I thought Intel processors were better at encoding than Amd T-breds?
I have two boxes, an Intel 3.0ghz (o/c to 3.3) (HT enabled), 865P chipset and 1gig PC3200 DDR and the other, and an AMD duallie box with 2 x XP2100 T-breds (stock speed), MPX chipset and 512mbs PC2100 DDR. Using Tmpgenc, the AMD duallie can encode a 700mbs avi almost twice as fast as the Intel box. Nothing is running in the background and according to the task manager, 99% CPU load is being allocated to Tmpgenc.
If it makes any difference, the Intel box is running XP and the AMD is running Win2K.
It takes about 3 hours to encode on the AMD and over 5 on the Intel. This doesn't sound right to me. Thoughts, comments, suggestions?
I have two boxes, an Intel 3.0ghz (o/c to 3.3) (HT enabled), 865P chipset and 1gig PC3200 DDR and the other, and an AMD duallie box with 2 x XP2100 T-breds (stock speed), MPX chipset and 512mbs PC2100 DDR. Using Tmpgenc, the AMD duallie can encode a 700mbs avi almost twice as fast as the Intel box. Nothing is running in the background and according to the task manager, 99% CPU load is being allocated to Tmpgenc.
If it makes any difference, the Intel box is running XP and the AMD is running Win2K.
It takes about 3 hours to encode on the AMD and over 5 on the Intel. This doesn't sound right to me. Thoughts, comments, suggestions?