c2d e6400 performance vs. p4 3g
Please take a quick look at what I wrote in related text at: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=21479963
Anyone - question at this point: would it be better to have a 2nd sata drive which gets the rendering output files while the source video files reside on C?
Does anyone have any clue why a) the time it takes to render isn't
significantly faster (realizing possible answer is due to all the
disc activity as it renders) and b) how could the result of using
the same ide drive be so significantly slower on the supposedly
blistering p5b e6400 system?
IMHO the reason is the HD access speed. I have made similar tests
because of curiosity after upgrading to c2d system. While testing
the raw cpu power it seems like the new system (e6600 at default
speed vs. p4 2.8HT) is approximately 3,5 times faster. However when
you render big video files, you touch the bottleneck. ie., the HD
speed. You touch it even more when you read and at the same time
write to the same HD. The heads have to jump forward-back all the
time. As we know, the slowest piece in modern electronics is the
mechanical part. Besides, IDE standard allows data transfer only to
one HD at a time, what means the other device connected to the same
cable is idle at that moment. This also gives some decrease of
speed. It would be ideal to render to another HD connected via a
|splat by Eb Swarbrick|
from Album cover for a rock band
|Madagascar1 by Jaklab|
from Mind and matter - the creations of humanity.