Does FFmpegX use multiple processors?

[WilliamD]

Hello -

Using the Apple Activity Monitor, it appears that 99% of one processor is tied up between FFmpegX (5%) and MemCoder (95%), leaving half of the processor resources in my Mac (dual G4 1.25GHx) machine underemployed (about 15% total use).

Is there any preference of other means to enable FFmpegX to use these untapped resources?

Would appreciate learning that method, if one exists.

[tomlee59]

Not all of the encoder choices may be multiprocessor aware. Mpeg2enc definitely is, so if your conversion can make use of it, try that, and select the appropriate "thread" option in the Options panel.

[WilliamD]

Thanks for your response

Had a possibly interesting thought - after Checking various encoder web-sites, and -- sure enough, work is underway with some encoders to achieve a state of "multiprocessor awareness" !!
However, they are presenting their efforts as a 'Multi-Core' adaptation of the encoder - no clue how this applies to 'multi-prosessor' in the sense of a Dual G4 or G5 machine.

Most of the work I do is conversion of VOB (1GB) files into DivX -

Ever suppose simultaneous running two FFmpegX (renamed 'FFmpegX1' and 'FFmpegX2') copies is possible? Might FFmpegX1 take input from a folder holding the ODD VOBs, and FFmpegX2 from an EVEN VOBs folder....

My immediate concern is that the preference and temporary files remain separated for each copy of FFmpegX...no doubt there is more to worry about than that...

AN AFTERTHOUGHT - What (if possible), might this trick do for four-core and eight-core machines....imagine the speed possible!!

[tomlee59]

In principle, running multiple threads on multiple cores/processors should work properly. I say give it a try and see if the OS does the right thing. If written properly, one should be able to take advantage of as many cores as are available. For video encoding in particular, it is relatively easy to partition tasks in the right way. Whether or not that's actually done right is another thing.