Multiple Encoder Processes: My experience

[rpboy]

So I thought that I would run a test to see how much faster selecting the "Multiple Encoder Processes" option would be on a pretty simple DVD.

My computer: Pentium 4 3.0 GHz HyperThreaded-enabled processor with 800 MHz FSB, 1 GB RAM, Windows XP SP2.

I tested using DVD-Rebuilder 1.07.1 Pro version and HCEnc 0.17 (in Best mode, using Auto-Q2 matrix).

The DVD had just one VTS to be processed. As the menu is contained in the VIDEO_TS.VOB file, no menu encoding was done. Size of original disc was 5.17 GB.

With the "Multiple Encoder Processes" option deselected, Windows Task Manager reports 50-54% CPU usage while encoding with HCEnc, so it seemed like a sizable benefit could be optained with the option selected.

I ran the same DVD through with the "Multiple Encoder Processes" option selected and then deselected.

Final results
"Multiple Encoder Processes" option selected: 184 minutes

"Multiple Encoder Processes" option deselected: 203 minutes

Kind of surprising. It wasn't a huge difference, about a 10% speedup. I thought it would be better than that. I wonder if only having 1 GB of memory limited it in any way.

Anyway, would love to hear what reductions in overall time others are getting, both with HT-enabled processors as well as dual-core processors. Might convince me to cave in and go buy that Athlon 64 X2 CPU I've been ogling. ;)

[urvieh]

Hyperthreading doesn't mean double power :-). It is just a minor improvement afa calculation speed is concerned.

[rpboy]

Hyperthreading doesn't mean double power :-). It is just a minor improvement afa calculation speed is concerned.
I didn't think it would reduce the time by half. But being that the CPU is only being used at 50% in a single encoder process, I thought there would be a little more of a substantial boost than 10%.

[jdobbs]

But it's still using the same disc and memory. The effect of multiple processes will vary tremendously from computer to computer. I have other reports that show improvements of over 50% by some -- and none on others.

[Sophoclesdrf]

When a processor is showing only 50% it doesn't mean that it is more efficient, it only means that for whatever reason it is using less. An equally fast or faster machine that shows 90% CPU processes is the one that's hard at work.

[markrb]

10% is still a big gain.
It's still 1 CPU afterall, just altered to act in some respects as more then 1.
However before you jump the gun and get an X2 consider these things.

In this type of application Intel has the edge over Amd.
Like jdobbs said you still are dealing with one data bus.

I am a huge Amd fan myself and have a X2 3800.
Personally I won't go Intel right now, but if I was strictly doing video or audio encoding I would.

In the end if you decide to upgrade consider what you are doing and choose accordingly.

Mark

[Sophoclesdrf]

markrb

I already have a Dual Core, and no Intel is not faster than the right X2 even with Hyper Threading. I've considered the possibility that a dual core Intel with hyper threading could make use of the dual mode running two multi threaded apps at the same time since Hyper Threading would allow for up to 4 threads running at once. I thought that might yield some benefits in comparison to an Intel running only two threads at once on a single instance, because hyper threading would make use of the unused CPU cycles. I never considered for a moment however that it would result in faster than AMD processing only faster than one instance of an application on an Intel DC processor.

I have an Opteron 175 2.2 Ghz@2.67 Ghz and (2 x 1GB) TWINX2048-3500LLPRO on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe and I don't believe that the current fastest DC Intel even running Dual RB can match my 175's encoding speeds.:) And my processor generally is using better than 90% of its CPU cycles.

[gilligan2]

markrb

I already have a Dual Core, and no Intel is not faster than the right X2 even with Hyper Threading. I've considered the possibility that a dual core Intel with hyper threading could make use of the dual mode running two multi threaded apps at the same time since Hyper Threading would allow for up to 4 threads running at once. I thought that might yield some benefits in comparison to an Intel running only two threads at once on a single instance, because hyper threading would make use of the unused CPU cycles. I never considered for a moment however that it would result in faster than AMD processing only faster than one instance of an application on an Intel DC processor.

I have an Opteron 175 2.2 Ghz@2.67 Ghz and (2 x 1GB) TWINX2048-3500LLPRO on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe and I don't believe that the current fastest DC Intel even running Dual RB can match my 175's encoding speeds.:) And my processor generally is using better than 90% of its CPU cycles.

Yes,i can vouch for this also. I have a dual Xeon 3.06 GHz machine with 2 GB's of ram,SATA raid,etc., and also have a dual core Opteron 165 overclocked to 2.73 GHz with a DFI Lanparty,2 GB's of ram,SATA II raid 0 set up and the Opteron is right around 33% faster doing identical projects.
So even though i am losing 20% pure clockspeed (3 Ghz to 2.7 Ghz),my encodes are 33% faster using the AMD set up.
I have one of both so i am not a basher of either one but i think for them to run equal i would need a dual Xeon or dual core at around 4 GHz or possibly higher and with the reports i've seen on the heat generated by the Intel systems I will wait for a while to upgrade my second machine.

All i say is thank goodness we have at least two companies pushing each other for technology LOL

g:):D

[Sophoclesdrf]

All i say is thank goodness we have at least two companies pushing each other for technology LOL

I second that. I still have my old 2.8Ghz Northwood@3.149 Ghz and I'm not about to get rid of it. In fact I often use it for encoding because it's generally not needed.

[nwg]

I am hoping to get either a X2 4200 or X2 4600. When using this option, will each core encode a single m2v at the same time?

Will it use both cores at the same time to encode one m2v much quicker?

I use Procoder mainly, but sometimes CCE and HCEncoder as well.

[rahzel]

sorry, not much help, but you might want to know this.

i just bought a 3800+ X2, and i was able to overclock it to 2.7Ghz with no bump in voltage, and dual prime95 stable. i am using an aftermarket cooler (arctic freezer 64 pro) but at 2.7ghz, this should be faster than even a 4800+ X2, and similar, if not better than even a 5000+ X2.

to match a 4600+ x2 at stock, all you would need is to reach 2.4ghz, which should be easily attainable with a 3800+ X2. i got my 3800+ x2 and arctic freezer 64 pro cooler, all for 210 shipped.

of course it depends on the stepping, but i'm sure the steppings are currently the same pretty much anywhere.

just thought you might like to know, if you want to save some cash.

[nwg]

I have never risked overclocking as I saw my friend destroy his processor by overclocking too much.

How big is the arctic freezer 64 pro cooler compared to the AMD heatsink? I don't have much vertial room in my case.

I can get a X2 4200 for £125 and a X2 4600 for £155.

[rahzel]

overclocking is safe, as long as you know what you're doing.

what you want to do (with a64's) is keep your temperatures below 55c load, raise the voltage no higher than 1.6v (unless you have water cooling) and test for stability. theres also other things you need to know, so i guess if you're not comfortable with overclocking, i'd recommend not doing it.

the freezer 64 is pretty big overall, but small at the base. there are some fins (aluminum) that might get in the way, but they can be bent.

i dont know about the prices there, but the 3800+ is generally around 180cad, the 4200+ is about 220cad, and the 4600+ is about 280cad.

btw, like i said before, all you would need is to reach 2.4ghz to match a 4600+ at stock; the stock cooler would probably be enough to reach this.

