dual processor vs. single-ADAM, BALDRICK, any h-ware experts

[drewson99]

I use my computer for the following tasks:

1) I edit, re-encode, and burn home DV from my Digital8 camcorder to DVD-R.

2) I rip DVDs, re-encode to MPEG-2, and burn them to DVD-R, using "TMPGEnc"

Here are my specs:

AMD Athlon XP 1800+
768MB DDR RAM
80GB 7200rpm HD
28GB 7200rpm HD
Toshiba DVD-ROM
Pioneer DVR-104

Windows 2000 PRO


***MY DESIRE: SPEED UP ALL THAT I DO.***


I have read up on the benefits of dual processors and have decided that having a second computer would benefit me more than having a single computer with dual-processors. I will do some tasks on one computer while I do others on the other, (i.e.-rip and frameserve on one while encoding on another)

I recently read a benchmark of MPEG-2 encoding for dual Athlon MP 2000+ and dual Xeon 2200 vs. single setups of the same processors.

The dual was not 2x faster, it was more like 10-15% faster.

Now that I have decide to get a second computer instead of owning a single, dual processor computer, I was trying to decide what that new, second computer should be.

At first, I thought, since the computer will be strictly for the encoding, give it dual XP 2100+ processors, and have it be a monster.

Now, after reading this benchmark, I am thinking, instead of *dual* Athlon MP 2100+ processors, I will just get a *single* Athlon XP 2200+, save some bucks, and have it be nearly as fast, without all the added cost and complication of the dual setup.

Any opinions on this? I would like to hear from people who:

1) ...have dual processors (AMD preferably, since this is what I am buying) and have also used single, so they have experience comparing these things.

2) ...are knowlegeable on the pros and cons of the dual-processor setup.

3) ...have tried different setups to speed up TMPEGEnc.

also, will different types of RAM make a big difference here, or is DDR good enough (as opposed to the more expensive RAMBUS 1033 stuff)


Thanks guys, I would be lost without vcdhelp.com!!

Andy

[Betamax]

Hi,
A few tips :

AMD Athlon XP 1800+
768MB DDR RAM
80GB 7200rpm HD
28GB 7200rpm HD
Toshiba DVD-ROM
Pioneer DVR-104
Windows 2000 PRO

Seems to be okay, although you've got not much diskspace..?
To get better performance, you should considder to use a RAID HighSpeed controller for your video-thing (I've got a KT7-133A at which a HighPoint controller is build in).
Best would be 2 disks for your video/adio stuff, connected both as 'primary' at this seperated controller. Then use the 3th disk (use your smallest) as boot-disk for w2k at the primary build-in controler.
Be sure all disks are ATA100 (or ATA133/ATA166) and that the ide-controllers are so too, be sure you use the correct highspeed ide-cables.

Cooling is very important.
So be sure you use a case which ensures you that your components doesn't get overheated (which with I've got much troubles often - only by srewing the case open and locate an external fan (the one I would have in my living-room) in front of the opening will then help).

If money doesn't bother you, then consider not to by AMD but Intel.
An Athlon is based upon P-II technology, while things will still be faster using a P-IV.. I think 1 P-IV acts the same as 2 or 3 Athlon's..!

Be sure nothing conflicts (no dma's and no irq's).

...are knowlegeable on the pros and cons of the dual-processor setup.

If you can affort it, then a dual-processor setup would always be the best one.

...have tried different setups to speed up TMPEGEnc.

The only way to speed up TMPGenc, is using DV - I use a 'Matrox RT-2500' (costs nearly as much as a new computer), but quality is very high and encoding 1hour SVCD only takes about 3hours, 1hour VCD takes about 2½hours (even VCD is very high of quality!).

also, will different types of RAM make a big difference here, or is DDR good enough (as opposed to the more expensive RAMBUS 1033 stuff)

Even SDR-133 is good enough...
But check your CPU-settings in the BIOS that they're optimal set (I don't know them by head, but default they're not setup optimised).

