What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
41 Comments
- Intensecure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple = great.
Microsoft = great.
AMD = great.
Intel = great.
All fantastic companies knocking spots off each other to bring us new technology that changes our world...at lightning speed.
Digg OS fanboys (of any shade) = retards. Back to sleep kiddies, let the grown ups enjoy the new toys. - imaznation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2last time I checked, every single apple I've ever ate in my entire life only had one core.
- manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bear in mind a few things:
This is an alpha build, not yet fully optomized.
This is on a dual-core machine - not a quad core one.
This is faster than Handbrake on the G5 iMac. (and much faster than my iBook)
So, basically, it's an improvement and a step in the right direction, if nothing else. Comparing a program running on the dual-Core iMac vs. the Quad Core G5 is a bit unfair - when the Quad Core Intel Mac ships, then it'll be an "apples to apples" comparison (horrible pun, I know). - l0ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Being the main, most used direct DVD-to-MPEG4 (with realtime decss'ing) application on the Mac, I wouldn't call Handbrake a crap-app ;)
- Strunt, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I'm getting 291fps on a 8-core mac with all processors maxed out - very nice - hardly any programs do this. Just ripped an entire DVD in 8 minutes.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Only if Apple went with AMD, their multicore chips are much faster because of Hypertransport but you cant go wrong with 65nm and soon to be 45nm chips which only cost Intel about $50 each."
This is about the most ill-informed statement I've ever heard.
1) Apple would not have went to x86 if their choice was AMD; Apple migrated because their major selling platform is the Powerbook, and IBM swore up and down they'd have a mobile G5 but didn't deliver (some would say "in time", others would say "at all"). Intel's Core Duo is the fastest mobile general purpose CPU ever constructed, and it uses less energy at full steam than AMDs latest when it's at idle. What this means is better battery life at ~95% of the same speed. A really good tradeoff, IMO.
2) AMD chips are not faster because of HyperTransport. While the HT bus is a boon, it only works to their significant advantage because the memory controller of the system is onboard the CPU, which allows them to move huge amounts of data in and out of the CPU wickedly fast. The real innovation has to do with AMDs overall speed; their implementation of x86 is just plain faster, and those extra registers that x86-64 add would be a great help if more applications ran in 64-bit mode. So it's not just "one thing" that makes the AMD chips faster, it's the package.
3) Intel is on 65nm, and they're very quick on the road to 45nm, just as they were quick on the road from 90nm to 65nm. Intel has the significant advantage with packaging and lithography technology because they do it all internally, and have been developing it for years and years; Intel is HUGE, and about the only thing they don't do in the process of making their microchips is sell them to individuals (B2B, not B2C).
4) A modern CPU might only cost $10 in raw materials (after all, CPUs are made of sand that has all of its oxygen removed and converted into bar silicon), but the development process costs billions, the production runs cost billions, and the significant amount of new hardware much be purchased and redistributed every single time they shift their production cycle costs billions. So what you end up with is a chip that costs roughly $100 in raw materials to produce, and roughly $300 in overhead to produce. Of course, every single chip made reduces that $300 by some, but Intel and AMD both try to cut prices as the product shifts to keep their products selling and to keep the same margin on them. What you end up with is almost a constant, linear profit model for a CPU, and this is a very good thing.
Now, back on topic, I'm very glad to see that Handbrake is doing so well on the Intel Macs, and I hope that with further tweaking it becomes much faster (which should be possible, a lot more people are versed in the x86 archetecture than in the PPC archetecure, and I'm placing my bets that this early alpha isn't even SSE-ized yet). - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm planning on buying whatever Apple replaces the Power Mac with when it comes out and I can't wait to see how fast it performs on that machine
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0try h.264 it is way slower, but yes I get similar speeds when encoding in mpeg4
- yensed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Powerhouse!
- bhertz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"been behind the curve....from day one."
but still have been happy :) - longofest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My Quad gets consistently around 30fps using the settings that he is using. Additionally, it would appear as though Handbrake uses all but 17% of the Intel Mac's system resources. When I run on my quad, Handbrake seems to run consistenly at about 250-260% (out of 400), which means I have about 140-150% processor resources left to use.
It would be nice if there was a way to get Handbrake to use more CPU time... - longofest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hold up a sec folks. That's not as fast as the guy is claiming it is supposed to be. I get better than real-time on my Quad. I'll get you all the exact timing when I get home.
p.s. The iMac is not achieving real time. 25.x fps is 5 fps slower than realtime. - ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Welcome to reality Mac crazies.
The Intel fiasco just keeps getting worse. The quad-G5 is going to be spanking the Intel crap for a LONG,LONG time losers."
Really I bet a dodge viper could beat a civic too. - popetorak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0G5 hasint beat intel in anything
- Abatrour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Only if Apple went with AMD, their multicore chips are much faster because of Hypertransport but you cant go wrong with 65nm and soon to be 45nm chips which only cost Intel about $50 each.
- The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I get 11fps or so encoding PAL into H.264 (1.25Ghz eMac), so that's pretty good.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BTW you can download it at http://handbrake.m0k.org/download.php
- longofest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0kissthering: look again. He is using H.264. However, sample rate and bitrate for audio is a bit high, which should be nice to his score
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+025 fps is real time for PAL, NTSC is 29.97 fps
- Ajzzz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Your $3,300 Quad beats a $1,700 iMac! Who would have known...
Why are people comparing iMacs to G5s? Probably because they're a little to close for comfort, as PowerPC sucks. - Arkitan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Where did Bill Gates get his idea for a "windowed" OS?
He stole it from Apple, what you seem to forget is that Apple stole it from Xerox.