[blutach]

Interesting info rahzel. I have a 3800 X2 not overclocking (ie 2000Mhz). Will see what can be done here.

Thanks!

Regards

[wmansir]

For anyone running CCE it is vital that your system be 100% stable. The program is THE most sensitive to overclocking/instability that I've ever encountered. I've had systems overclocked that could run prime95 and memtest for days but CCE will crash within an hour.

[nwg]

For anyone running CCE it is vital that your system be 100% stable. The program is THE most sensitive to overclocking/instability that I've ever encountered. I've had systems overclocked that could run prime95 and memtest for days but CCE will crash within an hour.


I have heard about that as well. I have no intention to overclock. I rather pay a little more knowing it is stable from the beginning.

[jdobbs]

I used to be an avid overclocker... but at some point you eventually catch yourself blaming other pieces of hardware/software for strange quirks that almost never happen. Then when you set your clock back to standard they all magically go away.

Go back through the threads here and it's amazing how many overclocking instabilities CCE has caught.

[rahzel]

i ALWAYS overclock, and i've never had a problem. never had my computer crash/freezer, never got an error in a cpu intensive program (after running prime95 and making sure my system is stable that is), never fried a CPU because i went too far etc.

but again, if you are not comfortable with it, and/or you don't know what you're doing, i recommend not doing it, but you get SO much more value out of your hardware by doing so. like i got my 3800+ X2 that would surpass a 4800+ X2 for around half the price, this is why i always buy the slowest processor, and just overclock it.

[BigDid]

...I just bought a 3800+ X2, and i was able to overclock it to 2.7Ghz with no bump in voltage, and dual prime95 stable. i am using an aftermarket cooler (arctic freezer 64 pro) but at 2.7ghz, this should be faster than even a 4800+ X2, and similar, if not better than even a 5000+ X2.

to match a 4600+ x2 at stock, all you would need is to reach 2.4ghz, which should be easily attainable with a 3800+ X2. i got my 3800+ x2 and arctic freezer 64 pro cooler, all for 210 shipped.
Hi,

Interesting. There are quite a few threads related to dual-cores/AMD/new prices etc...

I am pondering buying a 3800x2 or 4200x2 wondering if the 4200 would reach 4600 and you just answered the 3800x2 can reach even 3700:eek: . I searched on the overclokers forum and there are a lot of high overclocks with the 3800x2 rather than 4200x2. But, now than they are cheaper I'll wait a little more to see if more positives testimonies arrives.

Regarding the concept and use of overclocking, actual Mobos usually have a semi-auto mode for noob-safe/proof mode.
For the rock solid encoding mode, there are solutions like the Right mark cpu clock utility which let you configure a lot of params.
My S754 A64-2000 is overclocked to 2460Mhz with 1.5V (stock) uses the Right mark cool and quiet and throttle down to 980 (x4) with 0.95V; this for usual tasks.
When encoding (AGK/xvid with VirtualDubMod) I use another profile with a unique x9.5 multiplier(2333), 1.4v that rarely goes above 55°c, rock solid.

Any/other x2 A64 AMD experiences, overcloked or not welcome.

Did

[rahzel]

any AMD X2 processor generally should reach similar numbers, whether it be a 3800+, 4200+, 4600+ etc. whats more important is the stepping on the processor - all processors have a stepping, and the stepping is like a code, which usually has the date the processor was made, along with some letters. usually, the batches of CPU's that are made in the same time period, generally overclock very similarly, and some batches overclock better than others. so don't expect to hit 2.7ghz like i did, but again, you should be able to reach at least 2.4ghz fairly easily with any 3800+ X2.

[nwg]

I have seen a test where the X2 4200 was overclocked to 2.7ghz.

[BigDid]

... so don't expect to hit 2.7ghz like i did, but again, you should be able to reach at least 2.4ghz fairly easily with any 3800+ X2.
I have seen a test where the X2 4200 was overclocked to 2.7ghz.
Thanks for inputs. I'd rather go for a 4200x2 if 2600Mhz is reachable cause with a 3800 @ 2400 I will have no improvement on my actual processor for mono-threaded apps.

Did

[rahzel]

Thanks for inputs. I'd rather go for a 4200x2 if 2600Mhz is reachable cause with a 3800 @ 2400 I will have no improvement on my actual processor for mono-threaded apps.

Did
like i said before, ALL X2 AMD processors should reach similar numbers, meaning all X2 AMD processors will generally hit the same limit. the only advantage the higher AMD X2 processors have, is the higher multiplier.

at stock, this is how they all run:
3800+ X2 - 200x10=2.0Ghz
4200+ X2 - 200x11=2.2Ghz
4600+ X2 - 200x12=2.4Ghz

but just because the 4600+ X2 is already faster at stock, doesnt mean it will reach a higher overclock.

[BigDid]

Hi,

I made a survey of my usual online store with the customers feedback (over 1 year covered), here are the results:

AMD 64 x2 4200
12 buy, 4 overclocks
2@ 2.6
1@ 2.66
1@ 2.7

AMD 64 x2 3800
22 buy, 7 overclocks
1@ 2.1
1@ 2.2
3@ 2.5
2@ 2.6

Did

[SiKKo]

rahzel is exactly right, there really is no point buying the more expensive 4200+ x2 when the 3800+ x2 should overclock to the same speeds. Of course, a lot of the overclockability is based on the motherboard and RAM as well. I recommend DFI boards myself, as they will tend to allow you to overclock much higher than a cheap mobo. Quality RAM is also imporant. If you are interested in overclocking AMD chips, check out this forum at http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9

There is also a thread on there specifically referencing different 3800+ steppings, where people are hitting 2.8-3.0ghz. For a $150 chip, that is very tough to beat!

http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61749

Myself, I have an Opteron 165 dual core running at 2.8ghz (air cooled @ 1.45V) and 2GB of RAM, and a 4 pass CCE encode with DVD-RB takes roughly 3 hours for an average 7.5GB movie.

[shoarthing]

rahzel is exactly right, there really is no point buying the more expensive 4200+ x2 when the 3800+ x2 should overclock to the same speeds. Of course, a lot of the overclockability is based on the motherboard and RAM as well . . . . . . . well, yes, there's not much point in praising the cheapness of the CPU if you have to use expensive RAM to reach the fairly high HTs [260~270MHz] which these claimed overclocks require . . . especially since you need a fair bit of the stuff [around 1.2GB free], if, for instance, running a couple of instances of Procoder 2.x.

I've seen too many folks trying to track down/debug 0x9c errors with AMD64 CPUs to recommend 'clocking 'em for MPEG2 re-encoding, which, as stated above, needs a genuinely solid system.

I use dual~Socket940 [ie Opteron 2xx] workstations with NUMA memory configurations, which thanks to DVDRB's support of multiple encoder instances can now exploit Procoder's mastering quality within a tolerable timeframe for the whole process - again, around 3 hours or a bit less for a typical backup.

[rahzel]

memory bandwidth/memory timings play a fairly minimal part in performance with a64's, so expensive, good overclocking ram is not a necessity for overclocking a64's, thanks to memory dividers. all motherboards have memory dividers, and overclocking friendly boards, like DFI, have many options so you can run your memory slower, but still raise the HTT.

i finally got a chance to try out this option with my new dual core 3800+ X2 at 2.75Ghz, and it was about 44% faster than my old opteron 144 at 2.68Ghz. other dual core optimized tools have also showed dramatic speed increases... i'm loving my new dual core =].

[n3r0]

i'm using intels e6600 and i have set dvdrebuilder to use multiple threads with CCE
but what i'm getting is 50-65% CPU load occasionally 70% max
is there any way i could get 100% CPU load

and multiple threads disabled the CPU load is mostly 70% occasionally 80% :eek: where's the catch:confused:

[nwg]

I still haven't bought a dual core since the only supplier I want to use it out of stock.

As I have a single core 3800 (San Deigo). Does it make any sense to get a Dual Core 3800 as they are easier to get hold off? I am thinking perhaps no as it runs at 2ghz per core rather than the 3800 2.2ghz. Or, can I expect a near 50% increase in speed with a X2 4200 with two 2.2ghz cores? I will not get into overclocking.

I want a noticeable speed increase using Procoder 2/CCE. The average Procoder encode take around 6 hours at High Quality (used to be 12 with a Athlon XP 2000). It would be nice to get close to 3 hours.

[blutach]

@nwg - I get almost real time encoding on PAL with a 3800 X2 no o/c.

Regards

[DDogg]

Abit AW8D mobo w/ Intel D930 OC'ed to 4.5 GHz (Clock @ 300). 2 gigs 667 ram 4-4-4-12.

Multicore = on. Using CCE 2.7 showed 6 x realtime and this process below took exactly 30 minutes including the ISO creation. Log below is QEnc with default settings. QEnc showed 2 instances, each encoding at 60 fps. Total process time 32 minutes.

If anybody wants to do a comparison with their hardware, the source was from a DVD I had laying around called Firewall. DVDFab dycrypter was used to place source on HD. Settings for QEnc - HQ checked and single pass cq vbr


[17:51:21] One Click encoding activated...
-----------------
[17:51:21] Phase I, PREPARATION started.
- DVD-RB v1.10.3
- QuEnc 0.7.1.0 encoder selected.
- "One Pass VBR (w/analysis)" mode is enabled.
- "Movie Only" mode is enabled.
- VTS_01: 2,855,999 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 155,610 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 90.6%
- Overall Bitrate : 6,439/5,151Kbs
- Space for Video : 4,080,914KB
- Analyzing VTS_01 for optimal CQ factor.
-- TargetSize (sectors):2,448,548
-- Sampling 3120 of 155610 frames.
-- Predicted size (sectors) at CQ=2: 1,236,067
-- Predicted size (sectors) at CQ=1: 2,609,279
- CQ Value selected: 2
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 6,222/4,658/5,151 Kbs
[17:55:45] Phase I, PREPARATION completed in 4 minutes.
[17:55:45] Phase II ENCODING started
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 2
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 3
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 4
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 5
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 6
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 7
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 8
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 9
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 10
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 11
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 12
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 13
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 14
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 15
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 16
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 17
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 18
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 19
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 20
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 21
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 22
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 23
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 24
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 25
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 26
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 27
[18:16:57] Phase II ENCODING completed in 21 minutes.
[18:16:57] Phase III, REBUILD started.
- Processing VTS_01
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 5 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 1 VOBID 5 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 2 VOBID 5 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 3 VOBID 5 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 4 VOBID 5 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 5 VOBID 5 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 6 VOBID 5 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 7 VOBID 5 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 8 VOBID 5 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 9 VOBID 5 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 10 VOBID 5 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 11 VOBID 5 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 12 VOBID 5 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 13 VOBID 5 CELLID 14
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_05
- Rebuilding seg 14 VOBID 6 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 15 VOBID 6 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 16 VOBID 6 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 17 VOBID 6 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 18 VOBID 6 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 19 VOBID 6 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 20 VOBID 6 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 21 VOBID 6 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 22 VOBID 6 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 23 VOBID 6 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 24 VOBID 6 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 25 VOBID 6 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 26 VOBID 6 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 27 VOBID 6 CELLID 14
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_06
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_01_0.IFO
- Correcting VTS Sectors...
- Building ISO Image...
- ISO Image successfully created.
[18:23:11] Phase III, REBUILD completed in 7 minutes.

Done.
[18:23:11] PREPARE/ENCODE/REBUILD completed in 32 min.

[jdobbs]

Wow. That sure makes my Athlon XP 3200 look bad...

I think I want a real computer when I grow up.

[blutach]

It was with CCE, which is especially quick, but still, I'll take DDogg's hand-me-downs :D I've seen DVD Shrink perform slower.

Regards

[jdobbs]

I get about 2.5x speed with CCE 2.70... about 2.7-3.0x with CCE 2.50 -- and up until now I thought I was smokin' :eek:

Unfortunately I have to limit myself to a middle-of-the-road computer. It's a bad idea to do your testing on a machine that's too fast. It'll make you lazy. I have to make sure I feel the pain whenever I do something that makes DVD-RB go slower.

But I sure would like to be a space cowboy like you guys...

[DDogg]

A few more data points from the above posted source and detail. These are just the encoding times using multicore and different encoders

CCE 2.7 - Phase II ENCODING completed in 17 minutes
QEnc - Phase II ENCODING completed in 21 minutes
HCenc - Phase II ENCODING completed in 23 minutes

@JD, I'm not up on this stuff anymore - While sure, MultiCore launches 2 instances of HC and QEnc, does it do anything for CCE? Or, has CCE been changed to better utilize duals? It hauls ashes. I know my machine is decent and all, but hell, I am seeing 7.5 x on low complexity source like titles and 6.25 to 6.50 on normal source. Gee, who would have thunk it!

[jdobbs]

I think CCE is multithreaded... I've tried getting two instances to run just to see what happens, but have been unsuccessful.

[casperse]

How does the DVDrebuilder utillize a Dual core like a AMD X2 4800+?

From your respons above I guess it dosent run 2 CCE but instead uses load sharing on 2 CPU running 1 CCE encoding process correct?

Sorry I only have one CPU so I cant test it....
(Getting one during this week...:D )

[jdobbs]

If the software supports multithreading then running two instances probably wouldn't help much (if any). If it only runs a single thread, though, two instances can improve throughput. It's also possible that for processors that are so fast the encoder doesn't push 100% utilization, and the encoder is single threaded, you might get an improvement as well.

