Review: Elgato Turbo.264
Those involved in any kind of video work will be able to relate to the grueling chore of long encoding sessions, especially if you’re not on an exceptionally quick Intel based machine. Video encoding takes time, hogs your machines resources, and is a long and tentative task.
I’m lucky enough to own a powerful dual-core MacBook Pro now which makes encoding videos for my show an easy process. However on my old Intel iMac this wasn’t the case. Videos took an age to encode into different formats, while the process left something to be desired. Enter the Elgato Turbo.264, saving your sanity, and your wallet from having to shell out for a quicker machine for faster video encodes.
The Turbo.264 can essentially be thought of as an extra processor which can be used externally on your Mac. It plugs into any free USB port and acts as a second (or third in the dual-core MacBook Pro’s case) processor solely for the purpose of video encoding. Once plugged in and installed it will show up when exporting in Quicktime, iMovie, iDVD, and the Final Cut suite. How much faster does this device process videos that than your current Mac, well, it all depends on what exactly your current Mac is.
If you’re running a newer and more powerful Intel based machine, results will not be as astonishing as when using the Turbo.264 on a G4 or a G5 based Mac. I’ve done a little testing a few different machines (Intel only).
When exporting a 2 minute, 19 second long MP4 clip from Quicktime to the Apple TV format without the device installed, I received these encoding results:
- Mac Pro 2 x 2.66Ghz - 58 seconds.
- MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz - 61 seconds.
- iMac Core Duo 1.83Ghz - 74 seconds.
However when the device was plugged in and enabled, I was presented with these more than acceptable results:
- Mac Pro 2 x 2.66Ghz - 53 seconds.
- MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz - 59 seconds.
- iMac Core Duo 1.83Ghz - 67 seconds
Michael Mistretta asked if the Turbo took the load off of the MBP’s processors while encoding. In answer, yes. The second advantage of the Turbo is not only faster encoding speeds, but the ability to free up your main CPU. This made the MacBook Pro run quicker, and cooler than it would have when not using the device.
Overall I’ve been very impressed with the Elgato Turbo.264. Will I miss it? Not terribly, because I feel my MacBook Pro is quick enough to export video in able time, but if I was stuck with any other slower Mac, I believe I’d miss the device a considerable amount more. My advice, if you do any video related work and don’t have a state of the art Intel Mac in your office, you couldn’t invest $100 in any better way.
#1
Alec Feld → alecfeld.com
A bit late for a review (this came out in May or so), but alright.
It’s an OK product. It speeds up encoding but only with certain presets (and even with their preset expansion it still wasn’t enough).
This product would have been decent if they had left it to open encoding. A bit overpriced, and the included encoding software sucks as well.
Also, you should be giving multiple test results in a review. For example, how fast did it encode in iPod format, iPhone format, different resolutions, formats, etc.
A bit late of a review though. Over seven months late :P.
#2
Michael Mistretta → michaelmistretta.com
Well said. I was thinking of buying one for my MacBook Pro (same one as you), but seeing the real-world test makes me think again. I really think this device is designed for older Macs. One question though, does it take all the load off of the MBP’s processors? In other words, does the MBP stay cool, and at a low CPU usage to be used for other tasks?
#3
Glenn Wolsey → www.glennwolsey.com
This device would absolutely rock if there was a way to tie it into Handbrake encoding. As your said Alec, a little disappointing it wasn’t left to open encoding for the user.
#4
Jonathan → www.jonathandavies.org.uk
Very interesting post Glenn, I had been looking at this product for a while but after seeing your review I don’t think it’s worth the money. I’m sure I’ll be able to survive those extra seconds - though integration with Handbrake would make me snatch it up immediately.
You mentioned the video show; are you planning on picking it up - I’m still waiting for my question to be answered. :-)
Jonathan
#5
rmaspero → www.rmaspero.com
This is the kind of stuff I like good reviews of useful stuff, shame it does not work with handbreak that would be cool. I hope we get to see more video, I know what it is like to be busy!!! Good post
#6
Ondra SoukupQuickTime movie (which is just a container, by the way!) into Apple TV format ? Didn’t you have anything more meaningless there ? What codeds were used in the source video, what was the output resolution, bitrate, framerate ?
AppleTV Format = Takes a video, if resolution is under 1280×720, it just uses source resolution. Bitrate is 3-5Mbit/s. Framerate left intact. As far as I know, you have Canon TX1. That produces MJPEGs at 1280×720. Turbo.264 can only help if the resolutions are under 800×600. Chances are it wasn’t used at all…
No. I don’t believe that separate, heavily optimized video encoding processor would preform so differently on the same file across different computers, yet resulted in only 2 second difference on MBP.
Epic fail ~:]
#7
Glenn Wolsey → www.glennwolsey.com
Ondra. Source file was not a TX1 video. MP4 file with resolution under 800×600.
#8
AidanWow. I just looked at the date that you made this blog and it says 30th of December. Then i looked at my clock and it said 29th. I then thought about it and figured out that Canada is about 12 hours behind.
#9
BernardWell I have one, and I’m quite pleased with it. It’s way faster than using handbrake to rip dvds. It only takes around 2 hours to rip a dvd to appletv format on a mac mini dual core 1.66, for divx, it takes 45 minutes. I use it with Fairmount from Dvdremaster to mount my dvd without protection then use the elgato software to encode.
#10
Nick Danforth → www.youtube.com/nickdanforth
Thanks for the review Glenn. I think I’ll pick up one of these, regardless of upcoming setup updates. Encoding is always a pain.
#11
BenI’d suggest adjusting white balance on your photos.
#12
Paul Stamatiou → paulstamatiou.com
A 2 second gain for a short MP4 file export doesn’t seem like it’s worth $100 to me.
#13
Macintalk → macintalk.com
I’m with Paul here. I have a MacBook Pro, two seconds faster just doesn’t seem with it to me even if it does take the load off the CPU.
#14
Umair AtaInformative and Interesting post, but I dont do any kind of video editing or encoding. :-}
#15
ArnoldStill no Lightroom review?
#16
Tim → teckstuf.blogspot.com
nice review
#17
Brian Amerige → brianamerige.com
While it may be nice that it frees up your machines processor while encoding, your results show that it’s statistically insignificant in terms of the speed difference.
That’s a shame. Surprising, actually.
#18
AlanOn my G4 Powerbook (1gHz 768MB Ram) with the Turbo .264 I converted an MPEG2 25fps 720×404 54mins in just over an hour, but without the Turbo .264 it took over 6 hours. As the reviewer said its a huge improvement on older machines and well worth the money.
#19
Michael OatmanConverting 2 gb avi files (encoded at avg bitrate 2500) to apple tv using popcorn 3 on a mini 1.83 w/ 2gb ram, I found the turbo .264 approximately halved the conversion time. a significant improvement! Alternatively on my mac pro (3.0 ghz 8 gb ram 8 processor) it did not seem to make a significant difference.