Difference between 2.0 and 2.4 macbooks in Handbrake

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by kiranmk2, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. kiranmk2 macrumors 6502a

    kiranmk2

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    #1
    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?
     
  2. p.luik macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Faribault, MN
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    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.
     
  4. marbles macrumors 68000

    marbles

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    EU mostly
    #4
    I take it that would apply to the NVidia whitebook too
     
  5. TheScavenger macrumors 6502

    TheScavenger

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    #5
    I don't think there will be a difference in encoding speeds between 2GB and 4GB of memory.
     
  6. kiranmk2 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kiranmk2

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    #6
    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.
     
  7. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #7
    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
     
  8. kiranmk2 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kiranmk2

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    #8
    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.
     
  9. TheSandman2236 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #9

    Yea get the 2.0ghz and buy yourself some extras and/or a backup for it. I did the same. :apple:
     
  10. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #10
    Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8320/4.5.0.81 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

    But the backlit keys!
     
  11. trip1ex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    #11
    Yeah not a big enough difference. It will probably still take 2 hours to encode a full length movie in H.264.
     
  12. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
  13. TheScavenger macrumors 6502

    TheScavenger

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    #13
    Yep, it does with an h264 encode (dependent upon processor speed of course. FFmpeg is much faster but less efficient.
     
  14. marbles macrumors 68000

    marbles

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    EU mostly
    #14
    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...
     
  15. LED macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    #15
    Has anyone here used the Elgato Turbo.264? It speeds up encoding, but I'm curious about the quality.
     
  16. anthony691 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Jeffrosproto macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    #17
    As someone who bought the 2.0 model, I would suggest the 2.4, if only for the backlit keys.
     

Share This Page