AutoGK and i7 processor

[netmask]

I am currently playing with Windows 7 on a 4 core i7 processor box - 2.66GHz
I've noticed the processing speed of AutoGk is a lot slower than my old trusty P4 2.8GHz.

I guess that is because the program suite that comprises AK is only able to use one core? I tend to be an early adopter so that's the price one pays however in the long term is there a solution as more multicore processors become the norm?

[BigDid]

Hi,

Yes and no. Typically (Ifo/Vob sources) AGK uses
-DG index (seems not MT optimized)
-Vdumod for analysis (seems not MT optimized)
-Audio progs (not MT optimized)
-eventually VDM and Xvid for comptest (MT optimized)
-VDM and Xvid for 1 pass or 2 pass encode (MT optimized)

So only 2 tasks on 5 optmized; with a dualcore I can live with it but I suppose someone can grow impatient with a i7-proc :devil:

If so you could try MEGUI, it has or use more optmized apps, can encode to xvid and is overall more for power users :cool:

Did

[Dark Shikari]

An i7 should trash a Pentium 4 by at least a factor of 2-3 even at the same clock speed, even with only one core.

[budwzr]

The "multi-core" schema has an uncertain future. Everything is moving to the web now, and the old client/server approach is back in vogue.

It's a heat issue. Investing in 64-bit quad core architecture is risky, in my opinion. It may never reach its potential, or it may take longer than expected. Especially with the NetBook craze and renewed interest in portals and ASP 2.

The proletariat are expected to enter the internet arena via cheap NetBooks and smartphones, and that's a very compelling market. My prediction is new dev will be focused on implementing client/server using a .NET2 approach, and that will stall 64 bit quad core growth.

I'm thinking the Google model of "light and airy" will prevail for a long time.

[BigDid]

The "multi-core" schema has an uncertain future. Everything is moving to the web now, and the old client/server approach is back in vogue.
...
I'm thinking the Google model of "light and airy" will prevail for a long time.
Hi,

Interesting approach that really go reverse the "H264 - multi-multi core - max-complexity & technology" followers. I hope these guys will also get a little "live & let live" philosophy.

Back on the subject, I recently discovered (without flowers) that SMP-MT OS and apps not being enough optimized can behave very well on a single core, quite well on a dual core and not so well on quad-core. I can imagine the complaints and whinnings for futures 8 cores owners if nothing is done in the meanwhile :eek:

My point is learn to live with decreasing yield/output, it is just the beginning :cool:

Did

Edit: All the above to apply to Intel 2 cores and 4 cores. Seems AMD architecture being different may have more yield/output...

[Willobee]

I do not have any experience with the i7 other than its price.

I recently upgraded from an AMD 64X2 2.4 GHz dual core processor to an AMD Phenom II X4 940 which is a 64 bit quad core 3.0 GHz processor. Using the AMD power monitor software I notice the programs that AutoGK uses are definitely using all 4 cores. They are not pegged to 100% but they are all processing.

Using my old dual core processor system a typical DVD being converted to Xvid/AVI at 75% quality would take anywhere from 1.25 to 1.5 hours which includes extracting the DVD movie to a hard drive folder (using DVD Shrink), previewing in AutoGK and converting to Xvid. The processor cores and the hard drive were pegged to the max.

With the quad core system the same process takes around 20 to 25 minutes. The load on the processor is around 75%-80% (most likely waiting on the hard drive).

I will add that this installation is dedicated to using AutoGK to convert DVD’s. No other software on it and no internet connection (i.e. no anti virus, anti spyware or other garbage to slow the system down all that stuff is on a different bootable hard drive)

I have only been using AutoGK for a couple of months and I have had zero issues with the program. I have tried others. AutoGK is as it says “THE tool for Xvid/DivX conversion.”

Current system:

AMD Phenom II X4 940 processor, 3 GHz true quad core design, 8Mb cache, socket AM2+, 1800 MHz front side bus

MSI K9N2 Diamond mother board

4 GB (2 GB x 2) Corsair Dominator dual channel memory running at 1066 MHz

150 GB Western digital VelicoRaptor 10,000 RPM SATAII hard drive

Rosewill Performance 600 watt power supply

Dual Nvidia 6600GT 128 MB video cards SLI

Windows XP Home edition SP3

[nemisis]

@netmask
I think your prob maybe windows 7 related as i have an i7 running xp and i get 4 core utilization.
however my experience is that the newer version on xvid with VAQ freaks the F**K out from the i7's awsomeness.
VAQ can not cope with the speed - i have to manual reduce proccessing speeds when encoding so i dont crash out.

at the moment time to encode a 90min movie - about 35 minutes.

[BigDid]

@netmask
I think your prob maybe windows 7 related as i have an i7 running xp and i get 4 core utilization...
Hi,

Interesting, could you indicate in what % the 4 cores are used?

This is related to another thread in which it was stated that xvid encoder was NOT capable of optimizing encodes with more than 2 cores:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1265910#post1265910
and following ...

Did

[netmask]

Follow Up: I had a poke around Windows 7 permissions (and I have no experience with Vista but I knew it had issues) so I gave full control to me as netmask user to AutoGK and also trustedinstaller. Voila! a 1h 10m movie took 53m to back up.

