[MEncoder-users] new doom9 codec comparission

Rich Felker dalias at aerifal.cx
Thu Dec 8 18:24:59 CET 2005

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:35:16PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:07:24PM +0100, Matthias Wieser wrote:
> [...]
> > > I wish I had access to a dual-core/dual-processor machine so I could
> > > actually provide some better performance numbers. The reason my
> > > argument is so shaky is that I can't get the actual data, just what
> > > "ought to" happen.
> > 
> > Some actual benchmarks:
> > http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/11/185212&mode=thread/
> > Athlon 64, 2.4GHz
> >   Single core: 22minutes
> >   Dual core: 17minutes
> nice, but maybe that should be tested on the same OS doom9 will be using?

in any case, the interesting comparison in doom9's test is which codec
is _better_, not which one is _faster_. i'm sure they'll evaluate
both, but NO SANE ENCODER deciding which codec to use will choose
based on speed; they'll choose based on maximum achievable quality.

fyi my machine encodes at 1-8 fps even with only modest settings, and
i'm perfectly happy with that. you only encode once. you have to watch
the hideous artifacts you created every time you watch the movie. thus
spend the time and do it right!


More information about the MEncoder-users mailing list