Athlon64 and slow compression!!!

[SerbianBoss]

hello everybody,

few days ago y buy athlon64 3200+ venice, asus A8N-E, 1gb ddr kingston pc3200 cl3, 160 gb ata133 with 8mb cashe .....using win xp sp2

I am really dissapointed. My compression to xvid is too slow.
I using virtual dub mpeg2 1.6.9 build 23712 to convert captured mpeg and dv files to xvid.

When i import DV files in vd, y make full compression for audo then i select lame mp3. Then i put video-filters, first is asvzzzzz deintrlance and second is resize to 512x384 or 640x480. Then i select video-compression and select xvid 1st pass.
At the end y select save as avi, and conversion is begin. But compression is to slow!!! It has 18-20 frames when i using xvid 1.0.3. It is to slow for AMD64.

When i work with mpeg2, the situation is the same., again 18-20 frames.

Why is that? My old computer barton 2600+ work faster than AMD64.

Please any help is usefull.

best regard

[junkmalle]

2600+ clock speed = 2.133 GHz
A64 3200+ clock speed = 2.000 GHz

[thevoelk]

Try using Win XP 64-bit as an OS. I didn't see any real performance increase until I used it. I'm stuck in a dual boot for cpturing since Hauppage hasn't felt the need to relase 64bit drivers for therir PVR-150.

BTW, junkamlle, I looked at the AMD 64 3000+ I'm building now for a friend, it's registering as 2.01 GHz, so a 3200+ is probably the same as a Barton 2600.

[junkmalle]

BTW, junkamlle, I looked at the AMD 64 3000+ I'm building now for a friend, it's registering as 2.01 GHz, so a 3200+ is probably the same as a Barton 2600.

Newegg.com lists the venice core 3200+ as 2.0 GHz. The newcastle core is 2.2 GHz, the clawhammer core is 2.0 GHz. The difference is the amount of cache, FSB speed, and socket.

[celtic_druid]

If you do go with XP 64 then you really need to grab a 64bit version of XviD, VDub, AVISynth, etc.

[SerbianBoss]

but why so slow?

barton has 512 L2 and 333 fsb. And AMD64 has 1000 HT and SSE2, SSE3.

ok, i understed that barton worked at 2 ghz and my AMD64 works at 2 GHZ. But AMD64 has SSE2 and 1000 HT.

Does anybody test AMD64 for xvid compression?

I was tested win 64 xp with 64 virtual dub and 64 xvid. It was little better, about 3 frames better.

[junkmalle]

Xvid encoding is mostly CPU intensive, not I/O intensive. So the faster HT bus probably doesn't help much. Be sure you have a recent version of Xvid -- earlier versions didn't support SSE2. I don't know if newer versions properly detect SSE2 on an A64.

[SerbianBoss]

I now install xvid 1.1.0 beta 2 nad new virtual dub mpeg2 1.6.10 and the speed is the same....

[AngusMacGyver]

A64 is faster than AXP in video encode process. At least that's was shown in many CPU comparisions charts.
I think some part of software can be confused. I think A64 is SSE3 compatible like P4. Just an example. Athlon XP isn't. Who knows a software has a problem with CPU optimizations to A64?
Have you installed a fresh windows after CPU upgrade?
Are you using the same avi as test? Remember complex scenes require more computer power than simple ones.
I have a A64 2800+ and I think it's faster than my friend's Barton 2600+ when encoding videos. At least when enconding to MPEG2.

Good luck.
Rafael.

[junkmalle]

Toms Hardware did a big CPU benchmark a while back. They compared MPEG and Divx encoding. It was made before the Venice CPU came out -- but there's not that big a difference between a 2 GHz Barton and a 2 GHz A64:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-18.html

Xvid may be different.

[SerbianBoss]

yes, i installed new windows (sp2) and all drivers for motherboard, cpu, graphic etc.

For copmression to xvid i moustly use virtual dub mpeg2

For comprsssion from dv to mpeg i ue pinnacle studio and sony vegas.

Maybe need to came new software witch is optimized for AMD64, i suggest

[steptoe]

There is a 64-bit build of virtualdub and xvid, but you must have Winx64 installed for them to work corectly, and they are at the moment just straight ports to 64-bit without much optimising of the code

Reading on a few forums its not going to be as simple as people thought to port software from 32-bit to 64-bit, probably the same as when 32-bit systems first came out

There are different instructions that clash with 32-bit instructions, some instructions have no equivalent in 64-bit so need rewriting to get around this and apparently to guarantee full 64-bit compatability some thinsg need to be rewritten from scratch. Again this situation happened when 16-bit went to 32-bit

So some software will probably never be converted as its not worth the cost or the companies don't exists any more, and most will have to be written from the ground up and optimised for 64-bit



Again reading across the 'net it hasn't helped that hardware and software companies are slow on writing 64-bit drivers and .DLL's for people to use
in their software to 64-bit

I've just upgraded my system to 64-bit as well, and trying to find any 64-bit software is far from easy, its there but in very early stages of development

Its the usual situation of companies waiting to see if the market is there to spend the time and money on, and the users waiting to see if the support will be there before they spend their money on upgrading to a totally new system

It will improve with time, but will be very slow to start with. Pester your favourite software and hardware companies, the more requests they get the more they will realise there is a market out there

[AngusMacGyver]

The problem is if you migrate your software to 64 bits, all support files (DLLs, plugins, add-ons) must be 64 bits too. X64 is capable to run 32 bits programs and, of course, 64 bits too. But they can't be both at the same time. You cannot run a program that has 64 and 32 bits parts at the same time.
My opinion is software makers are waiting for popular Intel 64 bits CPUs. We know most software are Intel optimized.

Try installing X64 in dual boot configuration.

[junkmalle]

If you want faster encoding get an A64 X2.

[SerbianBoss]

A64 X2 is too expensive....

I read some reviews and get conclusion that A64 is not much fastest in compression than athlon xp barton processors.

[smoki]

it is well known that the A64 has a lower multimedia performance than the P4 (Nwood, Prescott, etc). It is better at gaming however.

For encoding and video stuff the A64 X2 is on par with the "old" P4 (at double/triple) the price.

[junkmalle]

For encoding and video stuff the A64 X2 is on par with the "old" P4 (at double/triple) the price.

It depends on the codec. On multithreaded codecs it's much faster than the old single core, hyperthreaded P4s. It's about the same as the new dual core P4. For example:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-15.html

[neomaine]

smoki...you smoki too much. Not from I've read...and experienced. I nearly doubled my encoding time from my XP 2600 to my A64 3200. See my specs for deatils. Kept my same drives and video card when upgrading.

ServianBoss,

First, I'd point you to the FAQ to the left and look for another to do with performance. A guide or two will point you to looking at CPU, MEM, DMA settings, and disk management.

Not fully understanding your environment (you give some adequate details) I'd say you may be I/O (disc) bound.

- Check that you have an 80 pin cable.
- Check that DMA is enabled.
- Make sure you are properly defragged.

Those are the basics. Next best things (in order of cost):

1 - If you intend to stay with a single drive, you should at least partition it to have the OS (windows, programs, swap) on one partition and use another partition for video only. Not perfect, but it keeps your OS use from interleaving (defragmenting) with everything else.

2 - Get another hard drive. Keep the setup as above, 1 OS and 1 video partition and use the other for video only. This will allow you to use one as input the other as output.

3 - Get two more drives. Get an 80gb and another 160gb. Make the 80gb your OS/programs drive and use the other two 160's as you in/out video drives.