mp3 encoding and pentium 4's

Choppaface

Distinguished
Feb 26, 2004
7
0
18,510
In a recent review, Tom's Hardware posted some MP3 encoding benchmarks here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040719/intel_925xe-15.html

You can see that the latest Pentium 4 encoded a given .wav in 1:20, which, if I've done the conversion right, is about a 14x conversion rate.

On my laptop, a Powerbook G4 (800mhz), I recently converted some .wav's to mp3s in iTunes with similar encoding settings (320 VBR), and it reported around 13x-14x conversion rates. I also remember a while ago when I tried to encode MP3s on my Dual 1900+ box with LAME I was getting relatively slow conversion rates- like 8x and below- with slightly lossier settings. I've also had the experience of getting 20x conversion rates with iTunes on my dual 500mhz G4 desktop (iTunes is MP-aware), though that was a while ago and I don't remember how similar the encoder settings were, but I know they were close.

I'm pretty sure iTunes uses LAME (though I believe the original app they spun iTunes off of, SoundJam, did), but in any case is the much-faster-conversion-on-mac that I'm seeing due to the encoder or is there also some difference in hardware that's significant here? I'm asking this because when I saw the mp3 encoder benchmarks I was suprised the processors did not do better. *Not trying to start a PC-vs-Mac flamewar*
 
*Not trying to start a PC-vs-Mac flamewar*

...yes you are! :lol:

<font color=blue>My <font color=red>dick</font color=red> is so big, that my <font color=red>dick</font color=red> has a <font color=red>dick</font color=red>. And my <font color=red>dicks' dick</font color=red> is bigger than yours.</font color=blue>
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
Just guessing here, but it could be due to Altivec. Macs are good at some things, despite popular believe and tons of evidence to the contrary ;)

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =