This project is read-only.
1
Vote

Does VidCoder using all cores in CPU? or HDD is slow!?

description

Thanks for your help.
Please I've recorded a video for the whole process and what system monitoring says as well in the attached video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmXu06nC2Jw&hd=1
Choose HD quality.
I think that HDD maybe the reason for this slow performance if I am not mistaken.
So please tell me your opinion regarding this issue and shall I go for the SSD option 1st before go to xeon.
So what kind of a Motherboard I should stick to in case I will buy a SSD drive and does the brand vary or all are the same?
I will buy the biggest size of course which is 256 GB as far as I know.
Thanks a lot and too much appreciated

file attachments

comments

RandomEngy wrote Aug 25, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Your encoding settings matter for this. Some operations (I think maybe resize and some filters) are only single-threaded so they bottleneck the operation on the CPU and cause less than 100% utilization. It's very rare for a hard drive to be the limiting factor in an encode.

WuxiIxuw wrote Aug 25, 2012 at 6:20 PM

=="Your encoding settings matter for this.".
Yes, I've realized that it does matter.

=="(I think maybe resize and some filters) are only single-threaded so they bottleneck the operation on the CPU and cause less than 100% utilization.".
I did tried to do the encoding without resizing and only used the default settings and realized that time decreased indeed BUT consumed CPU powers still not much more then 25% of the whole CPU as reported on the above youtube video.

== "It's very rare for a hard drive to be the limiting factor in an encode."
So no need to go for the SSD option!?

RandomEngy wrote Aug 25, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Are you sure that no resizing is happening? Not even automatic cropping? That step can bottleneck the operation on a single core.

And yes, I do not think an SSD will help with encoding speed. It will probably make VidCoder open faster, though.

WuxiIxuw wrote Aug 25, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Thanks for replying.
I tried both ways, I mean I tried using crop and resizing and found the file consume more time compared to do not use crop or resizing.
But in both cases CPU usage was not more then 25 or 30 % maximum.
This is the reason I am asing for?
I hope that I've expressed it the right way.

WuxiIxuw wrote Aug 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Hello,
Please I've posted in the Intel forum asking about the processor limitations and its relation to software, and the guy from the Intel replied with the following and advised me to contact software developer.

Here is the post that he posted in the Intel communities:

"I saw the video that you sent, it shows that all cores are being used by the video encoder software.
So using a processor with more than 8 cores should increase the performance of the system since it will be doing the same task with more cores.
The SSD drive will allow the system to load faster the software into the system memory, however it will depend on the way that the software works, since usually this type of software runs on the system memory, but if the software needs to work with temporary files on the hard drive, then it will be a good idea to use an SSD, but you will first need to contact the software developer and ask them the way that the software works, and ask them if according to their own experience with their software, it will be having better performance when running from an SSD."

So please advise and help me.

Thanks a lot,
WI

RandomEngy wrote Aug 27, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Send me the preset you're using to encode. Tools -> Export Preset. You've probably got some setting that is bottlenecking the encode on one core.

WuxiIxuw wrote Aug 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Thanks for your interest and fast reply as well.
The preset is attached.
It is the normal preset adjusted by removing everything in the box under advanced tab as advised before.
Thanks a lot and too muc appreciated.
WI

RandomEngy wrote Aug 28, 2012 at 1:17 AM

You have cropping set to Automatic. if it decided to crop your source, the rescaling operation could be the bottleneck.

WuxiIxuw wrote Aug 28, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Hello, after a lot of trials and error and various settings I think I've figured out what was the reason.
I do need to do crop as you mentioned and I used custom crop after your suggestion and realized that using crop increase the time as you mentioned as well.
But when I played with audio settings and advanced settings I've realized that using 48 hz for audio and 0 SAD under advanced option reduced the whole time significantly.
Now I am very happy with the time because an hour being encoded with exact settings I need in about 2 minutes or 2.5 minutes maximum.

Thanks a lot and really sorry for bothering you but I did learned a lot about h.264 and vidcoder which is my default encoder now.

The only problem I've now with vidcoder is the file naming which I updated the other issue I've posted here few minutes ago.

Thanks and take care.

WuxiIxuw wrote Aug 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Hello,
Please just some few more question about the VidCoder behavior:
1) Does the software handles all the data on the system memory ?
2) Does the software work with temporary files on the hard drive?
3) Does working with an SSD drive will increase the performance of the software tool?
Thanks a lot,
Regards, WI

RandomEngy wrote Aug 28, 2012 at 6:02 PM

The only files written out to the hard drive are the 10 preview pictures you see in the Preview window and the final video file. Everything else is taken care of in memory, with no temporary or intermediate files. I am fairly certain that getting an SSD will NOT help with encoding speed.

Croftie wrote Aug 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM

During an average bitrate encode there are extra temp files writen into the systems temp directory, I agree though an SSD won't speed up encode time.

If however you copy a lot of large files between drives SSD's would be faster for that. They have higher sequential transfer speeds than HDD's. Make sure you choose SSD's which don't rely on compression to get their speed though.

I noticed in one of your vids your not overclocking your processor, any reason why not. That particular one is a very good overclocker and you'd get a good deal more speed out of it by overclocking.

Croftie wrote Aug 28, 2012 at 8:41 PM

..forgot to mention, 512GB is the largest SATA based SSD. PCI-E SSD's go up to 1TB.

WuxiIxuw wrote Aug 28, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Thanks a lot for your both inputs.
I will check this overclocking issue, but for my own information when encoding average normal bitrate, how much time I may save after overclocking?