11 May 2006 11:06
Re: Another CPU related question
Pedro Tumusok <pedro.tumusok <at> gmail.com>
2006-05-11 09:06:06 GMT
2006-05-11 09:06:06 GMT
On 5/11/06, Loren Merritt <lorenm <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Jelle wrote:
> Loren Merritt wrote:
>>
>> No, I don't know whether my videocard supports xvmc, but I certainly
>> haven't enabled it in ffmpeg. This is cpu-time as measured by
>> `time mplayer -benchmark -vo null -nosound -vc ffmpeg2`.
>
> Ok, I'll run that too then.
>
> Two different machines. I know for sure that neither machines have videocards
> that support Xvmc.
>
> Athlon64 3200+ (2GHz/512kb cache)
> MPEG2 video 480x576 <at> 25fps, 2.5Mbit/s (much less than DVD), 4688 seconds long.
> 100 * 12*60+20/4688 =~ 16% CPU.
>
> P4/3GHz/1M cache
> MPEG2 video 720x480 <at> 29.97fps, 4.5Mbit/s, 1886 seconds long
> 100 * 4*60+12/1886 =~ 13% CPU.
>
> I don't know where you got 2%, but I can't reproduce anything even close to
> it.
>
> 2% of a 2.2GHz CPU, or 44MHz, for DVD video? How can I get that?
Ok, so it wasn't quite 2%.
100% * 244.856 / 3750 = 6.5% CPU
I guess that my real question was, do you think the Cell is the cpu beast that IBM/Sony/Toshiba claims it to be? If so a PS3 with Linux and an optimized x264 code to take care of the SPE's in the Cell might be a very cheap encoder.
--
Best regards / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok
Another fella told me, he had a sister who looked just fine.
Instead of bein' my deliv'rance, she had a strange resemblance
To a cat named Frankenstein
RSS Feed