ssj12 said: dahuman said: booya? http://vr-zone.com/articles/how-games-fare-under-windows-7--core-i7-/6191.html?doc=6191   edit: and encoding vs decoding are 2 very different things man, but I'm going to stop there. I have a feeling that while Core i7 runs better for W7, it is because Microsoft optimized W7 for Core i7. And for a basic answer, encoding = turning a file of one format into another. decoding = taking formatted file and turning it into a more understandable format for a program to use. basically opposite of encoding. Codexs are useful because they tell multimedia software how to decode a specific file type into something it can play.

read the PC World article attached to it, hell I'll link it sigh =/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/153339/intel_core_17.html

tbh I don't think Intel gives a 2 rat's ass about Linux compared to Windows, but not many big companies do. and encoding is very different because I've done video encoding for over 10 years by now, there are far more options and tunning involved depending on how you want your final product so it's more complicated where as decoding is a much simpler process, they probably used the 4.1 profile without much tunning in this case though but I doubt most viewers realize how much work actually went behind it and how much more time and power it takes.

dahuman said: ssj12 said: dahuman said: booya? http://vr-zone.com/articles/how-games-fare-under-windows-7--core-i7-/6191.html?doc=6191   edit: and encoding vs decoding are 2 very different things man, but I'm going to stop there. I have a feeling that while Core i7 runs better for W7, it is because Microsoft optimized W7 for Core i7. And for a basic answer, encoding = turning a file of one format into another. decoding = taking formatted file and turning it into a more understandable format for a program to use. basically opposite of encoding. Codexs are useful because they tell multimedia software how to decode a specific file type into something it can play. read the PC World article attached to it, hell I'll link it sigh =/ http://www.pcworld.com/article/153339/intel_core_17.html tbh I don't think Intel gives a 2 rat's ass about Linux compared to Windows, but not many big companies do. and encoding is very different because I've done video encoding for over 10 years by now, there are far more options and tunning involved depending on how you want your final product so it's more complicated where as decoding is a much simpler process, they probably used the 4.1 profile without much tunning in this case though but I doubt most viewers realize how much work actually went behind it and how much more time and power it takes.

Well that is obvious but that doesnt mean Linux isnt more advanced in terms of capabilities.

Ya you do have a good deal with encoding but I have some history in doing it. I had to re-encode a ton anime for my old anime website. Getting decent quality out of a .rv formatted video was a pain and it still came out poorly but still better than the original. I used to use Real Helix (think, thats the correct program, been like 6 years) to do most of the re-encoding.

linux is faster.

either servers or desktops.

all the fancy stuff with half the cpu power
actually u can do it with a decent 1ghz cpu. 512mb ram.

windows its a big mess of estructure code.
while its optimized for intel cpus now, running any non optimized code powerPC cpu are way better.

they can crush numbers with 2005 twice as faster as 2009 intel X86 cpus, but doing software optimized for intel the cell would likely loose without the instructions.

its like trying to make a gamecube run a xbox game or vice versa, things needs to be changed but when done cell architecture will give bigger speeds.

I use Linux for server purposes(most efficient form of servers) since a lot of the software that I use are not well supported or even on Linux. on my work machine, if I need something done on Linux, Virtual Box is generally my answer. I do think it's a good OS and it has a good amount of features that neither Windows or OS-X can bring, but it's not as good for multimedia purposes(EVR is superior when counting playback quality abilities, and a lot of editing software are simply lacking,) I also need DX(10) for obvious reasons =/.

and since you have experiences, goto doom9 forums and tell them what you said and I'll bet you'll get destroyed very fast =P(about encoding and decoding that is.) real video was never a good format for quality distribution though, they've improved over the years but they still have lousy audio codecs and the video quality is only better because they've updated to 264 type video codecs recently, but the options are terribad(not a real word =P.)

Jo21 said: linux is faster. either servers or desktops. all the fancy stuff with half the cpu power actually u can do it with a decent 1ghz cpu. 512mb ram. windows its a big mess of estructure code. while its optimized for intel cpus now, running any non optimized code powerPC cpu are way better. they can crush numbers with 2005 twice as faster as 2009 intel X86 cpus, but doing software optimized for intel the cell would likely loose without the instructions. its like trying to make a gamecube run a xbox game or vice versa, things needs to be changed but when done cell architecture will give bigger speeds.

dood, moot points are bad =P. linux has it's own problems just like the rest, it's also not news that RISC > CISC in performance, these were already facts back in the 90s, people just don't care.

TEH CELL

So soon desktop CPUs are better than Cell in task that Cell is made for? Doesn't that make it kind of obsolete?

Try throwing some heavy general purpose stuff at both of them. Well, I guess nobody would want to do that, because it would make Cell look bad... very bad. :D

( ... http://hankfiles.pcvsconsole.com/cell-processor-faster-or-hype/ )

the Cell in the PS3 is old tech by now so it's not that bad, the new Cells would be quiet a bit faster.

BMaker11 said: Squilliam said: Jo21 said: Squilliam said: Hows that? GPU are optimized for folding@home though, especially since its rendering protein etc etc. and the i7 / 360 its under CPU =P. @ u don't have to damage control every ps3 thread!, its not a CPU info. and gpu have nothing to do with it. "According to the announcement of Fixstars reached the Cell processor of the Playstation a performance of 29 FPS, that is 1.2 times real-time conversion - the cell has a similar performance as the CUDA Badaboom encoder in combination with an Nvidia Geforce GTX-285. By comparison, Intel's current top-CPU, the Core i7 965 XE, does it still at 18 FPS - normal desktop CPUs even create only about 5 FPS." According to the OP.   So....the Cell has similar performance to both a GPU and CPU together? Doesn't change the fact that the Cell is still a processor only

Nope. The Cell has similar performance to the Cell, actually A GPU like the GT200 has probably got more than twice as much untapped potential as the Cell has potential.

Deneidez said: the Cell processor of the Playstation a performance of 29 FPS the cell has a similar performance as the CUDA Badaboom encoder in combination with an Nvidia Geforce GTX-285 By comparison, Intel's current top-CPU, the Core i7 965 XE, does it still at 18 FPS normal desktop CPUs even create only about 5 FPS. So soon desktop CPUs are better than Cell in task that Cell is made for? Doesn't that make it kind of obsolete? Try throwing some heavy general purpose stuff at both of them. Well, I guess nobody would want to do that, because it would make Cell look bad... very bad. :D ( ... http://hankfiles.pcvsconsole.com/cell-processor-faster-or-hype/ )

Isn't the cell like half a decade old now ? is it really suprising to you that it is being out-performed current technology ?