[n3r0]

ok I tried to encode ACDC - stiff upper lip DVD with CCE one pass VBR
[14:59:18] One Click encoding activated...
-----------------
[14:59:19] Phase I, PREPARATION started.
- DVD-RB v1.10.3
- CCE 2.70.2.6 encoder selected.
- "One Pass VBR (w/analysis)" mode is enabled.
- Audio remapping mode is enabled.
- VTSM_01: 94 144 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 6 080 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- VTS_01: 4 389 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 270 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- VTS_09: 3 409 727 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 229 443 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- VTS_10: 218 375 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 19 070 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 65,1%
- Overall Bitrate : 3 759/3 007Kbs
- Space for Video : 3 902 380KB
- Analyzing VTS_01 for optimal Q factor.
-- TargetSize (sectors):2 890
-- Sampling 12 of 270 frames.
- Q Value selected: 10
- Analyzing VTS_09 for optimal Q factor.
-- TargetSize (sectors):1 784 433
-- Sampling 4590 of 229443 frames.
-- Predicted size (sectors) at Q=33: 3 257 007
-- Predicted size (sectors) at Q=71: 2 350 534
-- Predicted size (sectors) at Q=107: 1 829 466
-- Predicted size (sectors) at Q=112: 1 775 316
- Q Value selected: 112
- Analyzing VTS_10 for optimal Q factor.
-- TargetSize (sectors):132 786
-- Sampling 390 of 19070 frames.
-- Predicted size (sectors) at Q=37: 211 115
-- Predicted size (sectors) at Q=67: 149 793
-- Predicted size (sectors) at Q=80: 134 441
-- Predicted size (sectors) at Q=81: 133 452
- Q Value selected: 82
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 4 217/2 282/3 007 Kbs
[15:06:44] Phase I, PREPARATION completed in 7 minutes.
[15:06:44] Phase II ENCODING started
- Creating M2V for VTSM_01 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTSM_01 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTSM_01 segment 2
- Creating M2V for VTSM_01 segment 3
- Creating M2V for VTSM_01 segment 4
- Creating M2V for VTSM_01 segment 5
- Creating M2V for VTSM_01 segment 6
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 2
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 3
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 4
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 5
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 6
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 7
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 8
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 9
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 10
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 11
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 12
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 13
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 14
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 15
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 16
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 17
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 18
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 19
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 20
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 21
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 22
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 23
- Creating M2V for VTS_09 segment 24
- Creating M2V for VTS_10 segment 0
[15:36:26] Phase II ENCODING completed in 30 minutes.
[15:36:26] Phase III, REBUILD started.
- Copying IFO, BUP, and unaltered files...
- Processing VTS_01
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 1 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_01
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_01_0.IFO
- Updating TMAP table...
- Processing VTS_09
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 1 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 1 VOBID 1 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 2 VOBID 1 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 3 VOBID 1 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 4 VOBID 1 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 5 VOBID 1 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 6 VOBID 1 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 7 VOBID 1 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 8 VOBID 1 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 9 VOBID 1 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 10 VOBID 1 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 11 VOBID 1 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 12 VOBID 1 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 13 VOBID 1 CELLID 14
- Rebuilding seg 14 VOBID 1 CELLID 15
- Rebuilding seg 15 VOBID 1 CELLID 16
- Rebuilding seg 16 VOBID 1 CELLID 17
- Rebuilding seg 17 VOBID 1 CELLID 18
- Rebuilding seg 18 VOBID 1 CELLID 19
- Rebuilding seg 19 VOBID 1 CELLID 20
- Rebuilding seg 20 VOBID 1 CELLID 21
- Rebuilding seg 21 VOBID 1 CELLID 22
- Rebuilding seg 22 VOBID 1 CELLID 23
- Rebuilding seg 23 VOBID 1 CELLID 23
- Rebuilding seg 24 VOBID 1 CELLID 23
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_01
- Audio_01 remapped to Audio_03
- Audio_03 remapped to Audio_01
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_09_0.IFO
- Updating TMAP table...
- Processing VTS_10
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 1 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_01
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_10_0.IFO
- Updating TMAP table...
- Processing VTSM_01
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 1 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_01
- Rebuilding seg 1 VOBID 2 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_02
- Rebuilding seg 2 VOBID 3 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_03
- Rebuilding seg 3 VOBID 4 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_04
- Rebuilding seg 4 VOBID 5 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_05
- Rebuilding seg 5 VOBID 6 CELLID 1
- Possible dropped frame(s) [ 91 ] noted in this segment, continuing...
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_06
- Rebuilding seg 6 VOBID 7 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_07
- Updated VTSM_C_ADT.
- Updated VTSM_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_01_0.IFO
- Correcting VTS Sectors...
[15:53:39] Phase III, REBUILD completed in 17 minutes.

Done.
[15:53:39] PREPARE/ENCODE/REBUILD completed in 54 min.
mostly the speed was at 6x but what concerned me, was that CPU load was 65-80% multiple encoder processes enabled :confused:

it definitely could be better, if the CPU load was 95-100%
i closed most of the unneeded processes at the time and I'm running intel e6600 @ 2,7GHz with via 880pro chipset and pc3200 DDR memory

i hope the new version of CCE would be more efficiently optimized for dual core processors, cause v2,702 is not, at least not enough :p

[Nem]

Here are my results on Firewall with a Core 2 Duo E6400 at FSB 315x8 = 2.52GHz , ddr2-945 4.0-4-4-12 (all I can get on this crap AB9 Pro board). This is QuEnc, movie only, High Quality, Single Pass CQ VBR.


-----------------
[22:58:56] Phase I, PREPARATION started.
- DVD-RB v1.10.4
- QuEnc 0.7.1.0 encoder selected.
- "One Pass VBR (w/analysis)" mode is enabled.
- "Movie Only" mode is enabled.
- VTS_01: 2,855,999 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 155,610 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 91.0%
- Overall Bitrate : 6,466/5,173Kbs
- Space for Video : 4,098,236KB
- Analyzing VTS_01 for optimal CQ factor.
-- TargetSize (sectors):2,458,942
-- Sampling 3120 of 155610 frames.
-- Predicted size (sectors) at CQ=2: 1,201,726
-- Predicted size (sectors) at CQ=1: 2,601,279
- CQ Value selected: 2
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 6,249/4,678/5,173 Kbs
[23:06:13] Phase I, PREPARATION completed in 8 minutes.
[23:06:24] Phase II ENCODING started
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 2
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 3
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 4
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 5
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 6
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 7
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 8
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 9
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 10
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 11
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 12
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 13
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 14
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 15
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 16
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 17
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 18
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 19
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 20
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 21
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 22
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 23
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 24
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 25
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 26
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 27
[23:24:51] Phase II ENCODING completed in 18 minutes.


Also did CCE encoding time 15 minutes
And HC encoder took 25 minutes.

