Handbrake speed comparison on CD vs CD2

[Axegrinder]

I know there's a lot of threads talking about the time taken to encode a file in handbrake etc, but I'm looking for thoughts on the difference in speed between my 2 systems.

I have a Core Duo (not 2), 2.0 Ghz iMac at home and at work I have a Core Duo 2, 2.2 Ghz DELL laptop (unfortunately!).

I have an episode of the X Files roughly 45 minutes long that I ripped from DVD. Using Handbrake on my iMac with the Mpeg4 codec it encodes at an average of 11 fps and estimates 1 hour 34 minutes to finish the job.
On the DELL, Handbrake encodes at an average of 130 fps and does the same episode in around 7 minutes!

If I change to H.264 the DELL can do the job in as long as it takes to watch the episode i.e around 45 minutes but with my iMac we're talking about 2+ hours.

Obviously the laptop has the more modern processor but I didn't expect it to be THAT much better. Is it really down to the differences in processor or is something not quite right on the iMac?

The only difference between the 2 systems is that I don't have leopard therefore I can't run the latest Handbrake whereas on the DELL I am running the newest release.

Any thoughts?

 

[dynaflash]

Um, was this any kind of a controlled comparison ? I mean you used exactly the same preset and source for each timed encode, right ? Um, oh you have 0.9.1 on one machine and 0.9.2 on the others ? Hmm, well here is the deal HB is all about processor speed. Period. a TB of ram will not help it run any faster than a gig of ram. If by "Core Duo 2" you mean Core 2 duo, then yes it will definitely be the fastest of our machines by far. Realize as well as settings, HB 0.9.2 uses a newer version of x264 which is somewhat faster than the one in 0.9.1 depending on your architecture. So take that for what its worth in your comparison.