Encoding DivX with Dual-Core CPU's...

[Mini-Me]

Hi there.
:)

The time has come to upgrade again.

I am looking at Intel Core 2 Duo LGA775 CPU's, most likely in the 2GHz speed range.

Board would use DDR2 RAM, most likely with at least 2GB of RAM, and XP Pro(still not prepared to go to Vista for my video editor).

I mostly use THIS box, for video editing(basics only - trimming to remove ads and end-credits most of the time, from TV programs), and more then that, for encoding the finished video to DivX, before moving the DivX file to the server so the mediaplayer box can play it.

Currently using a rather old Socket-754 AMD Athlon 64 3200+(2.2GHz), 1GB DDR1 RAM, and several PATA hard-drives.

New build would use mostly SATA2 hard-drives.

What I am hoping to achieve, is a faster DivX encoding time, more then anything.

I DO NOT want the absolute best, fastest, kill-all-super-computer specs - just want a faster encoder machine then I have now, to save some time during the encoding phase.

Current encoding involves 100% CPU load.
I would like to know if a dual-core CPU will run at 100% on BOTH cores while encoding, or only one core.

Is the move worth the effort, or should I just stick with the old Socket-754 machine?

[Rick]

If your going to go with a new Cpu

Get the fastest you can afford
Core2dual will crank out the code.
But the cpu will still max out

I haven't done any divx with my system.

But even under normal dvd coding it sucks up the cycles on my system

BTW.
the core2quad does not go 100% on all cores.
That takes a high end program to utilize all the cores

[Mini-Me]

Would it make more sense then to get something like a 3GHz single-core CPU over a dual-core 2GHz if it won't be using both cores anyway? You can't buy them new anymore, but you can still get 3GHz Pentium 4 single-core CPU's on eBay etc second-hand...

I'm a little out of touch with dual-core and quad-core CPU's, so need a bit of a shove in the right direction...
:D

[jlreich]

It will use both cores. If it isn't maxed out it is because it doesn't use all the power todays CPU have. There is no reason I can think of to go with single core anymore. ;)

[Ajmukon]

yeah, i agree with jlreich,

single cores are not powerful anymore, and use large amounts of electricity to run (comparatively)

[mjc]

Most recent programs have been updated/rewritten to handle multi-threading/multiple cores, often relying on the OS to correctly ID the type/number of cores present. So, as long as your OS is properly recognizing/using multiple cores, the programs that are capable of doing so will also use them. If that means not maxing out the CPU cycles, then you have achieved your goal...

[Mini-Me]

OK, thanks, this has helped my understanding.
I will get a Duo2Core @ 2.2GHz...

Thanks.
:)

[Rick]

Sorry about confusing the issue
I said it won't use all 4 on the core2quad
Without giving the reason .
Like MJC said they ( programs ) are updated to use core2dual

Not the quad..

Thanks everyone for clearing up the water I made muddy :)

[Paleo Pete]

Currently using a rather old Socket-754 AMD Athlon 64 3200+(2.2GHz), 1GB DDR1 RAM, and several PATA hard-drives.


"Rather old"...sounds odd...the machine I'm typing on is a Athlon 1G, 768 MB SDRAM. Must be an absolute dinosaur, I'd probably better start checking around with museums...but it's been running Linux just fine for 5 years, 24/7, I can't complain...the occasional dusting out, replace thermal compound now and then, it keeps chugging away...

For your purposes though I would say get the fastest CPU you can afford. Anything related to video hogs system resources, get the fastest CPU you can fit into your budget, plenty RAM and a video card with some backbone.

[Mini-Me]

"Rather old"...sounds odd...the machine I'm typing on is a Athlon 1G, 768 MB SDRAM. Must be an absolute dinosaur, I'd probably better start checking around with museums...but it's been running Linux just fine for 5 years, 24/7, I can't complain...the occasional dusting out, replace thermal compound now and then, it keeps chugging away...

Make no mistake - there is nothing wrong with this hardware, and I was most-definitely not trying to be pretentious or ostentatious when I said it, nor do I mean any offense to anyone running this generation of hardware.

Sorry if it read that way...
:(

I said "Rather old" as when compared to NEW technology, it is just that - rather old.
But this is not necessarily a bad thing - it just means that technology has moved on since then, but it will still make a perfectly fine computer.

The entire motherboard architecture has changed now(as I'm sure anyone reading this will know) what with LGA775 for the CPU, and DDR2 RAM standard, not to mention usually only one IDE port, sometimes none at all, in favor of SATA-only ports...

But Socket-754/Socket 462 systems are still more then juicy enough for most Windows tasks - I am looking at this purely from a video-editing and/or encoding point of view.

For your purposes though I would say get the fastest CPU you can afford. Anything related to video hogs system resources, get the fastest CPU you can fit into your budget, plenty RAM and a video card with some backbone.

Yep, that seems to be the general consensus, so this is what I am going to do. :)

[jlreich]

"Rather old"...sounds odd...the machine I'm typing on is a Athlon 1G, 768 MB SDRAM. Must be an absolute dinosaur, I'd probably better start checking around with museums...
LOL! Sorry, but yes that's an old dinosaur for certain. :p I have newer systems in the basement gathering dust and have been giving them away just to get rid of them. :eek:

But hey, dinosaurs have there place and uses too, if it does what you need it to do then more power to you. :) :cool:

I have a socket A system (256MB ram) running a Linux firewall that's protecting my LAN tucked away in the corner right now. Works great! I do have plans for one of the systems. I just took down my Ubuntu box (s478 P4 Prescott 3.0GHz, 1GB ram, ATI 9600), installed XP and gave it to my brother. So I need to replace that with one of the older systems.