Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Encoder speed in DVD-RB using single/multiple encoder processes

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • UncasMS
    Super Moderator
    • Nov 2001
    • 9047

    Encoder speed in DVD-RB using single/multiple encoder processes

    Having upgraded from single to dual core recently i was interested what difference it would possibly make to use DVD-RB Pro's option:
    "Multiple Encoder Processes"

    I used Harry Potter and the goblet of fire - 226.270 frames/150 min on an AMD Athlon 64 x2 4600 AM2, 2GB Ram with 2 out of 3 sata hdd for encoding and DVD Rebuilder Pro 1.22

    Code:
    Encoder       Single Encoder Process   Multiple Encoder Processes
    CCE           38 min                   37 min   
    HC 020        202 min                  115 min  
    Procoder 2    125 min                  127 min
    CCE was used in 2 pass mode
    HC 020 with settings BEST
    Procoder 2 was set to MASTERING Quality


    CCE is known to use all cpu power it can get hold of without having to tinker with it and demonstrates that it's code is up 2 scratch.

    Procoder2 doesnt seem to like interference as well and is best left alone running only once instance at a time.

    Hank315's latest version of his great freeware encoder HC 0.20 clearly gains in terms of speed from the rebuilder option "multiple encoders" and drops down to 57% of the time using two encoders instead of one!
  • blutach
    Not a god of digital video
    • Oct 2004
    • 24627

    #2
    I read somewhere that CCE couldn't use multiple process so the result is no surprise. But my experience with Procoder is enhanced times - need to do a test to see but I am very surprised at the result.

    Regards
    Last edited by blutach; 17 Mar 2007, 03:34 PM.
    Les

    Essential progs - [PgcEdit] [VobBlanker] [MenuShrink] [IfoEdit] [Muxman] [DVD Remake Pro] [DVD Rebuilder] [BeSweet] [Media Player Classic] [DVDSubEdit] [ImgBurn]

    Media and Burning - [Golden Rules of Burning] [Media quality] [Fix your DMA] [Update your Firmware] [What's my Media ID Code?] [How to test your disc]
    [What's bitsetting?] [Burn dual layer disks safely] [Why not to burn with Ner0] [Interpret Ner0's burn errors] [Got bad playback?] [Burner/Media compatibility]

    Cool Techniques - [2COOL's guides] [Clean your DVD] [Join a flipper] [Split into 2 DVDs] [Save heaps of Mb] [How to mock strip] [Cool Insert Clips]

    Real useful info - [FAQ INDEX] [Compression explained] [Logical Remapping of Enabled Streams] [DVD-Replica] [Fantastic info on DVDs]


    You should only use genuine Verbatim or Taiyo Yuden media. Many thanks to www.pcx.com.au for their supply and great service.

    Explore the sites and the programs - there's a gold mine of information in them

    Don't forget to play the Digital Digest Quiz!!! (Click here)

    Comment

    • BR7
      He is coming to your little town!
      • Aug 2005
      • 2137

      #3
      That's why I thought ProCoder couldn't run multiple process because when I have it running normally it uses 100% of my CPU Power. Being PC2 used all that power I just figured it wouldn't benefit running multiple process
      Attached Files
      Last edited by BR7; 17 Mar 2007, 01:23 PM.

      My Blu-ray Collection

      Comment

      • techreactor
        Banned
        • Jul 2005
        • 1309

        #4
        I agree with BR7

        CCE uses 100% CPU in single instance of encoder
        Procoder uses 100% CPU in single instance of encoder
        AutoQmatenc uses 100% CPU in single instance of encoder
        HCEnc does not use 100% CPU in single instance of encoder

        Therefore using multiple encoder processes with HCenc will benefit and reduce the total time taken, for others the multiple encoder processes in DVD-RB pro is virtually useless.

        Comment

        • UncasMS
          Super Moderator
          • Nov 2001
          • 9047

          #5
          hmm, made a small mistake here, folks

          i ran cce overnight and didnt look at the cpu load - i have startet cce agian this minute and i must correct myself:

          cce does NOT use all the cpu power it could get - c.f. attached screenshots
          (and it of course does not run two instances of its encoder)


          could someone provide us with a screenshot showing cce using almost 100%???
          Attached Files

          Comment

          • jdobbs
            Digital Video Enthusiast
            Digital Video Enthusiast
            • Sep 2004
            • 324

            #6
            I'm really surprised at the reported times with HC v0.20. On my system (AMD Opteron 165 [dual core] overclocked) -- the HC times when set to "Multiple Encoder Processes" are very close to CCE. (within about 15-20% or so). Hank315 did s series of tests also -- and his showed much faster speeds than the number reported here.

