Benchmarks for using Procoder 3

[lordsmurf]

continued from email...

Quote:

i'm trying to find benchmarks for using procoder 3.
especially when used with dual cores, quad cores etc.
can't seem to find it on google when i search.
do you know of any sites with benchmarks?

Nope.

What's the reasoning? Curiosity or troubleshooting?

[manthing]

curiosity.

currently have a dual core PC.

using DVD Rebuilder & Procoder 3 together, it takes about 2 hours to re-do a +9 dvd to a +5 dvd.

in fact, some of my current projects are mere cartoons that are only just a tad over +5 dvd capacity. say around 4.75 GB.

i say "mere" cartoons, because i'm thinking that a cartoon will have less detail and motion and maybe should be easier & quicker to transcode. but then i don't really know how these things work.

so i wanted to know whether a quad core will transcode quicker than a dual core and by how much.

if we are talking about shaving perhaps 10 minutes or 20 minutes, then i will stick with my dual core.

however, if it would shave off say an hour or so, then i may upgrade my hardware.

anyone else on this forum have any ideas?

[admin]

Adding more cores doesn't necessarily double speeds like many would believe. Off hand, I'm not sure Procoder 3 fully uses all available cores, or that (even if it does) it's using all cores for the actual compression. Adobe Premiere CS3, for example, only used two cores, even if four were present.

Double check the Grass Valley Procoder specs.