Knowledgeable on the matter of CPU performance and encoding?

[Alendri]

Hello! (virgin user here! first post woooo)

I'm not sure where to ask this, i've been browsing the net and searching the forums but so far very little info i found on the topic. Since you - the posters in this thread - seem knowledgeable on the matter of CPU performance and encoding it seemed like a good place to ask.

How many cores can i utilize for encoding?

I saw in one of your elder lists (benchmarking the MeGUI) a Dual Xeon 5355 setup that was not at the very top of the list graysky. So i'm asking myself how is this possible. And the only answer i can come up with is that the processes used are not "properly" multi threaded.

Do you have any 8-core setup for this benchmark in your database graysky?
Is this "benchmark" truly multithreaded, if it is not what is the maximum number of usable cores? From the Q6600 numbers in the list it is obvious that it uses up to 4 cores at least.

For 3d rendering and video editing (and encoding) i'm getting a work computer with Dual Xeon E5345 processors, totaling 8 cores next month. So i'm researching for it now.
Will it at all outperform a regular Quad system (provided same FSB and multiplier) when it comes to encoding?
Maybe i should go with virtualisation and run a 2nd OS when i encode and use the remaining system resources for regular work. After all, every minute spent encoding will be one minute i cannot use the cpu-time for something else. Another idea would be to encode two files at ones (4 cores per encoding) if it proves more effective than one encoding with 8 cores.

I would also like to know everyones input on the best multicore encoding application, free or not. The only requirement is that it has to support x264 at 1080p30.
Funny (or sad) thing is that a lot of commercially available applications' support teams doesn't even know how many cores their products support.

Any other information on extreme cases of encoding from you extreme guys would be helpful! Like maybe you know that if u have an input file with bitstream in excess of 300MB/s (uncompressed 1080p30 avi file) X application might limit the encoding rather than the actual CPU calculations. Or if you any applications that can't handle a 200gb file please tell me.

*Edit: hmm, i should probably have posted this in another thread or a new thread seeing how big the post became, any moderators that feel like moving this message please do.

Thanks in advance!
//Alendri

[redwudz]

Yes, you would likely get more responses in a new thread. A reply to a existing post should address the subject of the original poster. This was split from: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic336716.html

Soopafresh posted a 8 core result: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic336716.html#1752347

And welcome to our forums.

[Soopafresh]

And I wish I owned it It is amazingly fast at rendering 3D (tested on Lightwave and Maya 8.5) - up to 6 times faster than some of the older Dual Xeon machines. That particular machine (Mac Pro) is flawed, however, in that it only sees 2GB RAM regardless how much RAM you install in it - at least with XP. OSX doesn't exhibit this problem. This has been confirmed by many Mac Pro users, and nothing short of a bios upgrade from Apple is going to change that.

Regardless of the hardware platform, the software you're using must be optimized for multi-core performance. Most 3D applications only use 1 core during normal operations, then multiple cores for rendering. In video encoding, X264.exe with the --threads auto switch will kick the app into 8 core overdrive --threads 4 should only place it on 4 cores, so you can experiment with that. TmpgencXpress 4.3 will also take advantage of multiple cores for various types of video transcoding. Some commercial h264 products, such as Mainconcept's Pro h264 converter will take advantage of more than 1 physical processor, but it is $2300.00. I'd start with X264, see if it meets your needs, then try the Mainconcept and PixelTools h264 encoders. FTP site for PixelTools Demos (very expensive as well, but pretty darned good) ftp://ftp.pixeltools.com/demo/

Good luck, and post your benchmark results when you get your machine.

[redwudz]

OK, Soopafresh, you have a mysterious program that checks every time your user name is mentioned. I suspected that. But your comments and input are very welcome.

I wish I had the $$ to afford a 8 core computer. Or even to play with one. 8) It's unfortunate that Apple doesn't aways seem to see the potential and make the best use of it. JMO, but they have done that for some time.

I'm trying to stay 'on topic', but it seems the more cores, the better the setup for processing video. Both AMD and Intel need to work more on multi-core CPUs, even at lower CPU speeds. But at a price that most of us can afford. For the moment, it seems that multi-core CPUs are the way to go for maximum performance.

[Soopafresh]

Actually redwudz, I look for posts which you respond to so I can learn new things . This is an unprecedented moment for faster AND cheaper systems for video processing machines. RAM is also unbelievably cheap (no doubt to help push Vista and vice-versa).

[lordsmurf]

OK, Soopafresh, you have a mysterious program that checks every time your user name is mentioned. I suspected that. But your comments and input are very welcome.

Google Alerts.

[Alendri]

Thanks for moving the thread redwudz.

When i started writing the message my intention was to ask more specific things about the actual benchmark, but i sort of drifted there a bit heh. sorry 'bout that.

And also thanks Soopafresh for your reply.

I'm very aware of how the 3D applications work, and yes, sadly most of them only use one core for normal operation. Worst of all is that this includes the Reactor physics simulator and Fur/Hair in 3ds max (i'm not sure in the new version just released, but i'd be surprised if that changed).
However rendering the is the main purpose for this rig, however encoding and rendering are both heavy cpu duties and should perform good both the more cores you have.