            My own experience was that ProCoder was getting improvements as well -- although nowhere near what you'd get in HC. But I haven't tested that in a while. I'll try it again.

            "Multiple Encoder Processes" will also improve QuEnc encoding times. By the way -- it has no effect on CCE -- so the one minute difference was just the resolution of the timer.
            Last edited by jdobbs; 18 Mar 2007, 12:49 AM.

            Comment

            • UncasMS
              Super Moderator
              • Nov 2001
              • 9047

              #7
              i'll take notes of whatever i'll be testing next and post it here

              btw does cce produce roughly 100% cpu load on your machines, jerry?

              Comment

              • jdobbs
                Digital Video Enthusiast
                Digital Video Enthusiast
                • Sep 2004
                • 324

                #8
                No. It uses both processors -- but typically uses about 80% of each.

                Comment

                • UncasMS
                  Super Moderator
                  • Nov 2001
                  • 9047

                  #9
                  ok thx

                  that's identical to my screenshot

                  Comment

                  • hank315
                    Junior Member
                    Junior Member
                    • Sep 2005
                    • 21

                    #10
                    Same movie, (PAL) Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire, 226270 frames (movie only)
                    Intel E6600, 2 GB ram
                    Code:
                     
                    [FONT=Courier New]Encoder                          Multiple Encoder Processes[/FONT]
                    [FONT=Courier New]CCE basic                        43 min   [/FONT]
                    [FONT=Courier New]HC 020 best                      57 min  [/FONT]
                    [FONT=Courier New]HC 020 normal                    38 min  [/FONT]
                    [FONT=Courier New]Procoder 2 mastering quality     63 min[/FONT]
                    CPU load for HC and Procoder 100%, CPU load for CCE approx. 70%.
                    CCE speed is pretty constant at 7.0 during the encode,

                    Comment

                    • UncasMS
                      Super Moderator
                      • Nov 2001
                      • 9047

                      #11
                      hi hank,

                      thx for your times, which of course make me wonder quite a bit

                      i'll have another run with your encoder, hp4 and movie only this time (though that isnt responsible for the severe difference) and report back here

                      Comment

                      • UncasMS
                        Super Moderator
                        • Nov 2001
                        • 9047

                        #12
                        i have restartet hp4 once more with hc/rb in multi processor mode and it took some 15 min for ~11% so i dont get anywhere near your encoding times, hank

                        dvd-rb's idct + matrices are set to encoder default

                        hc uses all the cpu power there is, no process blocking as background task (c.f. screenshots)

                        any idea why my times are so much different from yours?
                        Attached Files

                        Comment

                        • hank315
                          Junior Member
                          Junior Member
                          • Sep 2005
                          • 21

                          #13
                          Hi UncaMS,

                          My settings are the same as yours so I encoded it again and looked at the speed in the same segments as in your screenshots.
                          Your AMD does 35 fps (first pass) and 40 fps (second pass), the Intel does 65 fps (first pass) and 75 fps (second pass).
                          That's a big speed difference...

                          BTW, the Intel is approx. 30% overclocked.
                          Last edited by hank315; 19 Mar 2007, 12:38 AM. Reason: additional info

                          Comment

                          • UncasMS
                            Super Moderator
                            • Nov 2001
                            • 9047

                            #14
                            fair enough

                            Comment

                            • rahzel
                              just farted
                              • Aug 2004
                              • 314

                              #15
                              CCE is faster on my AMD X2 machine as well. i can do 3-passes with CCE to equal HC and Procoder with multiple encoder processes running. with the film Gladiator R1 NTSC, all 3 encoders were around 100 minutes with the best possible settings for each encoder, and 3-passes with CCE SP.

                              specs:
                              AMD X2 3800+ @ 2.5Ghz
                              2x1GB OCZ Gold PC4000 3-4-3-7
                              Last edited by rahzel; 19 Mar 2007, 04:46 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