I might be faster encoding (at least in CCE and QuEnc anyway..) but your Phase I times blow my mind. I'm using a 4 drive raid 10 for source, 2 drive raid 0 for working folder, and destination folder on a single 250GB drive, and I average 7-10 minutes for Phase 1 on most stuff, and thats with CCE and no optimal CQ scan. Phase 3 is really slow for me too... takes average of 13 min to rebuild and pack to ISO.

I just completed 2 DVD's at my normal settings, CCE SP 2.7 3passes 43 minutes for FFVII Advent Children (130662 frames), 50 minutes for 50 cent Get Rich or Die Tryin (168066 frames). CCE gives almost steady speed of 7 most of the time (on first pass anyway, speed reading is borked on pass 2 and 3, but they take almost exactly the same ammount of time every time).

[n3r0]

Here are my results on Firewall with a Core 2 Duo E6400 at FSB 315x8 = 2.52GHz , ddr2-945 4.0-4-4-12 (all I can get on this crap AB9 Pro board). This is QuEnc, movie only, High Quality, Single Pass CQ VBR.

Also did CCE encoding time 15 minutes
And HC encoder took 25 minutes.

I might be faster encoding (at least in CCE and QuEnc anyway..) but your Phase I times blow my mind. I'm using a 4 drive raid 10 for source, 2 drive raid 0 for working folder, and destination folder on a single 250GB drive, and I average 7-10 minutes for Phase 1 on most stuff, and thats with CCE and no optimal CQ scan. Phase 3 is really slow for me too... takes average of 13 min to rebuild and pack to ISO.

I just completed 2 DVD's at my normal settings, CCE SP 2.7 3passes 43 minutes for FFVII Advent Children (130662 frames), 50 minutes for 50 cent Get Rich or Die Tryin (168066 frames). CCE gives almost steady speed of 7 most of the time (on first pass anyway, speed reading is borked on pass 2 and 3, but they take almost exactly the same ammount of time every time).
well one of the reason why the encoding took so much time for me, was that the source is about 140 minutes long and - Reduction Level for DVD-5 was 65,1%
but about that phase I
i have no clue why it is so fast :rolleyes:
the vob's and work folder were on the same physical drive but on different partitions
hitachi t7k250 160GB drive

[casperse]

I just got my AMD X2 4800+ (The new prices made this a cheap upgrade..A Intel would mean new MB, RAM, CPU-Cooler etc) today and the first run look very impressive here is the Stats on normal jobs I do and no OC! :

- Versions :
-- Rebuilder: v1.10.3
-- CCE SP Version: 2.70.2.4
-- ReJig Version: 0.5.0.5
-- QuEnc Version: 0.6.1.0
-- HC Version: 0.16.0.1
-- DGDECODE Version: 1.4.5
-- AVISYNTH Version: 2.5.6.0

Memoirs Of A Geisha Playing time 139 Min
CCE 4 passes + Menu encoding
-----------------
[22:16:14] Phase I, PREPARATION started.
- DVD-RB v1.10.3
- CCE 2.70.2.4 encoder selected.
- VTS_01: 2.490.477 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 208.798 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 85,4%
- Overall Bitrate : 3.690Kbs
- Space for Video : 3.762.504KB
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 5.737/371/3.690 Kbs
[22:18:01] Phase I, PREPARATION completed in 2 minutes.
[22:19:29] Phase II ENCODING started
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 0
....................
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 30
[00:34:35] Phase II ENCODING completed in 135 minutes.

*********************************************
V_FOR_VENDETTA PLAYING TIME 128 min
CCE 4 passes + Menu encoding

-----------------
[08:04:08] Phase I, PREPARATION started.
- DVD-RB v1.10.3
- CCE 2.70.2.4 encoder selected.
- VTSM_01: 26.899 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 1.882 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- VTS_01: 2.945.066 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 190.970 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 74,1%
- Overall Bitrate : 4.341Kbs
- Space for Video : 4.087.950KB
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 8.552/3.149/4.341 Kbs
[08:06:32] Phase I, PREPARATION completed in 2 minutes.
[08:08:15] Phase II ENCODING started
- Creating M2V for VTSM_01 segment 0
..........
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 34
[10:12:04] Phase II ENCODING completed in 124 minutes.

My normal encoding time before was normally around 250-300 min!!! :D
Now its about realtime (Playing time = Encoding) wich is great no more night jobs LOL

But remember that the temp on this is higher so you need a god airflow in the machine...with the bigger Zalman and full load I get a CPU temp around 50-52C which is normal.
Idle temp is around 44C but no errors its rock stable..So I can recommend this if you already have a Socket 939 and dont want to spend alot of money moving to Intel :sly:

[DDogg]

casperse, if you could encode Firewall in the 1 pass modes like Nem did, we would have an excellent comparison between the oc'ed Intel D's, Core2 Duos, and your AMD x2.

Nem, hmmm, my source is on striped array, working on striped array, final ISO and Video-TS back to the same array with the source.

I put some benchmarks here, if you have not already seen them on the Abit forum -
http://img104.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aw8dmf6.jpg

[nwg]

@nwg - I get almost real time encoding on PAL with a 3800 X2 no o/c.

Regards


Hi

I get an average of 0.40 - 0.70 x realtime with my Athlon64 3800 single core.

Does two encoding processes appear at once at nearly realtime each or, does the two cores just speed up the current and only encoding process to near realtime?

[casperse]

Sorry I am living in Denmark so Firewall is not on DVD yet (Region 2 Bullshit)

Yes it speeds up the one encoding process up on both CPU´s CCE. to around 70% load

Still you have to remember this is "Realtime" with passes= 4 so I think its pretty god. But I do think that the new Conroe can do even better but again this is a cheap upgrade compared to getting a new PC :D

[Sophoclesdrf]

I think CCE is multithreaded... I've tried getting two instances to run just to see what happens, but have been unsuccessful.

CCE is indeed multi threaded and having two cores while encoding with RB/CCE is an advantage during the encoding process. RB, DGDecode.dll, and Avisynth are not.

Note: If this is redundant then ignore me and move on.:)

[mezzanine]

69 minutes for both cores and 109 for single core with HC 0.18 using my awesome new core 2 duo E6400@3.2ghz. Movie is 101 minutes long!
:cool: :rolleyes: ;)

[casperse]

Does the Intel Conroe utillize 100 CPU when encoding?
Or does it use 70-80% like AMD?

Yes I have heard alot of god things about that new Intel CPU :D

[mezzanine]

Does the Intel Conroe utillize 100 CPU when encoding?
Or does it use 70-80% like AMD?

Yes I have heard alot of god things about that new Intel CPU :D

49 minutes for CCE SP 2.70

Well it's kinda strange it doesn't use 100% with all encoders under all apllications.
For example with DVD-RB and CCE it doesn't use more than 80% but when running CCE under DVD2DVD-R both cores are at 100%.

[blutach]

Hi

I get an average of 0.40 - 0.70 x realtime with my Athlon64 3800 single core.

