download.m0k.org— Handbrake x86 is out and it is fast even before being Intel optimized. I've included a link to a screen shot of it running on a new Intel based iMac and it seems to be encoding a DVD in H.264 real time!
Feb 1, 2006View in Crawl 4
Hold 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.
Says 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.
"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?
I 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
longofestFeb 1, 2006
Hold 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.
operaFeb 2, 2006
Says 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.
bloqmonFeb 2, 2006
"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?
l0neFeb 2, 2006
Being the main, most used direct DVD-to-MPEG4 (with realtime decss'ing) application on the Mac, I wouldn't call Handbrake a crap-app ;)
lhaasFeb 2, 2006
I 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
mmartinFeb 2, 2006
It 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
struntFeb 10, 2008
I'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.