Test Machine 2: MacBook Intel Core Duo (not later core 2 duo) 1.83Ghz, Tiger, 2GB RAM
Source file: DV PAL clip, 720x576, 25fps. 23 seconds long, interlaced. File loaded into quicktime 7.1.6 Exported to the following formats. First time is without elgato hardware, 2nd time is with the Turbo 264: Apple TV preset: 2 mins 08 sec, 0 mins 43sec Ipod 640x480 preset: 1 mins 02 sec, 0 mins 31 sec Ipod 320x240*: 0 mins 40 sec, 0 mins 17 sec * Apple dont offer a default 320sx240 ipod preset anymore, wheras elgato turbo 264 offers it as an option for the ipod preset. So for the non-hardware encoding time, I used manual settings, h264 baseline single pass. The time for non-hardware assisted multipass 320x240 on this macbook was 1 min 15 seconds. As expected, the difference the Turbo 264 makes on this machine is less, as the machine has a much better CPU than the G5 iMac, so the non-hardware assisted encodes are much quicker. Wheras the turbo 264 encodes are roughly the same speed as when done on the G5, sometimes a bit faster, sometimes a bit slower (perhaps due to slower hard drive in this laptop than the iMac?). Filesizes and deinterlacing are, as expected, the same as with the iMac tests. Have done some brief tests on what difference this stuff can make to people's energy use. Two factors make this an electricity-saving device. Firstly encodes are much quicker, so you can maybe have your machine switched on for less time. Secondly the CPU in your mac does much less when letting the turbo 264 do the encoding. For example this macbook, with battery already charged, and screen brightness turned off (I use an external monitor), uses around 20 watts when the CPU isnt doing much. When using the turbo 264 this rises to around the 27-30 watt level. When encoding using quicktime & no turbo 264, th CPU is under heavy load and around 43 watts are being consumed, plus it quickly starts to sound like a small hairdryer. I shall get round to 'writing this up' in video form and sticking it on carbondown at some point this month. Other things to think about when considering whether to get a Turbo 264 and reviewing my results: My tests were done with quicktime, its likely if you use a different software encoder at the moment, it may already be quicker than the non-turbo264 times Ive posted. If you like precise bitrate control (& thus control over filesizes), so far the Turbo 264 gives you no control of these things, so its just as bad as Apples presets in that respect. Although I havent done quality tests yet, some multipass software encoders could be expected to give better results. Probably more true at higher resolutions, will test. Likewise if you already make 640x480 videos and use a very good deinterlacer, you may be best to keep using your current deinterlacer before encoding with the turbo. But if you struggle with this deinterlacing stuff, the turbo264 provides an extremely easy way to fix this stuff in an ok way without even thinking about it. Cheers Steve Elbows