I'm very happy to hear that x246.exe support 8 cores, some people are complaining that as of yet there are too few areas where i can use it. But this shows another area.

I will for sure post the benchmark results. I will also try and encode two at the same time (with affinity setup or the --threads switch), just to see if that changes anything for total time. Doing this when rendering with some 3d applications utilizes the whole CPU better meaning that the total time for the two renders will be shorter than doing them one after the other. Maybe it's the same with encoding.

Mainconcept i've looked in to earlier, and it seems to be a neat product, but at that price i rather go with some inefficient encoder and buy a 2nd computer.

Thankfully my setup is not a Mac Pro (and thank god i didnt let myself get talked in to getting one, even though the hardware really is a dream). I would have killed myself if i found i could only use 2gb of ram, thats what i have now, and for video editing that is suicide, especially when it comes to 1080 or higher resolutions.
Seeing as the benchmark file is so small i would guess the memory size does not have any significant impact on the results. But i would like to know the results if u do get the rest of your ram working Soopafresh, for comparison.

If you were wondering my setup will be: (the number indicating the amount)
Intel Xeon E5345 2.33GHz 1333 Socket LGA771, 8MB, BOXED m/fläkt 2
Corsair DDR2 PC5300 2048MB CL4 ECC, FULLY BUFFERED 4
Tyan Tempest i5000XL 2692A2NR, VGA, Gigabit-LAN, S-ATA II RAID 1
Samsung SpinPoint HD403LJ 400GB 7200rpm 16MB Cache SATA2 2 (raid 0 setup)
Cooler Master STC-T01 Chassi 1
Antec TruePower Quattro 850W 1
Asus Extreme GeForce 8800GTX 768MB 1

Items selected for different reasons after a lot of research, such as performance, price and expandability. A storage subsystem will be bought later for 6 SATA drives at RAID 5 for high-performance redundant storage along with 4 more memory sticks for total 16gb ram)

---------

While i'm on it i might as well ask if either of you know anything about virtualisation?
In particular i'm wondering if it is possible (in an easy manner) to use 2 monitors, one OS on each monitor, and have one keyboard/mouse for each of those OSs?
For example running an extra OS that i put on the TV for media, while still having a separate OS on the computer screen, with independent keyboard/mouse inputs.
I have Vista 64 ultimate, and would use that as base, but if i was to install another OS would i need a license for that one as well, and could i use the same copy as i have now a 2nd time?
I just came up with this idea last night so i haven't put much thought in to it, but i believe all the hardware in the list above will support virtualisation.


Oh my god this forum makes me write insanely long messages!
Any input on any of my ramblings is appreciated.
//Alendri

[redwudz]

The last part is interesting, about virtualization.

You are looking to run two OS's at the same time on one computer and output each to a separate monitor? Never tried that. And do you need two licenses to do that? That's complex. I don't think so, but to MS, that may show up as trying to activate the OS on two machines. Maybe if you cloned the first install to the second after it was activated? And I have no idea if that's possible. But someone on the forum may have better knowledge.

The only time I have used Virtual OS's, the virtual OS ran agonizingly slow. But I'm thinking more of emulating a OS, such as running a MAC with a virtual PC (Intel) emulator.

And off topic for Soopafresh,

Actually redwudz, I look for posts which you respond to so I can learn new things

You honor me. That's the reason I look for your posts. (And others, as well)

I am amazed that with all other things seemingly getting more expensive, computers are not only getting cheaper, but more powerful. I guess Moore's law is still in effect with the advent of economy quad processors. The transistor count must be incredible with those CPUs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

[Alendri]

The virtualization i'm thinking about should not have any performance deficiencies like emulators. I've seen screens and read some article where they used a dual quad xeon computer with Vista ultimate and had 8 other OSs installed and running all at the same time. Virtualization is after all the new buzzz when it comes to servers. (well it has been around since 50s or 60s i believe, but now it's hotter than ever, from what i've read)
However i don't know where that article was, and i remember it was all on a single huge display with 8 OSs each inside it's own window tiled across the screen.
That would do me no good at all, what i want is to use my computer undisturbed even though someone else is using X resources that i dedicated to the 2nd OS. For example using the TV, but another option would be the ultimate thin client for my mother lol. She could have a single little monitor with mouse and keyboard without the need to setup any more computers.
If resolution is not so important one could easily transfer the video wirelessly even to a neighbor.

About the licenses i'm thinking i might install the same copy 2 times, then obviously it cant say i'm installing OS on two machines, since the hardware ID of the computer will be the exact same.
But maybe i just run a linux install and the problem is solved, but it would be interesting if my brother could use the 2nd OS as windows and work with 3D at the same time as i do.

I still have some work todo tonight (I have to pay for the monster machine!). But tomorrow i will read up more on the whole virtualization delio. After all i have to be able to assign a separate keyboard/mouse to each OS without them interfering with each other, i don't know if that is even possible.

Btw is 'virtualization' not a word or just too new to be in the spelling correcting library? (marked as red)

If u know anyone redwudz, that might know more on the topic drop me a msg (forum or non-forum user) or point them in this direction

Thanks for any help, much appreciated
//Alendri