Memory or the CPU?

This forum is for help with and discussion about your video hardware.

Postby alternatefutures » Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:05 pm

Awww... poor people with 800Mhz processors. Jeeze, I have a 550MHz PIII, 384MB of RAM and a 20 gig HD that I do 3D rendering and intensive After Effects on all while working with HuffYUV compressed files for 26-episode series! And my computer is located in a shed ten miles away, and there are no roads, I have to walk! It's over a hundred degrees in the winter even though there's five feet of snow on the ground, up hill both ways., AND THAT'S THE WAY I LIKES IT! You don't hear me complaining, do ya? And I can still kick your ass in Battlefield: 1942 with it, you little yippersnappers... ::spits::
alternatefutures
 
Joined: 14 May 2001

Postby dwchang » Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:07 pm

alternatefutures wrote:Awww... poor people with 800Mhz processors. Jeeze, I have a 550MHz PIII, 384MB of RAM and a 20 gig HD that I do 3D rendering and intensive After Effects on all while working with HuffYUV compressed files for 26-episode series! And my computer is located in a shed ten miles away, and there are no roads, I have to walk! It's over a hundred degrees in the winter even though there's five feet of snow on the ground, up hill both ways., AND THAT'S THE WAY I LIKES IT! You don't hear me complaining, do ya? And I can still kick your ass in Battlefield: 1942 with it, you little yippersnappers... ::spits::


:lol: greatness :up:
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Dannywilson » Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:44 pm

dwchang wrote:
Pwolf wrote:with my 2.8ghz, on fresh restart i've been able to play an avisynth file with ivtc in realtime... then after about 5 min, it slows down.


Pwolf


I laugh at you single CPU folk. I have a dual 2.0 Ghz Athlon and it flies. I can even render my final outputs and go play war3 or something :-P. I love my computer :).quote]

I dont like to do this with my dual 1.8 because it drops theencode rate on 720x480 files to less than 40 frames a second... :| on 360x240's it can render at well over 100fps.
"in the morning when i have wood..i like to walk around my house and bump random shit with it.... " -Random comment on grouphug.us
User avatar
Dannywilson
 
Joined: 31 Jul 2002
Location: In love with Dr. Girlfriend

Postby Pwolf » Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:49 pm

hell if i had the money, i would have a quad system. but i spent all i have on my comp now. Which is about 10X better then what i had before. so i am perfectly content with what i have :P




Pwolf
ImageImage
ImageImage
Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.
User avatar
Pwolf
Friendly Neighborhood Pwaffle
 
Joined: 03 May 2001
Location: Some where in California, I forgot :\

Postby dwchang » Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:03 pm

Dannywilson wrote:I dont like to do this with my dual 1.8 because it drops theencode rate on 720x480 files to less than 40 frames a second... :| on 360x240's it can render at well over 100fps.


Do you mean for Warcraft3 or when rendering the video at 100 fps? Because that's like O_o in Premiere :-P. I'm pretty sure you mean the game and well...I'm fine with that...I mean what else am I gonna do while rendering? I guess I could take a nap :-P.

Pwolf wrote:hell if i had the money, i would have a quad system. but i spent all i have on my comp now. Which is about 10X better then what i had before. so i am perfectly content with what i have


Quad eh? A quad Opteron system sounds like a good solution for you. Too bad they're insanely expensive, but then again they're for business servers and not the "Athlon 64" (which will be released in September).
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Pwolf » Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:54 pm

yea like i said, if i had the money : \



Pwolf
ImageImage
ImageImage
Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.
User avatar
Pwolf
Friendly Neighborhood Pwaffle
 
Joined: 03 May 2001
Location: Some where in California, I forgot :\

Postby Dannywilson » Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:57 pm

dwchang wrote:
Dannywilson wrote:I dont like to do this with my dual 1.8 because it drops theencode rate on 720x480 files to less than 40 frames a second... :| on 360x240's it can render at well over 100fps.


Do you mean for Warcraft3 or when rendering the video at 100 fps? Because that's like O_o in Premiere :-P. I'm pretty sure you mean the game and well...I'm fine with that...I mean what else am I gonna do while rendering? I guess I could take a nap :-P.


I'm talking about final encodes. If I boot up other things while my vid renders, it drops the encode rate... And rendering don't take long if you edit like I do... I rarely use effects very heavily, and most of my transitions are either straight cuts, or the occasional fade. And yes... 360x240 Can be rendered at that speed. :P
"in the morning when i have wood..i like to walk around my house and bump random shit with it.... " -Random comment on grouphug.us
User avatar
Dannywilson
 
Joined: 31 Jul 2002
Location: In love with Dr. Girlfriend

Postby dwchang » Thu Jul 17, 2003 7:52 pm

Dannywilson wrote:
I'm talking about final encodes. If I boot up other things while my vid renders, it drops the encode rate... And rendering don't take long if you edit like I do... I rarely use effects very heavily, and most of my transitions are either straight cuts, or the occasional fade. And yes... 360x240 Can be rendered at that speed. :P


Oops that makes sense. For me, I don't average that high in encodes since I have a few effects and junk, but yeah makes sense. But yeah...if you're doing something else while encoding, even if it's slower, you're getting two things done :-D. Either way, nice to see someone else enjoying the jobs of a dual set-up.
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Postby the Black Monarch » Thu Jul 17, 2003 10:27 pm

Dannywilson wrote:And yes... 360x240 Can be rendered at that speed. :P


But why would you want to? 360 isn't a multiple of 16... that makes MPEG go all :cry: and :evil:
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby Dannywilson » Thu Jul 17, 2003 10:52 pm

Did I say I cared about 16? its a multiple of 8. So it works.
"in the morning when i have wood..i like to walk around my house and bump random shit with it.... " -Random comment on grouphug.us
User avatar
Dannywilson
 
Joined: 31 Jul 2002
Location: In love with Dr. Girlfriend

Postby the Black Monarch » Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:05 pm

Dannywilson wrote:Did I say I cared about 16?