So I'm happy - on my old P4 i would write off 2 or more hours.

Thanks for all the input :D

[BigDid]

... Voila! a 1h 10m movie took 53m to back up.
So I'm happy - on my old P4 i would write off 2 or more hours:D
...Using my old dual core processor system a typical DVD being converted to Xvid/AVI at 75% quality would take anywhere from 1.25 to 1.5 hours ...
With the quad core system the same process takes around 20 to 25 minutes...
Hi,

Just to give an idea, a 1h29mn movie (Shrek the 3rd) is encoded with my o/c 2cores-E4600 in 1h8mn for 2pass and 45mn for a 1 pass quality encode (both with audio to mp3 conversion time included).

Did

[Willobee]

BigDid

I have the Shrek 3 DVD. I originally encoded this with my dual core machine (no over clocking). I do not remember how long it took, probably around the usual 1.25 -1.5 hours. Just for kicks I ran it on my quad core machine (without over clocking) and here are the results.

Target quality 70%
Audio track English AC3 5ch
Subtitle track English wide

Advanced settings
Output resolution setting Auto width
Audio output type Original
Xvid

Copy main movie from DVD to hard drive using DVD shrink took 8 min 19 sec

Preview movie with AutoGK took 1 min 15 sec

Encode movie with AutoGK took 19 min 41 sec

Total time 29:15

A quad core processor will speed things up a bit but I think I am getting the best speed advantage from the hard drive.

At first I was using a 250 GB Seagate SATAII hard drive and was not very impressed with the speed of the quad core. I noticed the hard drive was the bottleneck and upgraded to the WD VelociRaptor hard drive.

I think you will see shorter encode time from a faster hard drive rather than more processor cores. You can't go wrong with a combination of both.

Another thing I have noticed after encoding around 90 movies is that the length of the movie does not really give an indication of the time it will take to encode the movie. I think there are other factors which I do not understand that affect the amount of time it take to encode a movie.

[yetanotherid]

I am currently playing with Windows 7 on a 4 core i7 processor box - 2.66GHz
I've noticed the processing speed of AutoGk is a lot slower than my old trusty P4 2.8GHz.

There's definitely something wrong there somewhere.
I still have my old AMD3200 PC and it'd be around the same speed as your P4 2.8Ghz PC. As a very rough rule of thumb, my E6750 will convert a DVD in around half "real time". So if a movie is 2 hours long the E6750 will take around an hour to convert both audio and video. The AMD3200 on the other hand takes about twice as long as "real time". So the same conversion would probably take 4 hours using it.

How long does it take to convert a DVD using each of your PCs? Your i7 should be noticeably faster than my E6750.

Interesting, could you indicate in what % the 4 cores are used?

This is related to another thread in which it was stated that xvid encoder was NOT capable of optimizing encodes with more than 2 cores:

I have two almost identical PCs here. The only real difference between them is the CPU. One has a dual core E6750 and the other is a quad Q9450. They both run at the same clock speed.
I've run identical conversions on both of them to time the difference several times. I can't remember exact figures but the Q9450 is marginally quicker. If it takes (for example) 50 minutes for the Q9450 to re-encode the audio and video, the E6750 might take around 55-60 minutes.

I've looked at CPU usage during the conversion process (only the first and second pass really). Once again I can't remember exactly but the first pass might have the two cores of the E6750 running at around 75% while during the second pass they'll run at 100%. When it comes to the Q9450 they only run at around 50% for the first pass and 75% for the second.

The only thing which stops all that from being a fair, direct comparison is the fact the Q9450 (45nm) CPU is a "generation" newer than the E6750 (65nm) CPU. If I was using a Q6750 or something similar it would be a more exact comparison between 2 or 4 cores. The Q9450 however is a little more efficient than the E6750.

So the upshot of all that is I'd be thinking my small speed improvement when using the Q9450 is more to do with it being able to get a little more work done per clock cycle than the E6750, and the fact that it's got twice as many cores doesn't really offer an advantage when converting to XviD.

Edit:
Even though the examples of encoding times I posted are just invented ones and therefore don't really offer anything specific, I maybe should add that both those CPUs are over-clocked and running at 3.2Ghz.
I should also add that both those PC have 4 hard drives set up as 2x RAID-0 volumes in each. I generally put the source file on one RAID volume and the output file on the other. As a result the hard drives don't work particularly hard when converting video and are therefore not effecting the encoding times.

[yetanotherid]

I think you will see shorter encode time from a faster hard drive rather than more processor cores. You can't go wrong with a combination of both.

As I said in my previous post I'd agree with that completely. The first thing I noticed when I built the dual core PC was how much the hard drive was slowing things down. So I switched to 2x RAID-0 volumes and never looked back.
I don't experience the time differences between 2 and 4 cores which you do when converting, so maybe it is your hard drive that's the bottleneck?

In fact a couple of days ago I was recording a friend's trio using the quad core while AutoGK was converting a DVD. It never once missed a beat, the hard drive LED was still only flashing quickly (as opposed to staying lit) and while I was recording I had no indication there was a conversion going on in the background.