codeguru
29th September 2007, 21:34
I mentioned some strange facts comparing some benchmarks:
in XP 32 bit edition the Windows media encoder 9 uses only 55, sometimes 60%
in XP 64 bit edition the WME 9 64 bit has a cpu usage at average of 90 %
The encoding time is 1:35h in 64 bit vs 2:02h
The taskmanager shows that all 4 cpu cores are working nearly constantly in XP64, in XP 32 the cpu load is far away from being constant.
the 32 bit taskmanager shows this:
http://www.brightheart.de/q7cwa/taskmanager.jpg
the 64 bit edition looks like this:
http://www.brightheart.de/q7cwa/taskmanager2.jpg
DivX 6.7 community seem not to use more then 2 cores even there are shown 4 logical cpus on XP 32, and actually there's no XP64 edition of divx to verify this. Is this a dualcore only codec?
Or is the huffyuv 32 bit decoder the bottleneck?
Does anyone know if the WME9 64 bit is specially optimised in comparision to the 32 bit edition?
My system is this:
Q6600 @ 3 GHz, FSB 366, clock ratio 8x
4 GB DDR2 running as DDR 733
GA965P-DS3 motherboard
in XP 32 bit edition the Windows media encoder 9 uses only 55, sometimes 60%
in XP 64 bit edition the WME 9 64 bit has a cpu usage at average of 90 %
The encoding time is 1:35h in 64 bit vs 2:02h
The taskmanager shows that all 4 cpu cores are working nearly constantly in XP64, in XP 32 the cpu load is far away from being constant.
the 32 bit taskmanager shows this:
http://www.brightheart.de/q7cwa/taskmanager.jpg
the 64 bit edition looks like this:
http://www.brightheart.de/q7cwa/taskmanager2.jpg
DivX 6.7 community seem not to use more then 2 cores even there are shown 4 logical cpus on XP 32, and actually there's no XP64 edition of divx to verify this. Is this a dualcore only codec?
Or is the huffyuv 32 bit decoder the bottleneck?
Does anyone know if the WME9 64 bit is specially optimised in comparision to the 32 bit edition?
My system is this:
Q6600 @ 3 GHz, FSB 366, clock ratio 8x
4 GB DDR2 running as DDR 733
GA965P-DS3 motherboard