptical.
About 15% Quicker on and old core 2 duo, WOW and to think I was looking to upgrade to a slower technology myself.
The main point that stuck when talking with the salesmen is that the multiple core is great for multitasking, So if i was using multiple programs the combined time would be quicker than on a single core.
This made me think about how often do i encode a video, and use another program that uses high resources (or wash the dishes) at the same time, Not often.
So would an i7 be quicker than my core 2 duo if i had installed 4 copies of the video encoding program, and encode 4 videos at the same time ?
When i first had an old Pentium 1, 200MMX computer and upgraded to a pentium 4 2.54gig computer, i ran a test and it was 12 X faster running complicated spreadsheet macros and various other tests. (in other words the actual processor speeds seemed to match actual tests).
From the Pentium 4, 2.54 gig 512 mb ram, windows xp, 128 mb nvidia card, compared to the intel core 2 duo (above), a difference of about 6 years when purchased, running a test on video encoding, the core 2 duo increase in speed wasnt noticable. (maybe i should test this on the fastest pentium 4 i can find and blow away the core 2 duo).
When reading computer magazines and the improvements of computers i actually wonder if the results (when used in the real world) are true.
Almost every year there are articles with computers being tested, showing an impressive increase in speed, but from the time i purchased my pentium 4 (2002) upto the i7 720QM processor, the speed does not seem to be much of an improvement, or in the case of video encoding its actually slower.
At one stage it seemed like the speeds were doubling every year, that cant be said after the pentium 4's.
On the cpubenchmark web site the pass mark for the i7 720 QM is scored at 3,244.
for the intel core 2 duo E6750 2.66ghz it scored 1,660.
By looking at these scores i could say the i7 is 2 X better or more powerful than the core 2 duo. (dont know if my thoughts are correct) and if they are correct thats not much of an improvement over 5-6 years, and as my test above no improvement.
Fancy numbers but where do you find the actual real life results when using certain types of programs or running certain tasks ?
What is the idea of multiple cores ?, apart from salesmen (or adds) getting orgasmically excited when describing the unbeileivable number of times its faster than your old system ?
had the manufacturers hit a wall with increasing speed on a single core ?
Is the idea of using multiple cores (in theory ) to split the task into separate sections, run each section in a separate core (all at the same time ) , then recombine the result back to 1 file ?
if it is it doesnt work when encoding video.
For the extra money spent purchasing a new computer i would expect at least a 4X increase of speed over a 5 year period, when editing videos,
5 years is a huge leap in technology when it comes to computers, but with all the new technology and hype i have not noticed much of an improvement when ruuning certain programs, only noticed an increase of hype.
Any other members noticed this, or have any advice on systems that would encode video 2- 4 or 5 times faster than my system, any comments welcome as i would like to update, but even a doubling of speed from my old system would not get me to depart with my savings.
I have recently tested the speed of encoding the same vidio clip, using the same program, but on different computers.
my comp is about 2 and a half years old, using an intel core 2 duo E6750 2.66ghz. 2 gig ram, nvidia gt 8500 vid card, windows vista
friends new computer (laptop) has a intel i7 720QM 1.6 Ghz 4gig ram, ATI HD5730M/ 1 gb vid card. windows 7.
The video took 160 seconds to encode from HD to SD on my old core 2 duo, computer,
It had taken 185 seconds on the new laptop with an i7 processor, (which the salesmen at the shop, had argued with me that these new i7 chips will blow away a core 2 duo and literally everthing else on the market because it can use 8 threads). I was skeptical.
About 15% Quicker on and old core 2 duo, WOW and to think I was looking to upgrade to a slower technology myself.
The main point that stuck when talking with the salesmen is that the multiple core is great for multitasking, So if i was using multiple programs the combined time would be quicker than on a single core.
This made me think about how often do i encode a video, and use another program that uses high resources (or wash the dishes) at the same time, Not often.
So would an i7 be quicker than my core 2 duo if i had installed 4 copies of the video encoding program, and encode 4 videos at the same time ?
When i first had an old Pentium 1, 200MMX computer and upgraded to a pentium 4 2.54gig computer, i ran a test and it was 12 X faster running complicated spreadsheet macros and various other tests. (in other words the actual processor speeds seemed to match actual tests).
From the Pentium 4, 2.54 gig 512 mb ram, windows xp, 128 mb nvidia card, compared to the intel core 2 duo (above), a difference of about 6 years when purchased, running a test on video encoding, the core 2 duo increase in speed wasnt noticable. (maybe i should test this on the fastest pentium 4 i can find and blow away the core 2 duo).
When reading computer magazines and the improvements of computers i actually wonder if the results (when used in the real world) are true.
Almost every year there are articles with computers being tested, showing an impressive increase in speed, but from the time i purchased my pentium 4 (2002) upto the i7 720QM processor, the speed does not seem to be much of an improvement, or in the case of video encoding its actually slower.
At one stage it seemed like the speeds were doubling every year, that cant be said after the pentium 4's.
On the cpubenchmark web site the pass mark for the i7 720 QM is scored at 3,244.
for the intel core 2 duo E6750 2.66ghz it scored 1,660.
By looking at these scores i could say the i7 is 2 X better or more powerful than the core 2 duo. (dont know if my thoughts are correct) and if they are correct thats not much of an improvement over 5-6 years, and as my test above no improvement.
Fancy numbers but where do you find the actual real life results when using certain types of programs or running certain tasks ?
What is the idea of multiple cores ?, apart from salesmen (or adds) getting orgasmically excited when describing the unbeileivable number of times its faster than your old system ?
had the manufacturers hit a wall with increasing speed on a single core ?
Is the idea of using multiple cores (in theory ) to split the task into separate sections, run each section in a separate core (all at the same time ) , then recombine the result back to 1 file ?
if it is it doesnt work when encoding video.
For the extra money spent purchasing a new computer i would expect at least a 4X increase of speed over a 5 year period, when editing videos,
5 years is a huge leap in technology when it comes to computers, but with all the new technology and hype i have not noticed much of an improvement when ruuning certain programs, only noticed an increase of hype.
Any other members noticed this, or have any advice on systems that would encode video 2- 4 or 5 times faster than my system, any comments welcome as i would like to update, but even a doubling of speed from my old system would not get me to depart with my savings.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram