BD-RD is Slow for Me

[JJB]

New to BD Rebuilder but a long time user of DVD-Re-builder.
I have read just about all 2200+ bug reports thread over a period of time so I don't feel totally out of the loop.

I just put together a new system with: AMD Phenom II X4 945, Pioneer BDR-203BKS, ASUS M4A78-E Motherboard and 4 GB of DDR2 800 ram and XP SP2
I have no other software installed but the necessary items for BD-RD to work correctly

The first 5 encodes(POC1, Wall-E, Cars, Donnie Brasco and Iron Man) were excellent using build 2903. Movie only to BD9. The total encode times were about 6-7 hours after the rip. FPS on the second pass were about 9-10

I updated to build 2904 with no other changes to the system and the encode times went to 20-22 Hours. I went back to build 2903 to try Master and Commander and It is now at 23 hours with the audio re-encode about to complete. The FPS show 2.16 to 2.24 on the second pass.

I now have build 2905 and will try again.

Any suggestions?

Thanks Guys!

[GaPony]

I use a Q9550 and the Movie Only copies to BD9 usually go in 4-5 Hrs at High Quality, 2-Pass settings. Its been pretty consistent from version to version.

[siratfus]

Would we notice a difference in quality if we use the "high-speed bd-25" encoder setting? My computer takes 30 to 50 hours doing a bd-25. I recently adjusted it from idle to normal priority and used the high-speed bd-25 setting and it took 10hrs. Wow!!!

The BD-R is burning as I write. Keeping my fingers crossed about the quality.

[siratfus]

Quality still looks good to me. :)

[Groucho2004]

The total encode times were about 6-7 hours after the rip. FPS on the second pass were about 9-10
That seems about right for this processor.

I updated to build 2904 with no other changes to the system and the encode times went to 20-22 Hours. I went back to build 2903 to try Master and Commander and It is now at 23 hours with the audio re-encode about to complete. The FPS show 2.16 to 2.24 on the second pass.

Assuming your hardware is working properly, you must have changed/installed something that is using the CPU cycles. BD-RB runs with low priority and everything with the same or higher priority will take cycles away from it.

Why don't you just check in Task Manager what is using the CPU time besides BD-RB?

[JJB]

I have not installed anything after the build and no software other than the BD-RD required and AnyDVD. Task manager show all four cores at 95-100% and no other processes active during the encode. This is very frustrating especially after the first few encodes went so well. I'm getting ready to put together an Intel I7 with an Asus board, maybe a major improvement but a X4 AMD quad should be faster than a damn P4 is. :confused:

[Rumbah]

x264 does the main encoding part, so try to use the different versions that ship with different versions of BD-RB.

Perhaps there is one build that does not recognize your processor correctly and it uses slower asm optimizations or none at all.

[Groucho2004]

x264 does the main encoding part, so try to use the different versions that ship with different versions of BD-RB.

Perhaps there is one build that does not recognize your processor correctly and it uses slower asm optimizations or none at all.

29.03 and 29.04 were using the same version of x264. Even if that wasn't the case, the speed differences between the last 5 or 10 revisions are marginal.

[Groucho2004]

I'm getting ready to put together an Intel I7 with an Asus board

That's an interesting approach to solve the problem. What if the same happens with your shiny new i7?

Your hardware is not the problem.

[setarip_old]

@JJB

Hi!

A few questions:

1) Have you tried running other programs with similar functions (converting/compressing video/audio) to see if they also run slowly?

2) Have you tried running other programs without similar functions (converting/compressing video/audio) to see if they also run slowly?

3) Have you tested your RAM?

4) Have you determined whether your system is overheating?

5) Have you tried a "System Restore" back to the last time things were "working properly"?

[JJB]

@JJB

Hi!

A few questions:

1) Have you tried running other programs with similar functions (converting/compressing video/audio) to see if they also run slowly?

2) Have you tried running other programs without similar functions (converting/compressing video/audio) to see if they also run slowly?

3) Have you tested your RAM?

4) Have you determined whether your system is overheating?

5) Have you tried a "System Restore" back to the last time things were "working properly"?

1.DVD-RB Pro smokes even when using HC best quality.
2. It is a new build. No other programs but what is needed for BD-RD and DVD-RB.
3. No, It's brand new.
4. Currently encoding a BD25 and it shows 94.1F on all 4 cores.
5. No, it is a week old with a fresh install but I'll try that. Sure wont hurt.

[setarip_old]

3. No, It's brand new.All the more reason to test the RAM...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

But bad RAM won't cause slow down. It would cause random crashes or borked output. Anyway, I'd always test the RAM modules on a new machine ;)

If the system is running too hot, the CPU may throttle itself to avoid damage. That can be the cause of low performance, indeed.

However 94.1°F (34.5°C) appears extremely cold for a CPU that is running under full load. Are really you sure that it isn't 94°C? That would be too hot!