Anyway, I'm buying a new intel iMac with my tax refund yay! - thecapitalizt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Again, people here are missing that tiny little greyed-out box that says
x264 encoding!!!! for anyone that has tried to encode in h.264 with handbrake, they'll know how wicked slow it is. A better trial would be to do it in mpeg-4, since that is the default and what everyone is used to. - nanboya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://download.m0k.org.nyud.net:8090/handbrake/images/HandBrake-2006011800.jpg
Be nice to m0k.org... - lhaas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I ripped and encoded the same movie with the same settings on the 17" Intel IMac and a PowerMac 1.8GHz x 2, the IMac was 20FPS, the PowerMac was 59FPS. I thought the IMac would have been better considering the DVD drive was not 2+ years old. I want to try the test again after I get more ram in the IMac, it had 512M, the PM had 1.5G
- motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Welcome to reality Mac crazies.
The Intel fiasco just keeps getting worse. The quad-G5 is going to be spanking the Intel crap for a LONG,LONG time losers."
That's what I love about Apple-tons...they love to simultaneously claim superiority while exposing their ignorance of how computers work.
You guys need to get it through your thick heads: there is NO COMPARISON...Intel and AMD chips, when placed on appropriate motherboards with equivalent peripherals, have consistantly performed better per cycle than their Apple contemporaries.
Talk smack all you want about the operating systems...but fact is, the Apple move to Intel is proof enough that you've been behind the curve....from day one. - opera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Says nothing. What about quality settings? What about what kind of video/audio it encodes? Different media encodes at different speeds especiall at different quality settings, it's kindof the way mpeg works if you didn't know.
And more importantly. If you want benchmarks, try spec or something. "I encode a DVD with a crap-app very fast on my new hardware" isn't really much of a benchmark.
Do again, and do it right. Not even close to anything near a digg. - Abatrour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To geminitojanus:
Didn't I say that you cant go wrong with a 65nm and soon to be 45nm chip? Ofcourse the power requirements are going to be less than the AMD chips because of the smaller production process, but the fact that the Intel multicore cpu's use the system bus to communicate with eachother (there is hardly enough bandwidth for just one, let alone two) the only time their cpu is going to be faster is when its crunching numbers and not accessing other devices or ram, so unless your running seti@home all the time its not going to be running at top speed.
And good point EnhanceYourCalm
"Can the X1600 card be leveraged as well to accelerate either mpeg4 or h.264 encoding?"
I dont know why they havn't taken advantage of the Ati card yet, the encoding times should be much less and it would affect ALL mac notebooks with the X1000 series video cards.
Its nice to finally see realtime h.264 encoding, its much cheaper than buying a standalone system that is designed just for it. - Acill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doesnt seem to be offer much over my Dual G5 system.
- EnhanceYourCalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can the X1600 card be leveraged as well to accelerate either mpeg4 or h.264 encoding?
- mmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"no, gates took it from xerox. apple stole it from xerox.
and considering osx came out after windows, that would mean apple copied windows"
Not at all, when a new version of an OS comes out, does that mean that it's copying someone else who copied you first?
Say, when vista comes out, it's coping from OSX? (Even though it really is)
That was a totally unintelligent statement. - jermm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@EnhanceYourCalm
I really hope so, as I'm getting one - EyeDye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""been behind the curve....from day one."
but still have been happy :)"
Is this what they mean when they say that ignorance is bliss? - mmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It would be much faster if he quit the finder, activity monitor, and minimised the window, I have found that to decrease the ETA by at least 1/4
- popetorak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0no, gates took it from xerox. apple stole it from xerox.
and considering osx came out after windows, that would mean apple copied windows - WebMotiva, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0mp4
- LaviLicious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Welcome to reality Mac crazies.
The Intel fiasco just keeps getting worse. The quad-G5 is going to be spanking the Intel crap for a LONG,LONG time losers."
No duh. IT'S FOUR CORES! Anything with four cores would bitch slap something with only two. - kuchdawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If the Intel macs were quad core....the would kick the G5's ass!
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0webmotiva, is that when you encode in mpeg4 or h.264? Myself and others I've talked to have had far slower speeds when encoding h.264
- WebMotiva, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I am not sure if it's so fast. 2h13m32s at 25.14fps? It's slower than my G5 1.9.
- bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Welcome to reality Mac crazies.
The Intel fiasco just keeps getting worse. The quad-G5 is going to be spanking the Intel crap for a LONG,LONG time losers."
That's what I love about Apple-tons...they love to simultaneously claim superiority while exposing their ignorance of how computers work.
You guys need to get it through your thick heads: there is NO COMPARISON...Intel and AMD chips, when placed on appropriate motherboards with equivalent peripherals, have consistently performed better per cycle than their Apple contemporaries.
Talk smack all you want about the operating systems...but fact is, the Apple move to Intel is proof enough that you've been behind the curve....from day one.
Its funny that you call us ignorant. These new Intel chips get better performance per watt than the AMD equivalent. Way to go. For more info see geminitojanus's comment.
And to be honest, Apple has been ahead of the curve from the beginning. Where did Bill Gates get his idea for a "windowed" OS? Why do all the names of the new features in Vista sound so vastly familiar to those found in Mac OS X which is over 4 years old. Why hasn't anybody come out with anything like iLife for PC which is around 3 years old? I hope you're a Linux user because if you're standing behind Windows with such zeal, you should be committed.
P.S. Calling us losers because we support a higher standard of computing is very childish, lets keep that to a minimum hmm? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Welcome to reality Mac crazies.
The Intel fiasco just keeps getting worse. The quad-G5 is going to be spanking the Intel crap for a LONG,LONG time losers.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
