Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Difference between 2.0 and 2.4 macbooks in Handbrake

kiranmk2

kiranmk2

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 4, 2008
1,902
2,867
I'm about to order a macbook, but I'm not sure if I should get the 2.4 GHz model. I'm aware that for most things, the speed difference won't be noticable, but what about handbrake, which is very cpu dependent. The 2.4 GHz model has 20% more processor power, but will this translate into an appreciable improvement in h264 encoding?
 
There will be an increase, but not 20%. I wouldn't get the 2.4 just for handbrake but 0.4 GHz is a nice bump for just $300. If money is tight (isn't it always?), the 2.0 upgraded to 4 GB RAM from OWC will probably produce faster HandBrake encodes than the stock 2.4. The HandBrake forums might be useful for you, too.
 
Look.


I think the times given under "Compressor" is what you're looking for. It should be fairly similar to what you'll get from Handbrake.

For most apps, you're talking about a 10-15% improvement in speed. I don't think you get a lot more speed for $300, but you also get the backlit keyboard and an acceptably-sized hard-drive. If you put all those things together, then I guess it's worth the extra $300.
 
Abstract said:
Look.


I think the times given under "Compressor" is what you're looking for. It should be fairly similar to what you'll get from Handbrake.

For most apps, you're talking about a 10-15% improvement in speed.
Click to expand...
I take it that would apply to the NVidia whitebook too
 
Handbrake relies on CPU power, so extra memory and faster graphics won't really help. I'm leaning towards the 2.0 GHz machine and putting the saved cash towards a time machine for backup and to get a faster n wifi network.
 
that thread w/ the compressor time is pretty significant. Encode was for a 6min24sec video. And like what 18sec? Imagine a full length movie or something.. saves several minutes which is good for me =) too bad I have 2.0 haha but saved the money get get a new HDD and ram anyway
 
if that's right it works out at roughly 3 seconds per minute faster - for a 2 hour film the 2.4 GHz would save 6 mins. For the sake of 6 mins per film, I'd rather have a system backup and n network.
 
kiranmk2 said:
Handbrake relies on CPU power, so extra memory and faster graphics won't really help. I'm leaning towards the 2.0 GHz machine and putting the saved cash towards a time machine for backup and to get a faster n wifi network.
Click to expand...


Yea get the 2.0ghz and buy yourself some extras and/or a backup for it. I did the same. :apple:
 
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8320/4.5.0.81 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

But the backlit keys!
 
Yeah not a big enough difference. It will probably still take 2 hours to encode a full length movie in H.264.
 
TheSandman2236 said:
Yea get the 2.0ghz and buy yourself some extras and/or a backup for it. I did the same. :apple:
Click to expand...
To save even more $£$, what's the difference between the alu 2.0 and the whitebook 2.0 now that the whitebook has NVidia, I'd say not much at all...ye ye ddr3 over ddr2 but would be very interesting to see if that extra $£$ for the alu is really just for aesthetics or...
 
Has anyone here used the Elgato Turbo.264? It speeds up encoding, but I'm curious about the quality.
 
I just use the "classic" profile. Most encodes on my Al Macbook 2.0 take 18-25 minutes. The quality is acceptable if you aren't going to be watching action movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back