Does two encoding processes appear at once at nearly realtime each or, does the two cores just speed up the current and only encoding process to near realtime?A process runs in each core. But it's not quite as simple as that as there is "crossover" when 1 processor has a slice to give the other.

Regards

[Harrysmiith]

Does the Intel Conroe utillize 100 CPU when encoding?
Or does it use 70-80% like AMD?

Yes I have heard alot of god things about that new Intel CPU :D

Using an Intel duo2 6300 I have found that using CCE I get 80%cpu utilization. With HC and "Multiple Encoder Processes" checked I get 100% BUT still slower than CE.
Checking "multiple encoder processes" with CE makes no difference to speed for me

[blutach]

Latest results for me - dual core 3800, no o/c, 2hr 1mins encoded in 110 minutes, Procoder 2 Mastering. 100% utilization.

With CCE, I would expect 1/2 the time.

BTW: Anyone figured out how to stop the stupid Procoder 2 splash screen? It takes ages loading all its stuff for every segment, and stealing focus. It's supposed to run minimised, but somehow, only 1 process is. :(

Regards

[SiKKo]

Here is Firewall, R1, Movie only mode with QuEnc HQ, single pass CQ VBR (same as DDog and Nem). I stripped subtitles and all languages except the main 5 channel English track.

This was done with an Opteron 165 clocked just under 2.8Ghz and 2 GB RAM running at DDR460 3-4-4-8. Unfortunately I only have the one 320GB hard drive now on that computer, as I store movies, music etc on my file server which is connected via Gigabit network. So movie was ripped as .iso w/ DVD Decrypter to file server, mounted with Daemon tools on local computer, and so the work path and destination are on the sole hard drive of the computer, which I would assume explains the slower rebuild.

[06:16:12] One Click encoding activated...
-----------------
[06:16:13] Phase I, PREPARATION started.
- DVD-RB v1.10.5
- QuEnc 0.7.1.0 encoder selected.
- "One Pass VBR (w/analysis)" mode is enabled.
- "Movie Only" mode is enabled.
- VTS_01: 2,855,999 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 155,610 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 91.0%
- Overall Bitrate : 6,466/5,173Kbs
- Space for Video : 4,098,236KB
- Analyzing VTS_01 for optimal CQ factor.
-- TargetSize (sectors):2,458,942
-- Sampling 3120 of 155610 frames.
-- Predicted size (sectors) at CQ=2: 1,201,726
-- Predicted size (sectors) at CQ=1: 2,601,279
- CQ Value selected: 2
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 6,249/4,678/5,173 Kbs
[06:23:26] Phase I, PREPARATION completed in 7 minutes.
[06:23:26] Phase II ENCODING started
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 2
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 3
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 4
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 5
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 6
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 7
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 8
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 9
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 10
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 11
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 12
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 13
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 14
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 15
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 16
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 17
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 18
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 19
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 20
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 21
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 22
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 23
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 24
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 25
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 26
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 27
[06:43:41] Phase II ENCODING completed in 20 minutes.
[06:43:41] Phase III, REBUILD started.
- Processing VTS_01
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 5 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 1 VOBID 5 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 2 VOBID 5 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 3 VOBID 5 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 4 VOBID 5 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 5 VOBID 5 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 6 VOBID 5 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 7 VOBID 5 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 8 VOBID 5 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 9 VOBID 5 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 10 VOBID 5 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 11 VOBID 5 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 12 VOBID 5 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 13 VOBID 5 CELLID 14
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_05
- Rebuilding seg 14 VOBID 6 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 15 VOBID 6 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 16 VOBID 6 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 17 VOBID 6 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 18 VOBID 6 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 19 VOBID 6 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 20 VOBID 6 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 21 VOBID 6 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 22 VOBID 6 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 23 VOBID 6 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 24 VOBID 6 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 25 VOBID 6 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 26 VOBID 6 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 27 VOBID 6 CELLID 14
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_06
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_01_0.IFO
- Correcting VTS Sectors...
- Building ISO Image...
- ISO Image successfully created.
[06:55:04] Phase III, REBUILD completed in 12 minutes.

Done.
[06:55:04] PREPARE/ENCODE/REBUILD completed in 39 min.



Basically what I expected as far as results. Clock for clock, no AMD right now is going to beat the new Intel Core 2 Duos, however they will destroy any older Intel chips such as Pentium D8xx or D9xx. Again, I am talking clock speed vs clock speed. As you can see, Opteron @ 2780mhz encoded a minute faster than Intel D930 @ 4500mhz, while Core 2 Duo @ 2520mhz had the fastest encoding time by 2 minutes.

As far as real world differences, obviously a minute or two in encoding time is not very substantial, so it basically breaks down to cost. If you already have a socket 939 AMD, and want to upgrade from say a single core Venice 3000+, then I think your best bet right now is an x2 3800+ for about $150. You don't need a new motherboard, RAM, heatsink, etc - you could just plop in the new chip and you are good to go. Pretty much every x2 3800+ should be able to reach 2.6ghz, many will get to 2.8ghz or more. I have a single core San Diego 3700+ clocked to 2.8ghz, and definitely notice a substantial difference in encoding time between that and the Opty when using CCE or any multi-threaded application. Soon enough I will replace that San Diego with an X2 3800+, and am anxious to see if there is any noticable difference between that and the Opteron.

And if you lean towards Intel, there is no doubt that the Core 2 Duo's are the way to go right now. Pentium D's are way too inefficient, run hot, consume a lot more energy, etc etc. Even if the chip itself is $50-80 cheaper, you will end up spending that on extra cooling and on your energy bills.

[dragongodz]

i do have to pipe in and say people need to not worry so much about cpu usage not being 100%. its possible to saturate cpu usage with many threads but actually slow encoding down because of many stalls etc. so long as you are seeing both cpus are being used substantially and are getting good encoding times then dont stress over the cpu usage.

[DDogg]

And if you lean towards Intel, there is no doubt that the Core 2 Duo's are the way to go right now. Pentium D's are way too inefficient, run hot, consume a lot more energy, etc etc. Even if the chip itself is $50-80 cheaper, you will end up spending that on extra cooling and on your energy bills.

As a point of reference, my D930@4.5 GHz idles @ 24C and dual load peaks at 42C, but I do tend to agree with with your general thoughts. The D930 on the AW8D was a cost effective solution and should serve me well for quite a while.

As far as the Core 2 Duo's, I'm not yet comfortable with the available motherboards and think waiting a few months for the bios' and hardware to better stabilize would be prudent.

The cost reductions on the AMDx2's are a welcome byproduct of the additional competition caused by the Core Duo release, and may be the best alternative as that platform is much more mature at this stage.

Either way, all of us have benefited.

[SiKKo]

Dang DDog, what are you using to cool that baby to keep it at those temperatures? Although I don't know from personal experience, everything I have heard about Pentium D's is that they run hot. I know my old p4 3.2ghz Prescott was horribly hot, and got near 68C while under load, and indeed doubled as a heater for the office.

