If your using x264, as obtained through say x264.nl, or any of the eac3 front ends (ripbot, hdconvertx, stax) then your gpu is accelerating exactly dick. Nada. Nothing. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua MacCraw <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 22:54:04 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] upgrades Anyone got a good CPU/encoding link that shows benchmarks? I had assumed that h264 was also being accelerated by GPU. My last surprise was how much faster MT was using a Q6600 but also took for granted GPU was playing a major role. On Apr 2, 2011 10:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Problem is, right now software which can offload to the gpu is not what anyone is using. Evertone uses x264 or eac3to etc as a front end. The gpu ready apps are all designed to output mp4 for mobile use. > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 18:14:58 > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] upgrades > > Difficult to know the mix of the work. Crunching video right now the all four cores of my 2500k at 100%, with corresponding CPU temps running high. If the vidcard is doing anything it hard to tell. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joshua MacCraw <[email protected]> wrote: > >> With the video cards doing the heavy lifting on encodes there is more >> benefit from them than CPU anyway. >> On Apr 2, 2011 12:33 PM, "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> You won't see gee-whiz fast every thing since your system is more than >> able to do simple things very fast. All you can really impact are tasks that >> take lots of wall time for you. If you are happy to encode at night, I don't >> see what you gain in this upgrade. Me, I like to do stuff while I'm awake >> and I want it to finish faster. When I edit, I'm tweaking over and over til >> I get what I want, so I get the benefit of the speed improvement. I do like >> having 16GB of RAM. It may affect your max over clock. I got the 1600 stuff, >> but I'm not convinced i see a big benefit other than on some benchmarks, but >> the price was good so I don't regret getting it. >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Apr 2, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Winterlight <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I am currently running a Quad Core 9650 at 3.45Ghz on a Asus Maximus >> Formula II with 8GB of DDR2 800 that I built in August of 08. >>>> >>>> The rest of my components are good and don't require an upgrade >>>> 85o watt Seasonic >>>> two Sapphire 5770s >>>> Intel SSD for boot and a 300GB Raptor plus a collection of data storage >> drives. >>>> >>>> All running Win7Pro SP1 >>>> >>>> It does what I need and it does it well, but with all the excitement >> about Sandy bridge it got me thinking about upgrading my motherboard, RAM >> and CPU this summer, once all the problems shake out. Right now I am >> thinking about a 2600K Sandy Bridge, with a ASUS Rampage III Formula and >> 16GB of RAM.... what speed of RAM am I looking for? >>>> >>>> I use my PC for real work, day in and day out, and if I could just >> upgrade the components without redoing everything I would be more inclined >> to upgrade sooner rather then later. I am not interested in just getting >> benchmarks. My question is will it matter... will I really be able to >> notice. I do video editing, and encoding and I am sure I will be able to >> notice there, but generally I encode over night so an hour here or there >> isn't a big deal to me. >>>> >>>> Am I looking at a noticeably gee whiz faster everything, or am I barely >> going to notice in my day to day real world use? >>>> thanks >>>> w >>>>
