Win XP slower encoding than Win ME ???

[cordraconis]

Ahhh, good to be back! :)

Wel, I recently upgraded my OS from Win ME to Win XP, but somehow I get about 30% less FPS in Win XP than in Win ME (same settings, same filters, blablabla ...)

Of course I am not so eager to change back to Millennium, but I was wondering if somebody had some similar experience with this, or maybe even an explanation. (I am guessing that Win XP uses 30% slower - But More Stable! - memory-access-code (or whatever).

It could also be becouse of my hardware configuration;

ASUS A7N266
Apacer 256 DDR Ram CL 2 (Will install 2nd one soon, for TwinBank)
nForce Chipset (Du-uh!) (XP Drivers 1.0 from nVidia website)
GeForce 2 MX (IGP)
2x Seagate Baracuda IV (Will install RAID-0 controller soon)
AMD 1.9 + GHz
Suncore Copper Storm Cooler
Iiyama 704 Diamondtron M2 Screen


Now, when I installed the nForce drivers for XP, it complained that the drivers were not compatible with XP (even dough it all checks out fine at the nVidia website ...).
My guess is that the Version 1.0 drivers are not stable (yet), or just way slower than those for Win 9x.

Any ideas someone ?

Also, when I have the 2nd 256 DDR-bank, I am expecting the speed of my system to go up, (dito for RAID-0 controller). But it is still a lot slower for encoding than in Win ME.

Maybe I misconfigured something?

I use Smartripper/Avisynth/DVD2AVI/Gordian knot/virtualdub.

T.I.A.

Cordraconis

[Head Hunter]

XP just uses much more system resources than ME, this is why I haven't upgraded from 2000. If the speed is bothering you I would suggest switching to Win2K and then you will be faster than ME was.

[cordraconis]

HMMMmmm...
Maybe I can change the priority settings ? i.e. giving virtualdub and the divx 5.0 codec more speed, and slowing down XP itself.

Speed is not really an issue, (quality is), but I just want to "tweak" everything to maximize performance. (I do like the stability of XP.)

Also, using DVD2AVI and "Fast recompress", does not give nearly the speed improvement I hoped for. (from DivX5 to DivX5 and fast recompress is *much* faster, dito for DivX3 to DivX5 - but it crashes after about 1000 frames :( )

I will wait a few weeks, till there is a patch for that. (My HD is big enough ;)

... And YES, I do recompress, but only to clean shit up from the DivX'es from my friends. (from 2cd's to 1cd, and cutting the begin-and end trailers, adding subtitles in about 4 languages, recopmressing and Maximizing Sound, noise- and blockremoval-filters, contrast, brightness, etc ... and with the DivX 4.12 and now 5.0 Pro codec, the end result looks a lot better than the beginning.)
Yes, takes weeks, but I'm proud of it!
(I really don't like those
Rip-EncodeAsFastAsPossibleWithOutdatedCodecs-AndRun! Movies.)

Viso gero

[madcat_ninjamaster]

Hey, how did you install your windows from me to xp? upgrading from windows me to xp or is it a clear format from the dos (full installation)?
This could be the problem but I'm not too sure.
For a reason, my friend is using AMD Duron..1.4Ghz..I think he is running 512MB DDR Ram and I'm using AMD Xp 2000+ 256MB.
We both uses windows xp professional. Amazingly his boot up time is quicker then mine..by 10-15secs.
He did a full installation and I've upgraded from windows me.

If it's upgrading could cause the boot up time from windows me to xp. I think it will be same goes with encoding video with codec. Because I think it's causing some clutch?? (I'm just guessing)

I'm just thinking, what's the point converting Divx 3 to Divx 5?

[cordraconis]

Originally posted by madcat_ninjamaster
Hey, how did you install your windows from me to xp? upgrading from windows me to xp or is it a clear format from the dos (full installation)?

... stuff removed ...

I'm just thinking, what's the point converting Divx 3 to Divx 5?

Well, I had win ME on HD, and I installed Win XP over it, trying to make a dual boot system.

During the install, it worked fine, and I even tested booting ME.
But after a few boot-ups, the menu for choosing the OS, dissapeared. (This word does not look so good, so excuse my spelling :) ).

