Converting MP3s on my dad's laptop takes half of the time it takes one my computer.

My dad's laptop: Intel 2.2 GHZ, 1GB RAM
My computer: Intel 3.0GHZ, 512 RAM

I use winLame (just a front-end for Lame encoder) on both computers.

Can 512MB of RAM really make such a big difference? I've always thought that converting MP3s is a task for the processor not for the RAM... Both computers have Windows XP.

What model Intel processor is in each computer? What version of Lame are you using on each? What are the commandline params? I or someone else will likely answer your question with more information...

Mine: Intel Penitum 4 3.0 GHZ (Dual)
My dad's: Intel Core2 Duo 2.20


3.97.0.1


I'm using winLame on both computers so i don't know the command line parameters but I guess it's the same as the mp3 parameters, so I'm always converting to CBR 128kbps joint stereo MP3s.

The Core2Duo will process more instructions per clock than your (older) Dual core Pentium. The C2D probably has more L2 cache than your processor as well. 512MB is not a lot of RAM these days, especially with a fully updated Windows XP SP2 installation (when XP starts using the swapfile, things *really* slow down.....)

The Pentium 4 is notorious for delivering performance well below what you would expect from its MHz. That's why other processors are rated as something like "3800+" when their clock frequency is much lower. This is the MHz Pentium 4 that would deliver (supposedly) the same performance. Intel has since abandoned the P4 architecture because the only way it could compete is if they got really really high clock frequencies from it, but that never happened.

Edit: Nick.C beat me to it.

I believe you got confused by intel's naming.

A Core 2 duo machine is not only newer, but also a better technology than a Pentium D (i guess that's what you mean with Pentium 4 Dual. If you meant two cpu's, then that's still older and my point is still valid).

I'm writing this on a Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz and i can tell you it is faster than my P4 2.8Ghz (non-HT) by a notable margin, and I had a Pentium-M 1.5Ghz that was twice as fast than my P4 1.5Ghz (willamette)

To a lessen degree, the Hard Disc speed could affect the encoding time, but i guess it's not the main factor here.

As already stated the Core processors get more done per clock cycle than a Pentium 4.

Think of it like the small engine in a base-model Honda Civic versus a V8 in some huge truck. They can both run at 3500 RPM, but one does much more work at that speed.

The numbers can be found on the Lame test from the tomshardware CPU charts. Your Pentium D did their test in 4:21 and the Core 2 Duo took only 3:23. Basically, the Pentium 4's microarchitecture was terrible from an instructions per clock perspective, although it was pretty much unbeatable in it's ability to take high clock frequencies (for the process technologies available at the time).