CPU/GPU Hardware needs

[Asterix]

Regarding to hardware: what is the most important to convert very quick dvd's to AVI? On older systems (depending RAM, processor and video card) converting a movie can last a full hour or so. I tested it also on a somewhat newer system (Core2Duo E7200, Win7 64bit, DVDFfab 8.xxx, ATI/AMD HD 2400XT video card). I tested ripping a movie on this system using 2 GB, 4GB and 8GB of RAM (DDR2 800). And memory seems not to be the issue. In the three situations the conversion took between about 35 and 40 minutes. If the amount of memory is not the issue, what DOES matter for converting even quickier? I'm looking for an update of my system at home.
The CPU (is there a significant difference between Intel Sandy Bridge CPU's and AMD X4 or X6 quad- or sixcore CPU's regarding ripping/converting dvd's with DVDFab?)
The kind of memory (i.e. is using DDR3 1333 really that faster than using DDR2 1066?)
Is for example a somewhat older video card (nVidia 9400GT) fast enough, or what is the role of the video card in ripping/converting to AVI?

(PS: the reason why I prefer the older AVI and not MKV is just for compatibility reasons. Not all my players play it properly, even after firmware updates).

Thanks in advance for the feedback,

Dirk Peeters

[bper]

I would say one of the most important things is the CPU. I had the i7 2600k but switched to a intel 6-core i7 970 and found the 6-core faster for video conversion (multi-thread and utilizes all 6 cores). I'm not sure about AMD, but if you look at benches for video conversion, intel's are faster. 2600k are faster for single pass (but not by much), but the 970 pulls forward on 2 pass (which I do all the time).

As for the vid card, you should look for Nvidia cards w/cuda cores. The more cuda cores, the more processing power. I have a GTX470 w/448 cuda cores and it basically splits the time in half when enabled. However, I've noticed that the quality isn't as good when using cuda, so I rely on CPU power alone.

[Asterix]

Hardware needs

And what is the impact of the amount of Cuda cores? I suppose the more the better. But as my budget has its limits and I'm not a hardcore gamer, going for the state of the art gaming card is not my intension. I can imagine that a low-cost card with 16 Cuda cores is not so impressive as a card with 96 cores based on the Geforce GT440 (70 euro) and a card based on the Geforce GTS450 with 192 cores is with 110 euro also within my budget. But that is the maximum I want to spend on a graphics card.

[regnad kcin]

Definitely your cpu and as bper said, the more cores the better.
CUDA is still very much a work in progress and user results vary widely and for some, it is nothing more than a headache.

Personally, CUDA works pretty well for me.
I just converted Unstoppable to avi.h264.audiocopy as an example for you:
Without CUDA = 66 minutes
With CUDA = 42 minutes
...roughly a 40% gain.

I built a rig Oct '09 which coincided with the Win7 release (retail).
Nothing fancy, but I love both the cpu and gpu.
They've been great for my needs:
Intel core i7 920 @ 276 GHz (4 cores/8 threads)
EVGA 896-P3-1257-AR GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked Edition 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 (when I bought it on sale @ newegg...$206.88)

While I don't mean to downplay the importance of a solid, CUDA enabled card, put your $ in your cpu first.

[Asterix]

CPU/GPU Hardware needs

Is the Level 2 or even Level 3 cache (AMD) of the same importance as the amount of processors? For example: Athlon X4 versus Phenom X4?

Thx in advance