Is the LAME encoding speed always proportional to the CPU capacity, or could other factors have an effect on the performance?
The reason for my question is that since I had to swithch motherboard on my 3 month old Athlon XP 1800 (1536 MHz) LAME speed is considerably slower, allthough benchmarking tools do not show that a big difference. (Of course noone believes me, since the new motherboard was of the exact same model)
When the computer was new the encoding speed with '--alt-preset standard -F' was around 4.5x realtime, now it's more like 1.5-2.0x realtime. Surely something must be wrong. What would typically the encoding speed on a 1.5 GHz machine be?
Full Version: LAME speed
QUOTE(Pearson @ Jan 21 2003 - 01:25 PM)
Is the LAME encoding speed always proportional to the CPU capacity, or could other factors have an effect on the performance?
The reason for my question is that since I had to swithch motherboard on my 3 month old Athlon XP 1800 (1536 MHz) LAME speed is considerably slower, allthough benchmarking tools does not show that a big difference. (Of course noone believes me, since the new motherboard was of the exact same model)
When the computer was new the encoding speed with '--alt-preset standard -F' was around 4.5x realtime, now it's more like 1.5-2.0x realtime. Surely something must be wrong. What would typically the encoding speed on a 1.5 GHz machine be?
The reason for my question is that since I had to swithch motherboard on my 3 month old Athlon XP 1800 (1536 MHz) LAME speed is considerably slower, allthough benchmarking tools does not show that a big difference. (Of course noone believes me, since the new motherboard was of the exact same model)
When the computer was new the encoding speed with '--alt-preset standard -F' was around 4.5x realtime, now it's more like 1.5-2.0x realtime. Surely something must be wrong. What would typically the encoding speed on a 1.5 GHz machine be?
Primarily it's down to processor speed, although disk access speed will also play a part as will the amount of RAM onboard.
I also have an AthlonXP 1800+ and I get about the 4.5x that you're talking about. I take it that you've checked that the bus speeds and RAM speeds are set up as before in the BIOS and/or with the jumpers (if any) on the motherboard? I can't think of anything else off hand.
If you have a motherboard with a VIA chipset (likely if you have an AMD system), you should install the latest 4-in-1 patches from VIA's website.
I primarily work with a PIII-866 and see LAME speeds of around 2-2.5X. I would hope and expect an XP1800+ to push this to 6-8X at a minimum. AMD's processors are numerical workhorses.
I primarily work with a PIII-866 and see LAME speeds of around 2-2.5X. I would hope and expect an XP1800+ to push this to 6-8X at a minimum. AMD's processors are numerical workhorses.
QUOTE(mithrandir @ Jan 21 2003 - 09:24 AM)
I would hope and expect an XP1800+ to push this to 6-8X at a minimum. AMD's processors are numerical workhorses.
What!!! 6-8x???? I have XP1900+ and it only gets upto 4.8-5.0 with --alt preset standard with lame v3.92
Pearson there most be something wrong with your bios setup or disc settings.
Try to check the bios, for memory speed.
And also check to see if your HD is in DMA or PIO mode (it should be in DMA) because PIO uses more processor power for large data transfers.
It's really weird since in my old 1.33GHz Tunderbird Athlon I get about 2X.
Try to check the bios, for memory speed.
And also check to see if your HD is in DMA or PIO mode (it should be in DMA) because PIO uses more processor power for large data transfers.
It's really weird since in my old 1.33GHz Tunderbird Athlon I get about 2X.
Thanks for your advice! I didn't change the motherboard myself, since the computer is still under warranty, and actually I do not know what the settings were like before.
Since this will go off-topic if I continue, I'll stop here!
But maybe I'll continue in the off-topic area...
Since this will go off-topic if I continue, I'll stop here!
But maybe I'll continue in the off-topic area...
QUOTE(Pearson @ Jan 21 2003 - 05:25 AM)
When the computer was new the encoding speed with '--alt-preset standard -F' was around 4.5x realtime, now it's more like 1.5-2.0x realtime.
I believe the difference could possibly be the software that was on your computer then (brand new so there's no "junk" yet) compared to what's in it now; with everything that you've ever installed or uninstalled (some "junk" gets left behind.)
Some background process or service? PGP collecting random bits? Prime number computations? Looking for aliens? Downloading from P2P? Adjusting your computer to atomic time all the time? or if you're using Windows perhaps you "updated" it?
I like my computers freshly formatted every now and then, regardless of OS.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.