Regards,

[Vapor]

I recently read a benchmark of MPEG-2 encoding for dual Athlon MP 2000+ and dual Xeon 2200 vs. single setups of the same processors.

The dual was not 2x faster, it was more like 10-15% faster.

Can you post a link to said review?

Enabling all the dual cpu, pipelining options and large caches on my system certainly increases speed by a factor of 2 or more over running only 1 cpu.

I must admit I only convert DVD's direct to SVCD and have no experience encoding from raw MJPEG but have a lot of experience on dual processor configurations using Tmpg and CCE (I now use CCE as the quality is higher).

Just a few notes:

1) Memory above 512mb is rarely used by encoders.
2) HD speed is rarely a factor as the CPU(s) cannot encode faster than the HD can stream data to them (this could be a factor using uncompressed sources though).
3) Frameserving is normally the biggest bottleneck (even on my dual PIII the cpu usage when encoding via a frameserver goes 75% to 99% then back to 75%. this is not the case when a raw avi is used and cpu usage is then 99% all the time).
4) Filters slow down everything (generally).
5) My dual PIII 900 system encodes at roughly the same speed as a single Athlon XP 1800+

If you post details more details of the software, frameserver and processes/settings you use I may be able to suggest alternatives to speed up your process.

As a rule dual cpu systems are those of choice for avid encoders. Nearly all encoders are multi-threaded and capable of using as many cpu's as you can throw at them. Tmpg is particularly efficient on multi-cpu systems and CCE is not to shabby either.

[bbb]

I agree that buying multiple single systems is the better, more flexible choice. It won't cost more or much more than a high priced dual CPU system which requires expensive MP CPUs. Setting up a network is nice. Also, it's faster when you encode with 2 separate computers--dual CPU is never 2X the speed, especially for MPEG encoding.

BUILDING CHEAP MULTIPLE SYSTEMS:
The most important thing is to find a stable modern motherboard-memory combo. I've finally found a very very stable setup: ECS K7VTA3 motherboard ($69-70) and Mushkin PC-3000 Ram ($90).

Next thing is to decide on a CPU. Try to find something reasonable ~$100 or less. I like the performance and price ratio of the AMD 1700XP and AMD 1800XP--get the retail boxes because they come with a quiet fan (very important) and 3 year warranty (very reassurring). Prices should be dropping lower these days.

Now buy a decent case ($40-$50), a decent cheap video card ($40-$50), a WD/Maxtor 30-40 Gig HD, and a ($30-$40) Sparkle powersupply (250 Watt - 300 Watt is good enough in my experience).

Finally, setup a KVM switch ($20-$50) to control all your systems using 1 monitor, 1 keyboard, 1 mouse.

*Buying a removable HD caddies ($10-$20 each) could also speed up your process by avoiding big file transfers from your encoding computers to your main computer, the one with the cd burner.

*They are ways to lower your costs. Such as mounting your motherboards on a wooden/steel shelf or table--takes some handyman experience--but keeps the computer cooler too. This way you don't need to buy $40-$50 cases. Also, you can avoid buying video cards (except for your main computer) by installing a remote access program (e.g., Remote-Anything)--this also avoids the need for buying a KVM switch. OEM CPUs are cheaper but finding an affordable quiet fan that fits can be difficult (60mm fan adapters do not always fit cases).

[incognito]

I have never seen a published benchmark that uses tmpg for mpeg2 -- for
some reason most reviewers seem to like ligos (which is used by just about
nobody in this community as far as I can tell)

tmpg and flask are both *highly* optimized for taking advantage of
multiple processors, and I saw nearly a 100% improvement using my dual
celeron rig-- though as someone mentioned it depends a lot on your
filtering settings.

The other neat thing about having dual pocessors is being able to burn a
cd or fire up a game of starcaft while you're encoding-- very cool.

Having a second computer will let you do this, too

But all is not rosy in second computerville-- remember that you'll
have files spread across two computers and even a very fast lan
will slow down access considerably vs having the data local.

[Nelson37]

I would vote for two systems as well. The Multi-proc choice is the best possible speed, but for the expense is hard to justify. Consider also the investment, single point of failure, future upgrades much more complex, multiple projects at once, ability to sell/repair/upgrade one machine while still able to do work, etc.

[Jason A]

Even SDR-133 is good enough...
But check your CPU-settings in the BIOS that they're optimal set (I don't know them by head, but default they're not setup optimised).
Regards,

Actually, that's not true......today's high speed cpu's need bandwidth, and lots of it.....they are very memory hungry especially the P4's/Xeon's...

I recently posted my new encoding machine's results on Overclockers.com and here's what happened.....

Ok guys...here's the deal...first...my system specs...

MSI-645E-Ultra Max-C.
P4 1.6a.....Samsung PC2700 512mb
RAID 0+1 4x80gig 7200rpm Blah Blah Blah....

This machine is only used for DVD production and video editing..Pioneer A04 DVD-R/RW, Lite-On 24x10x40 etc...I have a GF256-32mb card which is more then enough for what I do..

So...I've been running my 1.6a at about 2.25 or about 138fsb with the OEM HSF but it was always running at 127-130f !!! At full load while doing MPEG video compression...

During a 72hour compression session, it locked up with only 2 hours left to go !!!!! So a AX-478 was in order..

Just got it today....got it on with a big fan...and here are my results for memory/cpu speed...

The AX-478 keeps the cpu at about 116f all the way to 2.44ghz....after that..my cpu dies reguardless of voltage (up to 1.8v).....

2 Minute video clip, 1920x1080i HD studio master...here's the results...

CPU Speed------FSB------MEM-Speed----MEM Ratio------Encode Time

2.44ghz---------153mhz----228mhz-------4:3---------------6min49sec

2.32ghz---------145mhz----290mhz-------1:1---------------6min29sec

2.24------------140mhz----350mhz-------4:5---------------6min34sec

As you can see from the above results....it seems that CPU-MHZ is not always the ticket...

I mean...running SoftSandra is fine and dandy and looks cool...but when you can actually see the results in real world tests...then it really means something !!!!

It seems that even a CPU who's speed is 200mhz slower will win just based on the fact that the memory is running faster...

Also..I did the Sandra Mem-tests also...at 2.44/slowest mem clock...I got 1700mb/sec or so...

At 2.24/fastest mem clock...I hit almost 3000 at 2920mb/sec !!!!

So I say ease off the cpu a bit...and hit that memory faster !!!!!

Jason

Again, as you can see from the above, higher mem bus is faster then cpu speed....

I've now upgraded to DDR553 (PC3200) and have my mem bus running at insane rates, and can compress almost a full 2 minutes less now !!!

So find a board with the fastest mem bus avail....

Right now..on the P4 side, SiS 645/685 is the king right now..

Jason

P.S. Link to OC.com article that I did..http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106615

[jtommyj]

I strongly disagree. I use 2 X 1700 xp rig. When I disable 2 processor in TMPGENC, it takes AT LEAST twice as long to encode to DVD.[img][/img]

[3dcandy]

I believe that the P4 is *probably* your best bet here. All the recent benchmarks point to a P4 being better at encoding etc., but you'll need a nippy P4, and make sure it's a B type Northwood processor (ie. has 512k cache memory and runs on a 533mhz fsb) - and then pair that up with a good motherboard, preferably with PC1066 RDRAM.

Problem is, that'll cost you a fortune compared to an Athlon based DDR memory system, so you'd better weigh up the costs.

All this is relative, and do you need all that speed. There is a huge difference in price between the top speed cpu's and the next one down the ladder, and the top one is bound to drop in price by relatively large amounts really soon - there are newer cpu's from Intel and AMD due real soon now!

Also, bear in mind that the hard drive(s) have quite a large bearing on overall system performance, so you may wish to consider a RAID system!

[Jason A]

I strongly disagree. I use 2 X 1700 xp rig. When I disable 2 processor in TMPGENC, it takes AT LEAST twice as long to encode to DVD.[img][/img]

Who are you disagreeing with here ???