No, but MPEG does.

You cannot make another post so soon after your last, please try again in a short while


Shut the fuck up bitch.
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby Dannywilson » Fri Jul 18, 2003 4:34 pm

360x240 Works just fine for me... besides I only use it as a preview, not as a distro. And yes, you CAN use multiples of 8 with some codecs, but others like to crap out when you use them.
"in the morning when i have wood..i like to walk around my house and bump random shit with it.... " -Random comment on grouphug.us
User avatar
Dannywilson
 
Joined: 31 Jul 2002
Location: In love with Dr. Girlfriend

Postby the Black Monarch » Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:43 pm

Dannywilson wrote: besides I only use it as a preview, not as a distro.


Ah, make much more sense now.
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Oh...

Postby Dexter86 » Fri Aug 08, 2003 5:30 pm

Man what shall i say?

I have a P4 2.4 Ghz with 786 MB of Infineon RAM and I can't create an AMV anymore, it just won't work, it is laggy the output vids are no longer syncrone it is totally impossible to watch the vids in the cut-window without waiting minutes till the damn loading process is done frame for frame...I can'T understand this....wiht my old 128 MB Ram and P3 700 Mhz Processor it all worked fine...:(
User avatar
Dexter86
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Location: Schwedt

Postby Ikasu » Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:23 pm

I enjoyed my Dual AMD MP 1800 machine...too bad it broke....but p4's aren't bad at all......DWChang is goign to flame me for this...The 2.4 gigahertz and below I agree are garbage...not compelte garbage but not worth it...(I'm an amd fan BUT!) I'd take an amd over the p4 2.4 and under speeds...but when it comes to the 2.53 (it runs the new core) and up...I'd take those p4's anyday....I just got my new pc...p4 3 gigahertz with 800 mghz fsb, 2 gig pc3200 400 mghz dual channel ddr ecc ram...and this pc works wonders...I can encode a 47 minute file in tmpg with high quality for motion with noise reduction and 4,000 kbits of video, 128 audio in less than 1 hour and 20 minutes...the new p4's work wonders....Why do you ask?...cause they actually upgrade their chips...the new hyper thread technology is a big plus letting me do OTHER stuff as playing games while I encode..makes the pc much more worth the dollar.....Also the downside of AMD's are they NEVER upgrade the tech on their chips...I mean yes they do release faster processors but besides that they never upgrade them....they just case on getting them faster and faster...that's why on all benchmarks since the 2.53 gigahertz p4 they've demolished amd to nothing...although the amd xp processors do win in a FEW tests the p4 still works it considerably....I just wish AMD upgraded their chips more often than working one processor to it's fullest speed than going onto a new cpu class......the AMD XP 3200 is not worth the money...

To check out the matchup heres the AMD XP 3200 compared to the p4 3 gigahertz......In these tests the AMD XP 3200 didn't even phase the p4....the p4 beat it in every aspect.....there are tons of pages so read up if you wish.....

^_^...Hope that fills it up well enough.......

Also when it comes to graphics cards faster clock speeds never means it's better.....I DESPISE the Geforce FX series...it came out a quarter late...and it is obvious they rushed that card...they have a small life span plus look at that damn cooler!...I mean sheeesh.....that this is HUGE!...it even takes up 2 pci slots.....than compare that to the radeon 9800 pro (That's what I'm running...^_^)...SMALL fan.....almost 200 mghz lower clock speed...and it still pounds some ass.....imagine putting a much more powerful fan on this and overclocking it.....that will demolish most graphics cards out at the moment.....(I Don't think they have custom fans for the radeon 9800 pro's yet but I may be wrong.....man...I gotta buy some heavy power for that baby and crank it up...^_^)....ATI is always the clear way to go....Although I must admit I very much like the geforce 4 ti series...damn good graphics cards....but the fx just bombed badly in my books....also the radeons display video MUCH more crisper than the geforce cards...my friend purchased a radeon 8500 all in wonder card after I got my new pc which was a geforce 4 ti 4600...my card was indefinitely better than his...but his displayed video at full screen like a damn hdtv...mine was pixelated...we played the same exact file on both our pc's and his looked better...but now I got a radeon 9800 pro on this new pc and I must say...the video is DAMN crisp...well...when it comes to pc's I can talk for hourrrsss...lol...I'll quit it now...this message is already extremely long...lol...

:lol:
Ikasu
 
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Location: Woodland Hills

PreviousNext

Return to Video Hardware Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests