Memory or the CPU?

[Pwolf]

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



Pwolf

[Dannywilson]

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 . 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 .

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.

[dwchang]

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.

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 . Either way, nice to see someone else enjoying the jobs of a dual set-up.

[the Black Monarch]

And yes... 360x240 Can be rendered at that speed.

But why would you want to? 360 isn't a multiple of 16... that makes MPEG go all and

[Dannywilson]

Did I say I cared about 16? its a multiple of 8. So it works.

[the Black Monarch]

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.

[Dannywilson]

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.

[the Black Monarch]

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

Ah, make much more sense now.

[Dexter86]

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...

[Ikasu]

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...