[JJB]

But bad RAM won't cause slow down. It would cause random crashes or borked output. Anyway, I'd always test the RAM modules on a new machine ;)

If the system is running too hot, the CPU may throttle itself to avoid damage. That can be the cause of low performance, indeed.

However 94.1°F (34.5°C) appears extremely cold for a CPU that is running under full load. Are really you sure that it isn't 94°C? That would be too hot!

The BD25 that has been running for several hours now shows 96.1F using CPUID Hardware Monitor. I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone as this makes no sense at all to me. Any suggestions?

[setarip_old]

Once again, try a "System Restore" back to the last time things were working properly...

BTW - Are you using different a different Quality Setting for BD-Rebuilder - perhaps now using "HIGHEST Quality", rather than "High", "Better", or "Good", any of which you may have been previously using?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

The BD25 that has been running for several hours now shows 96.1F using CPUID Hardware Monitor. I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone as this makes no sense at all to me. Any suggestions?

If you look at the CPU load in ProcessExplorer's System Information Window with "Show one graph per CPU" checked, are all CPU cores at (almost) full load all the time ???

I can't imagine any Quadcore processor running at 34.5°C under full load (e.g. video encoding) with a normal air cooler, unless you are living in Antarctica...

[JJB]

Once again, try a "System Restore" back to the last time things were working properly...

BTW - Are you using different a different Quality Setting for BD-Rebuilder - perhaps now using "HIGHEST Quality", rather than "High", "Better", or "Good", any of which you may have been previously using?

High Quality -"Default"

I will try the restore after after the current encodes finishes.

[JJB]

If you look at the CPU load in ProcessExplorer's System Information Window with "Show one graph per CPU" checked, are all CPU cores at full load all the time ???

I can't imagine any Quadcore processor running at 34.5°C under full load (e.g. video encoding) with a normal air cooler, unless you are living in Antarctica...

All 4 cores are running at 94.6F with a encode in progress.

[GaPony]

You might want to check the BIOS, or at least look at the CPU information during POST, to be sure the CPU is set correctly. Like others have said, I'm more than a little surprised to see any CPU running at 94.6F (34.7C) during full load. That's very low even for a water cooled CPU.

[shon3i]

You might want to check the BIOS, or at least look at the CPU information during POST, to be sure the CPU is set correctly. Like others have said, I'm more than a little surprised to see any CPU running at 94.6F (34.7C) during full load. That's very low even for a water cooled CPU.
Hmm mine Phenom 9550+ full load not exceeding 40C, of course, when is the normal room temperature 22-25C. And stock AMD fan does not exceed 3000rpm. With BD-Rebilder with High Quality settings for BD25 i need around 7 hours to encode.

[GaPony]

Hmm mine Phenom 9550+ full load not exceeding 40C, of course, when is the normal room temperature 22-25C. And stock AMD fan does not exceed 3000rpm. With BD-Rebilder with High Quality settings for BD25 i need around 7 hours to encode.

That's pretty amazing... From what I have read the AMD Phenom II X4 945 runs around 45c during gameplay and thats not generally max load for any extended period.

What do I know... I'm an Intel guy...we expect our CPUs to cook pizzas.

Whatever else might be going on... scrapping a new build for another new build with an I7 doesn't sound like a good idea.

[DK]

hi jjb,

i'm running a 945 as well and those 9-10fps sound familiar for high-highest setting.

2.x, however, are way too slow.

absolutely no interference of any other process to take up resources?


++++

my 945 runs at ~50°C under full load BD-RB

[Groucho2004]

TI'm an Intel guy...we expect our CPUs to cook pizzas.

6 years ago maybe. Nowadays Core 2 Quads (and especially the new Lynnfields) are the most efficient processors for a PC. Even though AMD improved a lot with the Phenom 2, they are still behind when it comes to power efficiency.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

All 4 cores are running at 94.6F with a encode in progress.

Yeah, but are they all under ~100% load all the time? That's the question. If not, there must be a bottleneck somewhere...

Also you should try different tools to check out the CPU temperature, because those tools often disagree and it's not easy to find out who's right ;)

[JJB]

That's pretty amazing... From what I have read the AMD Phenom II X4 945 runs around 45c during gameplay and thats not generally max load for any extended period.

What do I know... I'm an Intel guy...we expect our CPUs to cook pizzas.

Whatever else might be going on... scrapping a new build for another new build with an I7 doesn't sound like a good idea.

I'm not scrapping a build. I have 4 box's all with duel core AMD's and I am upgrading each to Quads. This first was a AMD and the next will be the i7 and the last 2 will be Intel quads but not the i7 cpu.

[Rumbah]

29.03 and 29.04 were using the same version of x264. Even if that wasn't the case, the speed differences between the last 5 or 10 revisions are marginal.
I know that the speed differences are marginal, I guessed that the way x264 was compiled it does not recognize the Phenom correctly and falls back to slow asm or no asm at all, and that way you can have all cores at 100% but it's still slow as hell.