So, after not being able to use ME any more, I threw away the subdir.

Now, I can imagine that the boot-up could be slower, but actually running a program (DivX 5) itself ???

Still have a weird feeling about that memory access ...


Now, about that converting from DivX 3 to 5;
- It gives me great experience with filters. (Always handy for cleaning up noisy DVD's).
- Less Cd's for (almost ...) same quality, and empty CD's can be used for really High Quality rips, instead of the ones mentioned above.
(I only use >1 Cd-"Backups" with AC3-sound for the ones I make from an original DVD, all the others I just put on one CD)
- To show that it can be better, if you just try ...
(Once got a 2 CD "Backup" of Gladiator, with 224 stereo Soundtrack that was really silent (not maximized), had Trailers and end-titles attached, and <Shiver> ... Black Bars in the picture !!! No need to mention that it didn't look so good or vivid as it could be ...
One week later (Then I still had a AMD K6-2 400 mhz), and
after maximizing-VBR MP3-Cropping-Contrast-Sharpen-DivX 4.12 (at that time), it looked the same, sounded better, but on only one CD! You should have seen the look on that guy's face!)

[dragoman]

Hi,

It's too bad that the option to uninstall Windows XP is missing from the Professional Version if you upgraded from Windows 2000.

That's right, I quote:

"You can not uninstall Windows XP Professional if you:
Changed your hard disk configuration; for example, if you have converted from FAT to NTFS or have created new partitions or
upgraded from Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 Professional."


Pretty shitty, eh?

dragoman

[tripnotik]

Maybe it's slower because you don't have enought memory. Because I use win2k, and while encoding, mem usage is approx. at 277 MB. And assuming that XP uses as much memory as win2k, it would mean that you might have some paging to harddisk that slows down the encoding. And since ME might (I don't know) use less memory than XP/2k, you had no paging with it so it was faster.

[theReal]

avisynth uses a lot of memory, I usually have a memory load of 220 to 250MB with avisynth->virtualdub encoding even in Win98 SE (measured exactly with TaskInfo2000)

[tripnotik]

That's what I was saying. A memory load of 250 MB would be fine for his 256 MB, but let's say that win2k/XP uses 30 MB more that 98/ME, and you have some paging.

[alx]

"Speed is not really an issue, (quality is), but I just want to "tweak" everything to maximize performance. (I do like the stability of XP.) "

STABILITY????? HA HAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HA HAH HA HA............please, be serious...........you want the best? use a dual boot with w98 and w2k.......25% less used hdd space, 30% less used memory and 100% software compatible.

Please, don´t misunderstand me, this post is not against you, is against XP......i installed and uninstalled 7 times......no way, every time, i have to go back to 98/2k....

Alx

[theReal]

A memory load of 250 MB would be fine for his 256 MBNot really - I wasn't talking of the total memory load, only Virtualdub and Avisynth use that much together. 6MB, or even 36MB left is not enough for Win 98.

btw. I also feel better with a dual boot combination of 98SE and w2k :)

[cordraconis]

I was unaware of the high memory usage of avisinth, etc.

With my next encode, I will check it out and post results here.

Just for asking, but why is so much memory needed???
All avisynth does is decode 1 frame (OK, maybe more, but certainly not more than 10) from the VOB's, and pass it to Virtualdub ...

And, I also "discovered", something else;
By using DVD2AVI-->GKnot-->AVIsynth-->Virtualdub, and with "colorspace = YUV" in DVD2AVI, and then using "Fast recompress" in VDub, there is no difference in FPS, compared to "Normal recompress".

I have yet to test the difference with the "RGB" enabled in DVD2AVI, but why is there no difference in speed ??? (If you open a divX and try the same thing in VDub, it is about 30% faster.)

(Will post this in the VDub-section of the forum. If problem is related to DVD2AVI or Avisynth, please redirect me ...)


And finally about XP; I now have it, I am testing it, and it keeps on running (even after a lot of installing/unistalling).
Me saying; "stable", is not a real test, just a feeling.
I will test other OS-es, maybe with some kind of boot manager...
(W2K-W98-Win XP anyone???)

Quote; "In a world without walls and fences, do we need Windows and Gates?" --> No, ... but why not "use" it for fun?