I also agree, the Core 2 Duo's release has benefitted everyone across the board with huge price reductions on Athlon 64s and Pentium D's! Being able to get dual core chips for $100-$150 is fantastic. I sure wish I would have waited about 4 months when I got my Opty, because I could have got two 3800+ x2's for the price I paid for the one Opteron earlier this year! Oh well, such is life!

[shoarthing]

. . . . BTW: Anyone figured out how to stop the stupid Procoder 2 splash screen? It takes ages loading all its stuff for every segment, and stealing focus. It's supposed to run minimised, but somehow, only 1 process is. :( . . . Splashkiller (http://www.digitallis.co.uk/) . . works fine for me; tho' for some reason the second Procoder instance on the first round of encodes shows for that one cell.

[Sophoclesdrf]

Go back through the threads here and it's amazing how many overclocking instabilities CCE has caught


That's true to a point. Any processor of a given core has the same potential because the lowest in a series and the highest in a series have the same core. What makes them different is how well they're manufactured and binned. Often this is determined by the batch in which each series was manufactured which is sometimes referred to as stepping. I have both an Opteron 175 and 170 system. Logic would tell one that the 175 should be the easiest to overclock because of its higher clock multiplier and the fact that it costs a $100 more than the 170 but that is not the case. My Opteron 175 system is stable and will run CCE in batch mode without a single error overclocked to 2.6 GHz and it's prime 95 stable for 36 hours at 2.55 GHz. My 170 However will run CCE at 2.75 GHz and it is Prime 95 stable at 2.7 GHz. They both have the Denmark (really just a Toledo) core but the lower clocked and lower priced Opteron 170 is the clear winner. Now jdobbs, you've known me online for more than two years and in that time you will not recall a single problem that I've had that could be traced to my overclocked rigs. The problem isn't overclocking, it's badly match equipment and unrealistic overclocing that causes problems.

[jdobbs]

It's not the overclocking itself that is the problem. It's that people have a tendency to always keep inching it up until they "think" it's stable. Then when CCE dies... rather than make the logical conclusion (that they should back their clock down) -- they post a problem with CCE or DVD-RB. Almost always when I see those same symptoms (like running the same ECL through twice and one of them works while the other fails) I know that it is a system instability. There is no room for doubt.

The problem is that everyone is certain that it isn't their computer or their overclocking... because program x or program y runs fine. CCE isn't program x or program y -- it is probably the most CPU intensive piece of software you can buy.

Since I can't sit down with them, look at their computer, and say "back the FSB down, your memory can't take that" -- or "Man, you're running hot, you need a better heat sink." -- all I can do is say is either "don't post your problem" or "don't overclock"... The latter is more palatable.

[blutach]

. . . Splashkiller (http://www.digitallis.co.uk/) . . works fine for me; tho' for some reason the second Procoder instance on the first round of encodes shows for that one cell.Thanks shoarthing.

@jdobbs - have you seen any other incidences of run encoders minimised not working 100% when multiple encoder processes are selected?

Regards

[jdobbs]

@blutach

No, I don't recall any reports. The same routine is called to run the app regardless of the instance -- so I can't imagine why they would run differently. Has it happened to you?


@All

For you folks that aren't running at 100% with multiple encoder instances... here's something you might want to try. Edit the REBUILDER.INI and change this line:

ENCODE_PROCESSES=2

to

ENCODE_PROCESSES=3

:eek:

Note: Consider it a beta test. I've never actually done any tests. I don't have a dual processor or a supercomputer, so I can't even seen an improvement with two instances.

[blutach]

@jdobbs - yes, every time. 1 process runs minimised, the other in the foreground. And each time Procoder 2 starts, the lousy splash screen steals focus, whether the process minimises or not (yet to try shoarthing's utility).

rahzel mentioned in post 11 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=857237#post857237) that it is easy to o/c the 3800+. I have done this reasonably conservatively with quite spectacular results.

The same source I mentioned in post 52 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=869669#post869669) is now encoded at 32 frames per second (95 minutes encoding time for the 122 minute movie) at 2250Mhz (no change to memory timings). This is now the equivalent of a 4200+ :). The system was a solid as a rock during that time - temp was only 1-2 degrees higher than normal (51-52C), no voltage problems at all. Dunno how much higher I will push the machine without "conservatising" the memory timings, but that is a great result, as far as I am concerned.

Thanks rahzel!

Regards

[jdobbs]

@blutach

Interesting. What MB are you using? Also, are you overclocking just by increasing the FSB or are have you somehow modified the processor to accept a higher clock multiplier? Is your memory anything special?

I'll do the testing and see what I can do about Procoder (if anything). One thing I noticed when I just looked at my code, when I shell to the process I give it focus even when it is set to run minimized -- I'll change that.

[blutach]

Appreciate the change re foreground stuff, jdobbs.

Memory is 2 x 512Mb Corsair XMS (CMX512-3200C2). Mobo is ASUS A8N-SLI Premium.

Only thing I have done is up the FSB by 12% or so. rahzel seems to think it can go up by 35% but I am too timid for that :D. The Nvidia benchmark tests I did quickly yesterday seemed to think the memory could go a bit faster too, although its SPD is 3-3-3-8 @ 200Mhz.

I may go to 2.4Ghz but at that speed, I expect the memory timings will need to go down a notch. Before that, I wanna do a few encodes at this current level to see how things are (BTW: The Phillips Verifier showed nothing really nasty on the output - just the normal things it moans about).

Here's the current setup.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4479/09022006113804mx5.png

Regards

[Sophoclesdrf]

@jdobbs

I've assisted enough people over the last couple of years to know that what you're saying is true, some people assume that anything that boots up and surfs the net is stable. I just couldn't figure out why that would stop you from overclocking, you would know better. I have three overclocked systems running beautifully D945, Opty170, Opty, 175, and I just ordered an Intel Conroe E6600, and I intend to over clock it too.:rolleyes:

[Sophoclesdrf]

blutach


Your clock multiplier is way to low and you're underclocking your sytem. The X2 3800 has a native clock multiplier of 10X and you have yours set at 5X which is 5X your hyper transpot of 225 which gives you a core speed of only 1.125 GHz, the default speed of the X2 3800 is almost twice that 2.0 GHz.

Go into your bios. Leave your clock multiplier at 10X and set your Hyper Transport to to 4X and then up your memory speed until you find a stable setting. Where it is now will over clock it to 2.25 GHz which is nice little boost. The key is that your HT should not exceed 1000 MHz by much. At 4X your current speed it will be 900 MHz.

If you want more info contact me at www.dvdhounds.com as just Sophocles and I will be glad to help you boost it to a higher but stable setting. That chip is easily hitting 2.6 GHz depending on when and where your chip was made.:)

[jdobbs]

@blutach

I see what you mean about the second instance staying visible. I don't have any idea why it does that... but changing the shell parameter to "no focus" didn't seem to have any effect at all.