[jtommyj]

I am disagreeing with the statement that the dual processor setup only increases encoding by 15-20 %. Plus the cost factor. Guarantee you can get 2 xp 1800's, Tyan 2460, 512 mb 2100 ddr for less than a single P4 2.2 GHz Proc and MB, let alone ram.

[jtommyj]

PS to above. Using TMPGENC with multi-proc and 256 pre-fetch, 2 pass VBR with saving VBR to cache, 4500 avg.bitrate takes approx. 3.5 hours. VCD encoding is realtime x 3 (20 seconds to do 1 minute of VCD compliant Tmpgenc template). Does 2 hour VCD in Approx 40 minutes.

[Jason A]

I am disagreeing with the statement that the dual processor setup only increases encoding by 15-20 %. Plus the cost factor. Guarantee you can get 2 xp 1800's, Tyan 2460, 512 mb 2100 ddr for less than a single P4 2.2 GHz Proc and MB, let alone ram.

One question though....you mention 2 xp's.....

XP's have not been SMP capable or unlockable since about a month after their release...AMD fixed that real quick...

So you would have to buy MP's which are very $$$...

Figure that cost in also

Jason

[drewson99]

even so, at pricewatch it seems the mps are only about $40 more per processor. That won't stop me! looks like I will go with the second computer, with dual processors.

Thanks for all the input guys,

Andy

[bbb]

Just curious, what motherboard have you decided on? How much does that cost?

[kitty]

Dual processor systems do not work with some system components. One gotcha is the Hauppauge PVR-250 MPEG capture card - not recommended on dual processor systems. I seem to remember other things that were not dual processor friendly but cannot pull up specifics.

There are some bargains on monitorless P4 2GHz and higher systems in the States - Best Buy, etc. and it seems that most powerful programs if they are optimized tend to have P4 extensions well before things like 3Dnow etc. Not that I like paying an Intel premium but their prices are falling to continue making a steady revenue stream in these economic times.

[Executioner]

I have the following rig:
Dual PIII-550MHz cpus
Win2k pro
328 megs of ram (PC100)
7200rpm 17 gig IDE HD

When I make a SVCD using DVD2SVCD program, the entire process can take ~16 hours on a typical 2 hour movie using CCE instead of TMPGEnc.

When I make a VCD using SmartRipper, DVD2AVI, TEMPGEnc, and VCDEasy, the entire process takes ~9 hours to complete on a typical 2 hour movie.

Before adding the extra cpu, the VCD process would take ~12 hours to complete. When using TMPGEnc, I notice that both cpu's are maxed out at 100% for the duration of the encoding. If I use CCE, the cpu usage is ~60%, with one cpu at 50%, and the other at ~10% - going up and down while encoding. I have no other apps or programs running in the background. This system was put together to simply encode and burn movies to VCD or SVCD.

[incognito]

I am disagreeing with the statement that the dual processor setup only increases encoding by 15-20 %. Plus the cost factor. Guarantee you can get 2 xp 1800's, Tyan 2460, 512 mb 2100 ddr for less than a single P4 2.2 GHz Proc and MB, let alone ram.

One question though....you mention 2 xp's.....

XP's have not been SMP capable or unlockable since about a month after their release...AMD fixed that real quick...

So you would have to buy MP's which are very $$$...

Figure that cost in also

Jason

Wrong on both counts... They are both smp capable and unlockable
see this link
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/print.hwz?cid=2&aid=393

and others on this site.

There *may* be an extra qualifying screen for smp function,
but my guess would be that 99.99% of parts pass it.

