Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

Mr VacBob posted:

Not only would it be not as good as x264, it won't even be faster. My slower CPU gets the same speed (180fps) for small video sizes using the x264 "faster" preset. A CPU is a much better video encoder than any kind of GPU for all kinds of great reasons; the only reason to avoid one is power budgeting.

I would guess that a specialized "media encoder" chip would be optimized to be a media encoder, rather than being a locked-down GPU.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

Methylethylaldehyde posted:

The thing with the optical transceivers is that if you're going to make them in batches of 100,000 for mass consumer level stuff, they get really stupidly cheap. The only really lovely part will be the fact that you need a fusion splicer to make cables.

Sounds like a place where Monster can actually have a legitimate market rather than just selling to people who don't know better.

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

MachinTrucChose posted:

New architecture with 10% power savings...
Too negligible to matter for the home user.

quote:

so adding 40W to the power consumption (or however much it draws at idle load) ... just wastes the consumer's money and rapes the environment further.


Anyway, what makes you think this will have a significantly higher idle power consumption than the alternatives for that market segment?

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

Space Gopher posted:

When you look at overall system performance, though, the downsides (increased noise, heat, power consumption, and cooler cost)

Following this logic to the extreme would suggest that everyone should underclock their processors so as to get reduced noise, heat and power consumption. The downsides of running at stock speeds as opposed to underclocking outweigh the advantages the extra clocks give you

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

Space Gopher posted:

Or you could just buy the CPU you need for decent performance in whatever it is you do, and let it underclock itself at idle like any modern x86 CPU. Sorry about your [H] cred, but sometimes it's not necessary to "tweak" or "tune" your system.

Or you can buy a CPU that's lower than what you need, overclock it so that it does what you need it to, and let it clock itself back down at idle like any modern x86 CPU. Same performance, lower cost.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply