<strong>I thought the test was primarily related to CPU with coverting to Mp3 in iTunes. I know that iTunes is Altivec enhanced so the test should run a lot faster on G4s. I have a 24x10x40x Lite-On so does that mean I should be able to get 40x rip times?</strong><hr></blockquote>
not neccessarily.
some G4s are drive limited and than other machine srae CPU limited. depends on the G4 and the optical drive.
ie: my G4 outpaces my optical drive and so does my Powerbook G4
Well that makes sense. I'm just an idiot </strong><hr></blockquote>
no, it is a hard subject. Think about it. I mean the outside rings are spinning faster then the inside rings because they are covering a greater distance, but they are getting read slower then the inside rings because this greater distance takes longer to read by the laser even if they are moving faster... :hmm: that makes sense right?. now i confused myself....
on my iBook 600 I get consistently around 4.7 times conversion rate. I encode at 160, which seems pretty standard (160 or 192 seem to be more popular around here than 128).
I am pretty pleased by the speed I get encoding. Not bad for a laptop!
<strong>it varies because the CD reads faster on the inside than the outside. that's why drives are rated as Mac. ie: 24X max.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you have it the other way around bro. Its slower to read on the inside tracks, and max on the outside. This is also why he gets faster rips on last tracks.
This is also why XBox games are written from the OUTSIDE towards the inside... unlike normal inside to outside. Critical data... that needs to be processed quickly is written further outside so it is accessed faster.
I think you have it the other way around bro. Its slower to read on the inside tracks, and max on the outside. This is also why he gets faster rips on last tracks.
This is also why XBox games are written from the OUTSIDE towards the inside... unlike normal inside to outside. Critical data... that needs to be processed quickly is written further outside so it is accessed faster.
ZO</strong><hr></blockquote>
why would the outside be read faster?
now, I'm confused. there WAS a day when I DID understand this
Ripping and Encoding are two different actions. Ripping is mainly a function of the CD drive's ability to extract digital audio (DAE speed). Encoding, on the otherhand, is mainly a function of CPU FPU power (plus enhancements like Altivec, SSE, 3DNOW! extensions).
Either iTunes is a very poorly optimized encoder or some serious bottleneck must be present for the encoding speeds listed to be in the single digits.
For example, using CDDA2WAV my 16x10x40x LG rips between 5x and 8X depending on the track. Using LAME MP3 encoder (stock version loaded with RedHat 7.2) on my AthlonXP 1600+ (1400MHZ/266MHZ FSB using PC-133 SDRAM) the encoding rate is between 18x-22x at 192kbps. LAME 3.89 enables the SIMD 3DNOW! instruction set. If I rip and encode at the same time, ripping speed is still 5x-8x but encoding drops to 15x-18x primarily due to hard drive I/O limitations (7200rpm Maxtor on ATA-100 Ultra DMA 5).
A CD or hard drive will always read fastest from the outside tracks versus the inside tracks given a constant linear velocity (CLV) not constant angular velocity (CAV). Why? Well if the rotational speed of the platter is fixed, say 7200rpm, then the outside of the disk covers more linear distance in a given time period than the inner tracks. and
<strong>Why would it be slower to read the inside tracks? It's a shorter distance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because given a certain RPM the disc is spinning, the linear track of data "pits" in the disc is moving past the laser faster at the outside of the disc. More data moving past the laser means more audio data ripped per second.
Data isn't recorded "per revolution" on the disc but linearly, in a spiral.
Because given a certain RPM the disc is spinning, the linear track of data "pits" in the disc is moving past the laser faster at the outside of the disc. More data moving past the laser means more audio data ripped per second.
Data isn't recorded "per revolution" on the disc but linearly, in a spiral.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah now it makes sence. the outside spins faster... the distance traveled doesnt matter because the distance would be the same if you were on the inside or outside... damnit I was thinking that when I posted, but I assumed applenut was right and since his info was the opposite I got confused....
<strong>I just got 2.6x on a 333 MHz iMac on the same track I was getting 1.9x on my 300 MHz G3. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
really?? I would figure that the PM G3 would do better b/c it has 1MB L2 cache... odd
Comments
<strong>I thought the test was primarily related to CPU with coverting to Mp3 in iTunes. I know that iTunes is Altivec enhanced so the test should run a lot faster on G4s. I have a 24x10x40x Lite-On so does that mean I should be able to get 40x rip times?</strong><hr></blockquote>
not neccessarily.
some G4s are drive limited and than other machine srae CPU limited. depends on the G4 and the optical drive.
ie: my G4 outpaces my optical drive and so does my Powerbook G4
<strong>On a 867 MHz G4 I got 8x yesterday.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Were you doing anything else at the time to chew up CPU? It seems like I get better than that on my 450DP.
maybe he was ripping from one of the outer tracks? my computer can go down to 2X on outer tracks because my DVD-ROM drive sucks so much
<strong>How come the speed varies so much depending on what track # it is? I could understand a little, but why so much?</strong><hr></blockquote>
think about a cd.
it's spinning at 1X right?
now the outside rings of cd are larger than the inside rings, right?
so at 1X the inside rings would be getting read faster than the outside.
at least that's my understanding
<strong>
think about a cd.
it's spinning at 1X right?
now the outside rings of cd are larger than the inside rings, right?
so at 1X the inside rings would be getting read faster than the outside.
at least that's my understanding</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that makes sense. I'm just an idiot
<strong>
Well that makes sense. I'm just an idiot
no, it is a hard subject. Think about it. I mean the outside rings are spinning faster then the inside rings because they are covering a greater distance, but they are getting read slower then the inside rings because this greater distance takes longer to read by the laser even if they are moving faster... :hmm: that makes sense right?. now i confused myself....
I am pretty pleased by the speed I get encoding. Not bad for a laptop!
Hewligan
<strong>it varies because the CD reads faster on the inside than the outside. that's why drives are rated as Mac. ie: 24X max.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you have it the other way around bro. Its slower to read on the inside tracks, and max on the outside. This is also why he gets faster rips on last tracks.
This is also why XBox games are written from the OUTSIDE towards the inside... unlike normal inside to outside. Critical data... that needs to be processed quickly is written further outside so it is accessed faster.
ZO
<strong>
I think you have it the other way around bro. Its slower to read on the inside tracks, and max on the outside. This is also why he gets faster rips on last tracks.
This is also why XBox games are written from the OUTSIDE towards the inside... unlike normal inside to outside. Critical data... that needs to be processed quickly is written further outside so it is accessed faster.
ZO</strong><hr></blockquote>
why would the outside be read faster?
now, I'm confused. there WAS a day when I DID understand this
<strong>Why would it be slower to read the inside tracks? It's a shorter distance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's what I would think too.
Either iTunes is a very poorly optimized encoder or some serious bottleneck must be present for the encoding speeds listed to be in the single digits.
For example, using CDDA2WAV my 16x10x40x LG rips between 5x and 8X depending on the track. Using LAME MP3 encoder (stock version loaded with RedHat 7.2) on my AthlonXP 1600+ (1400MHZ/266MHZ FSB using PC-133 SDRAM) the encoding rate is between 18x-22x at 192kbps. LAME 3.89 enables the SIMD 3DNOW! instruction set. If I rip and encode at the same time, ripping speed is still 5x-8x but encoding drops to 15x-18x primarily due to hard drive I/O limitations (7200rpm Maxtor on ATA-100 Ultra DMA 5).
A CD or hard drive will always read fastest from the outside tracks versus the inside tracks given a constant linear velocity (CLV) not constant angular velocity (CAV). Why? Well if the rotational speed of the platter is fixed, say 7200rpm, then the outside of the disk covers more linear distance in a given time period than the inner tracks. and
<strong>Why would it be slower to read the inside tracks? It's a shorter distance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because given a certain RPM the disc is spinning, the linear track of data "pits" in the disc is moving past the laser faster at the outside of the disc. More data moving past the laser means more audio data ripped per second.
Data isn't recorded "per revolution" on the disc but linearly, in a spiral.
<strong>
Because given a certain RPM the disc is spinning, the linear track of data "pits" in the disc is moving past the laser faster at the outside of the disc. More data moving past the laser means more audio data ripped per second.
Data isn't recorded "per revolution" on the disc but linearly, in a spiral.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah now it makes sence. the outside spins faster... the distance traveled doesnt matter because the distance would be the same if you were on the inside or outside... damnit I was thinking that when I posted, but I assumed applenut was right and since his info was the opposite I got confused....
it all makes sense now...
Thank god for physics
Computer: G4/400
Speed: 4.7X
<strong>I just got 2.6x on a 333 MHz iMac on the same track I was getting 1.9x on my 300 MHz G3. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
really?? I would figure that the PM G3 would do better b/c it has 1MB L2 cache... odd