[jkl]

incognito, that was just the link that i've been searching for. i tucked it away in "my documents" just in case i need it in the future. anyway, to stay on topic, i was deciding on if a dual would help me have faster encoding speeds or allow me to do other things while encoding. i think i've finally found the answer. instead of me getting a dual system i decided to just to just get dual computers. sinse my current rig isn't that outdated, i might just overclock it a few megahertz and use it strictly for encoding. then i can build me monster with a kt333 board and smoke all of yall. if you have a 800 meg cpu, haveing 2 800 meg cpu will not cut your encoding time in half period(now if you had a quad board...). i first wanted a dual 'cause i thought i could run the cpu's in series( 2 1200's running like a 2400) soon you'll be able to overclock the new tbreds in upwards of 2400~2500. some one let me know if they ever get a dual to clock at a higher speed, you'll hate to have two fried cpus. i might rethink this when duals come out with faster memory.

[sterno]

There *may* be an extra qualifying screen for smp function, but my guess would be that 99.99% of parts pass it.

The XP and MP CPUs also have slightly different cores (at least they used to, I think they still do). In general the Athlon MP has a slight (very slight) speed advantage, but it's not enough that I'd choose MP over XP for a uniprocessor system.

[Jason A]

even so, at pricewatch it seems the mps are only about $40 more per processor. That won't stop me! looks like I will go with the second computer, with dual processors.

Thanks for all the input guys,

Andy

Don't know where on PW you found that but on their main page...prices are like.....

XP-1800 $72
MP-1800 $134

Almost double the price...so you have to consider that...

Also...with P4 becoming the standard......more and more programs are being writen stricktly for them.....

As for incognito....that article was written back in March.......Tom's and 2CPU.com report that the latest XP's have the SMP taken out in the microcode, so it's more harder now to find XP's that'll do SMP..

I'd like to challenge what my single P4 OC'd to hell would compete against a dual AMD system....

I'll host an uncompressed file or someone elses and let's see what the real world results are..

Jason

[drewson99]

I think it was the price difference between the two highest processors, the xp2200 and the mp2100. (not a great way to compare, but if I buy a new system, it will prolly be with one or the other of those two)

Andy

[Jason A]

I think it was the price difference between the two highest processors, the xp2200 and the mp2100. (not a great way to compare, but if I buy a new system, it will prolly be with one or the other of those two)

Andy

Also remember that the fastest system right now is the P4 2.8ghz cpu....

With DDR333 (or 400 ), it'll beat any dual AMD system out there right now...

Problem with AMD systems right now, there's not a decent DDR333 chipset that has the bandwidth of P4 system....

Tomorrow, I'll setup a new TOPIC, and I'll have a link to an uncompressed video file so we can all see how fast our systems are compressing...

Right now...my system is the same as above except for now..

P4 2.5ghz running at 2.9ghz
512mb DDR3200 ram at 150mhz x4 (DDR rate)...

Current SoftSandra shows 3.9gb/sec data rate....

[movienut2002]

Cool!!!!! An AMD-- Intel Pissing war!!

Never seen one of those before.


Get a system that suits the tasks you will be using it for. Read up at www.2cpu.com for info regarding duals and problems they may cause. Get a system that fits within your budget.

Arguments between the two MFG's are endless. I've had good luck with both for various purposes.

Even if you get the fastest thing out there - in a small matter of time. You'll be way behind.


Some interesting reading.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1685&p=1

[Betamax]

Somehow, it's weird.
I red somewhere that one's encoding took more (or about) 16hours.
If you use a capture-card with its own codec on-board then also use that codec for everything while it only speeds things much up.

I think I've got an 'anchient' system, while I only have a 'conventional' AMD Athlon (at 1.2Ghz). I also have 256MB of SDR (at 133Mhz).

Encoding of 80minutes of VCD at DV-codec (heighest quality possible, I believe) only takes about 3hours - keeping the quality high.
Encoding SVCD for a full 80minutes CD only takes about 2½hours !

While encoding, I still can do other things.
I use TMPGenc 2.57+

But the next system, i'll ever gonna buy would be an Intel based system. I had too much trouble configuring the current AMD-Via chipset to get my 'Matrox RT-2500' working (it finaly did, but with lots of troubles).
That buying will be as soon I think the current system is too slow (which it currently isn't, but I think it's due I also use a Pentium-Pro for my second system - which is only 200Mhz).

Regards,