Am 11.06.2013 um 16:52 schrieb J-sun Bailey: Your numbers are not too specific, but they compute to something like 2-4frames per second. Yes, that is 'normal', not even bad for an old machine. Have you optimized your thread setting (I think it should be set to '2')? Do you have some spare machines sitting around? We had a few discussions regarding encoding speed and benchmarking. I think no one posted numbers for an i7 so far. Two quotes: --- --- AMD dual octo-core (true eight physical cores - not bragging, just clarifying) at 4.0 GHz and using 15 cores under Win7 x64 nets me ~8 to 9ish fps consistently. I keep considering making my notebooks (two quad-cores and a dual-core) join in, but my single machine does okay. As for HT or not HT, despite the fact that they're a single, dual or quad physical core processor, even with the overhead subtracted for treating it as a dual, quad or octo virtual core processor still adds 30% performance, which though not a substitution for physical cores, are a welcome thing, I imagine. --- Bear in mind that the j2c encoding is the most CPU intensive task, and that turned out to be highly dependent on image complexity: --- I just did a test comparison between my frame count test video (white numbers on black) and a (static) synthetical colour noise pattern (noise at the single pixel level). Both MP4, 1998*1080 24fps with stereo audio, all transcoding parameters identical, no additional processing/filters enabled. While the very simple frame count images compress at up to 3.6 fps in DVD-o-matic, with the noise pattern it drops to 0.7fps on the same machine. That is a 1:5 difference between best and worst case content! --- A quick test encoding of the SINTEL Trailer shows that the encoding speed runs up and down between 1.1 and 4 fps - so it is unusable as a benchmark. At least if you want to benchmark the fps display during the encoding and not the total encoding time (which is 12min24s = 1,68fps total average). --- - Carsten