It would be worth a try to recode the avs that you get in the BD-RB temp folder with a vanilla x264.nl build with similar to BD-RB x264 settings. That way you can see if it's the x264 version that causes your error.

Also did you try a source that previously went well? That way you can rule out that the decoder for the compression format used is the fault (VC1 is slower to decode H264 due to crappy decoder ;) )
6 years ago maybe. Nowadays Core 2 Quads (and especially the new Lynnfields) are the most efficient processors for a PC.
But that does not imply that the cpus don't get as hot. If a cpu is more efficient and you tune up the performance the cpu gets hotter.
If, for example, a P4 uses 30W/GHz and a Core2 only 15W/GHz (numbers are made up), you can use the Core2 with double the GHz of the P4 and get the same heat (or add more cores).

[Groucho2004]

I guessed that the way x264 was compiled it does not recognize the Phenom correctly and falls back to slow asm or no asm at all, and that way you can have all cores at 100% but it's still slow as hell.

I suppose you didn't read his first post. He went back to 29.03 and the fps was about ~2.2 whereas it was 9-10 before with the same version.

If, for example, a P4 uses 30W/GHz and a Core2 only 15W/GHz (numbers are made up), you can use the Core2 with double the GHz of the P4 and get the same heat (or add more cores)

Yes, and if you overclock the C2D to 6 GHz it burns out or throttles as some of the P4 Prescotts did.
What is your point?

[JJB]

10360

This is the fastest FPS I have had since the problem started.. Most are below 3.

[JJB]

10361
Second screen shot from this afternoon.

[JJB]

Once again, try a "System Restore" back to the last time things were working properly...

BTW - Are you using different a different Quality Setting for BD-Rebuilder - perhaps now using "HIGHEST Quality", rather than "High", "Better", or "Good", any of which you may have been previously using?

For BD9 or 5 only High...System restore after the encode in progress.

[Rumbah]

Yes, and if you overclock the C2D to 6 GHz it burns out or throttles as some of the P4 Prescotts did.
What is your point?
My point is that you can still cook your pizza with a i7-975 (TDP 130W) as much as you could with your P4 (TDP up to 120W or 130W) even though the i7 is more efficient.

[jdobbs]

It would be worth a try to recode the avs that you get in the BD-RB temp folder with a vanilla x264.nl build with similar to BD-RB x264 settings. That way you can see if it's the x264 version that causes your error. All the versions included with BD-RB come directly from x265.nl.

By the way, what happened to x264.nl? All I get when I go to the site now is this message...

Want your email address in the Google Mail Anti-Spam System? Mail to: spam@x264.nl

[LoRd_MuldeR]

All the versions included with BD-RB come directly from x265.nl.

Didn't know x265 is out :eek: :D

By the way, what happened to x264.nl? All I get when I go to the site now is this message...

You are not the first one to ask this:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=149949
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=149962

Bob0r (http://forum.doom9.org/member.php?u=14812) didn't clear this up yet though. However the files (http://x264.nl/x264/) are still available, only the front page is gone :confused:

[jdobbs]

Thanks, LoRd_MuldeR. What? You haven't tried X265 yet? It's a higher number so it's obviously newer and better. It's works especially well on Windows 8. :cool:

I just tried www.x264.nl and it's back again. :)

[JJB]

I have no idea how this came to be but all I did was reverse the source path and destination path and boom encode times went to 10 fps on pass 2 and times went down to 6-10 hours instead of 20+ hours. Both drives, source and destination are WD 1TB on SATA. So there are Gremlins out there!:confused:

[datman]

I have no idea how this came to be but all I did was reverse the source path and destination path and boom encode times went to 10 fps on pass 2 and times went down to 6-10 hours instead of 20+ hours. Both drives, source and destination are WD 1TB on SATA. So there are Gremlins out there!:confused:

That's about right. I have a 940 o/c to 3.41 and I get 10.35 fps I run a little hotter CPU 47c and chipset 57c

[Furiousflea]

Please for the love of God stop using Farenheit scale when giving your CPU temperature.

I don't know any programs that are commonly used that output in degrees farenheit - We are trying to help by asking you for the temp in degrees celsius for a reason - at least confirm\refute the suggestion that you may actually have a reading of 94c :)

For that processor it's wayyyyy too high. For a Core i7 as long as you're not getting any noticeable side effects you're fine up to around 95ish. (though people will say otherwise they're just speculating - as am I...but been running solid at 95c on all cores for 6 months ;)).

[Furiousflea]

Please for the love of God stop using Farenheit scale when giving your CPU temperature.

I don't know any programs that are commonly used that output in degrees farenheit - We are trying to help by asking you for the temp in degrees celsius for a reason - at least confirm\refute the suggestion that you may actually have a reading of 94c :)

For that processor it's wayyyyy too high. For a Core i7 as long as you're not getting any noticeable side effects you're fine up to around 95ish. (though people will say otherwise they're just speculating).

Oops it seems we've moved on from that :o