Question for those who upgraded to 3580 (3.33) Quad

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by bbadalucco, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. bbadalucco macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    #1
    I recently bought a 2009 Mac Pro Quad 2.66. I have since put in 12gb (3x4) of RAM and a GTX285.

    I’m seriously considering upgrading to the 3580 (3.33) but was curious as to the potential performance gains.

    Here’s the deal, I’d like to speed up the time it takes to encode videos. The videos are normally 25gb and I convert them into h.264 using handbrake. With the 2.66 it takes about 4 hours with an average of 10.5 fps.

    Does anyone who has made the upgrade have any idea on the potential improvement I could expect to see?

    Thanks
     
  2. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #2
    EDIT - see below post. ~125.1% increase in power.
     
  3. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
  4. bbadalucco thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    #4
    Wow...an hour per encode is very enticing.

    Thanks
     
  5. frimple macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #5
    Haha, yeah you've gotta flip those around

    (1 - (2.26/3.33))*100 = ~32%
     
  6. AZREOSpecialist macrumors 68000

    AZREOSpecialist

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    #6
    PEOPLE LEARN HOW TO DO MATH!

    A 3.33 GHz is 25% faster, which means a 4 hour encode on a 2.66 will take 3 hours on a 3.33. You'll shave an hour off your encode time with a 3.33 GHz CPU. You'll get ~$250 on eBay for your stock W3520.
     
  7. macz1 macrumors 6502

    macz1

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #7
    Because the two CPUs have the same architecture the encoding time will approximately be inversely proportional to the clock speed:

    required time to encode video with 3.33 GHz =~2.66/3.33 x time required with 2.66 GHz = 0.8

    That means a 4h encoding task will take approx. 3.2h or 3h and 12 mins... its not an astronomical speed increase, but still...
     
  8. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #8
    (*#&@$(#@*&!

    Sorry.....

    3.33 GHz is approximatly 125.1% the processing power of 2.66 GHz.

    Sorry, I was going too fast and didn't move the decimal over.
     
  9. Gomff macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #9
    Interesting thread. How much would it cost to do the upgrade, factoring in sale of current CPUs as well as purchase of new ones?
     
  10. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #10
    I'm interested in your settings. I want to convert MPEG2 streams of similar size and keep the quality. A thread in the video forum got me no answers to that. Also interested if you remux things prior to transcoding.

    Sorry if I go off topic a bit.
     
  11. bbadalucco thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    #11
    I originally set everything to the Apple TV Preset (source is 1920x1080). I then do the following:
    1. Apple TV Preset
    2. FPS to 24
    3. Constant Quality - leave at 61
    4. Click Picture Settings
    4a. Choose Custom Cropping
    4b. change so there is zero cropping
    5. Select Anamorphic "None"
    6. Set resolution to 1920x1080

    I've looked at the original vs the mp4 and I don't notice a difference on my tv. Plus it saves me at least 50% hdd space on average.

    Occasionally I would remux via TSremux but that doesn't work with Snow Leopard...its painless and fast when it supports the OS.
     
  12. bbadalucco thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    #12
    The W3580 is $1100 on newegg...as someone stated you could sell your 2.66 for about $250 on ebay...
     
  13. gugucom macrumors 68020

    gugucom

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #13
    Thanks ever so much. Didn't know Tsremux doesn't work with SL. I will have to do this in Vista64 then.
     

Share This Page