@Sophocles

Actually I know quite a bit about overclocking... as I said I'd been doing it for years. Hell, I was overclocking 8088's. But eventually I decided I'd had too many surprises at inopportune moments. The amount of time saved in overclocking was easily outweighed by in the increase in "redo"...

To each his own...

[SiKKo]

The reason Blutach's multiplier was at 5 and the voltage at 1.10 is because he has Cool N Quiet enabled, which you should not do when overclocking.

With a 3800+ x2 you should be able to hit 250 HTT x 10 Multiplier pretty easily, but you will likely have to use a memory divider unless you have PC4000 RAM.

I highly, highly recommend reading this guide for overclocking AMD chips before messing with anything.

AMD Overclocking Guide (http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20823)

Its fairly lengthy, but I've learned a ton over the last year from this site. I think its pretty fun to turn a $150 chip into something that is faster than a $800-$900 chip. You just want to work your way up slowly, and not do a suicide mission right away trying to break 3Ghz or something dumb like that.

@JDobbs

I tried changing the command line in Rebuilder.ini to ENCODE_PROCESSES=3 and it still does not put both cores to 100% with CCE.

*Edit* Posted full results in post #73.

[blutach]

@Sophocles and Sikko - thanks for the links. I'll turn CNQ off and play around in the BIOS.

This is what the Nvidia ntune says, however.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/8450/09022006144005wv7.png

Regards

[rahzel]

np blu. overclocking any processor should be quite easy, and it's pretty similar for all socket types.

for your particular setup, make sure your temperatures are below 50-55c load, don't set the voltage any higher than 1.55-1.6, and make sure your system is stable. like i said before, all 3800+ X2's should reach 2.4ghz quite easily, so i'm sure youre ok. but to test stability, especailly for DC processors, i recommend using ORTHOS SP2004.
get it here:
http://sp2004.fre3.com/beta/beta2.htm

run that for at least 6-8 hours. it will stress both cores (probably more than anything youll ever run). this is also a good time to monitor your load temperatures.

overclocking the processor benefits the most out of any piece of computer hardware imo. and if you follow the safety precautions i mentioned above, it's completely safe (just make sure you only go up in small increments at a time, though). if you do, your processor should still last longer than you'll keep it, and it should be completely stable.

[blutach]

Updated results:

Well, I have turned Cool N Quiet off and there is little change except in the way CPU-Z reports things (in that lightly loaded mode, it reports a 10 mutiplier not 5 and a higher core voltage - 1.36v vs 1.12v)

I actually kicked the processor up to 2300Mhz and did a full encode on the same source - the encoding time was 94 minutes (1 minute better than before), however the rebuild time was 9 minutes (down from 11).

Trying to kick it up to 2500MhZ without other changes makes the rig unstable - the memory can't handle those timings, I don't think.

Might run that auto tuner that came with the PC to find the best memory and clocking parameters.

Regards

[rahzel]

all 939 motherboards should have memory divider options. you can always use them if your memory can't run 1:1 with your processor.

[SiKKo]

Apparently I had way too much free time this weekend, so I did a bunch of tests to see what the difference in encoding time would be in such things as single core vs dual core, and stock speed vs overclock.

I used the movie Firewall again, as in previous posts in this thread, with Main Movie only, subtitles stripped as well as stripping all audio except for 5.1 English track. I used two encoders, CCE 2-pass, and QuEnc with HQ Mode with Single Pass CQ VBR to test time differences. Computer 1 used an AMD San Diego 3700+ (single core), and Computer 2 was AMD Opteron 165 (dual core). To compare the differences in single core vs dual core, at least in overclocked mode, I ran the two rigs at approximately the same speed (2700MHz). I kept them at 2700MHz instead of 2800MHz on these tests because that is the highest I can go on stock voltage on both chips, and thus what I think the average AMD chip should be able to handle as far as an overclock. The difference between 2700Mhz and 2800Mhz was fairly insignficant anyhow as far as speed increases.

Here are the results:

1) San Diego 3700+, 2200 MHz (stock spd), CCE 2-pass
Phase II ENCODING completed in 70 minutes.

2) San Diego 3700+, 2706MHz (246x11), CCE 2-pass
Phase II ENCODING completed in 56 minutes.

3) San Diego 3700+, 2200MHz (stock spd), QuEnc HQ
Phase II ENCODING completed in 49 minutes.

4) San Diego 3700+, 2706MHz (246x11), QuEnc HQ
Phase II ENCODING completed in 41 minutes.

5) Opteron 165, 1800MHz (stock spd), CCE 2-pass, DISABLED Multiple Encoder Processes
Phase II ENCODING completed in 53 minutes.

6) Opteron 165, 1800MHz (stock spd), CCE 2-pass, ENABLED Multiple Encoder Processes
Phase II ENCODING completed in 53 minutes.

7) Opteron 165, 2700MHz (300x9), CCE 2-pass, DISABLED Multiple Encoder Processes
Phase II ENCODING completed in 38 minutes.

8) Opteron 165, 2700MHz (300x9), CCE 2-pass, ENABLED Multiple Encoder Processes
Phase II ENCODING completed in 38 minutes.

9) Opteron 165, 1800MHz (stock spd), QuEnc HQ, DISABLED Multiple Encoder Processes
Phase II ENCODING completed in 59 minutes.

10) Opteron 165, 1800MHz (stock spd), QuEnc HQ, ENABLED Multiple Encoder Processes
Phase II ENCODING completed in 30 minutes.

11) Opteron 165, 2700MHz (300x9), QuEnc HQ, DISABLED Multiple Encoder Processes
Phase II ENCODING completed in 40 minutes.

12) Opteron 165, 2700MHz (300x9), QuEnc HQ, ENABLED Multiple Encoder Processes
Phase II ENCODING completed in 21 minutes.



Maybe this should have been obvious to me beforehand, but whether you have Multiple Encoder Processes disabled or enabled makes no difference for CCE, whereas it makes a huge difference for QuEnc.

I didn't post the Phase I and Phase III times because there was no significant difference between the runs - about 3 minutes was the largest gap.

[jdobbs]

CCE doesn't allow multiple instances -- so setting multiple encoder processes has no effect.

[rahzel]

yup, CCE does not run 2 instances. however, having a dual core alone makes the encoding faster. with my old opteron 144 s939 at 2.68ghz, my average speed was about 3.9. now with my 3800+ X2 at 2.75ghz, my average speed is about 5.7. a movie that would take around 2 hours, now takes just over an hour.

[SiKKo]

Yeah, I know it won't run two instances, but I thought maybe enabling Multiple Encoder processes would make CCE use 100% (or close to it) of both cores, and in effect reduce the encoding time by 50% over its single core counterpart - but apparently that does not happen. But using a dual core does significantly reduce the time to encode (in my case from 56 minutes down to 38 minutes using CCE 2 pass).

[jdobbs]

When you set multiple encoders on, all it does it tell DVD-RB to increase then number of concurrent instances of the program while encoding.