Rendering is a function of...? (cpu?)

[retroz]

Being somewhat new to rendering or rather, converting mpeg/avi to dvd or SVD, is rendering a part of CPU process only, correct? I say somewhat as I have rendered to avi using Vegas, but never really go into conversions until recently.

I have a XP 2500 and to be quite blunt, rendering, conversions stink. Ripping / backing up a dvd is a breeze, placing it onto the HD then DVD, but this conversion stuff is crazy (timewise).

Anway, since we're getting more into mini trailers, movies, we need to know what we can do to speed up the process.

1) Faster CPU? According to some of my charts that I've looked at, there is no CPU yet that can cut my time in half (2500XP mpeg rendering score (cpu reviews) is about 259 seconds and 159 seconds for the newer P4 3.4 and AMDFX53. Still it's a good jump. BUt not cut in half. Will 64 bit OS with a 64 bit chip help too once Ulead, Premiere, etc, go 64 bits?

2) Dual CPU's?

Thanks for any input.

PS, is it actually a function of CPU power or FPU power within the CPU. Thanks.

[northcat_8]

You can overclock your processor and that will improve your speed. You are basically limited by your front side bus (FSB). So overclocking will speed up your process.

Overclocking can be dangerous if you don't know what you are doing and you ignore some heat issues in any event, overclocking is not an exact science and is a little different for everyone depending on their Mother Board.

Some good sites are:

www.overclockers.com
www.ocforums.com
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bs3jf/overclock.htm

That will not cut your time in half. You aren't going to find a CPU that is going to cut your time in half. About the only way you are going to see the time difference you are looking for is to set up "render network" and then render everything using the network. Like having 4 XP 2500 computers networked together, so you actually have four 2100 Ghz CPUs working together at the same time.

Dual processors in the same box is different than a network and will not give you the same effect.

Video is a very intense CPU process, if you've ever seen Shrek's extra disc, they talk about having something like 23 computers rendering one 2 minute scene (if that) and the rendering taking better than 10 hours.

And by the way, you have the right CPU for over clocking...do some reading.

[retroz]

Cool, but my CPU is a little bit overclocked already.

But in theory, I would see a 1/3 jump (decrease) in time if I went to a XP 3400 correct?

Also, since I have a XP 2500 and where to build another desktop box, how could I get the two PC''s to work together via a network? I already have a network installed so any reading about this might be interesting.

Thanks..

Also, one other thing, yesterday I compiled some basic MPEGS and AVIS to ULEAD to a VCD (same question by the way for DVD as I noticed this with DVD to)......anyway, Ulead needs to convert the files and was wondering, has it been proven, (or not) that perhaps one program is faster at rendering then another? I ask as I tried using VEGAS and noticed it much slower so perhaps there is something faster than Ulead?

[johns0]

retroz,to network 2 computers its best to buy a router and then enable printer and folder sharing and make the workgroup name the same.

[northcat_8]

But in theory, I would see a 1/3 jump (decrease) in time if I went to a XP 3400 correct?

In theory...
....it is still the FSB you have to increase. If the 3400 is the same FSB as the 2500 then you aren't gaining much. I don't know FSB speeds of the 2 chips....I doubt they are the same, but I am not in the market for a chip right now so I'm a little out of touch with the numbers right now.

Well since you have the resources to build another PC, I would build it, then you can use it to render while continuing to work on the other one. I know you are trying to lower your render time and I assume the main reason is that rendering is tying up your PC for long periods of time..? Anyway, just a thought. You would network them just like any other network...pretty much like "Johns" said will work fine.

As far as Ulead goes. Ulead does take a while to convert. I always used TMPGEnc Plus to convert then took the MPEG-2 files into Ulead DVD workshop. Now I use TMPGEnc Plus then take them into TMPGEnc DVD Author.

[retroz]

Wow, I am a LOT surprised tht FSB has to do with rendering and not CPU/FPU.

I'm not sure if I agree - not becuase I don't believe in what I'm reading but mostly due to all the reviews showing faster and faster rendering time the higher the FPU /CPU is.

for example:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040318/athlon-fx53-19.html

or here:

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAyLDI=

and what I'm reading here is it depends on FSB???

thanks again

[THE RIPPER]

fsb has nothing to do with raw cpu power, a pc running a 400fsb @2ghz will not encode any faster then a 133fsb@2ghz ,get yourself a athlon mobile cpu, there unlocked so u can raise the multiplier,as long as your motherboard is some what new.fsb will benefit more in memory intense apps such as games.

[bdf24]

That beats having to fill the lasered gaps between the bridges and bridging with metalic paint to unlock the older Athlons! What a pain that was!

I've been a senior member of Overclockers.com for a number of years now. I used to be huge into overclocking. I used to run watercooling with peltiers years ago. I had an old PIII 800 running over 1000mhz (stubbern chip) @ around temps of 20F to 30F! My friends and wife thought I was crazy. It was fun though.

I use to dump so much cash into rebuilding my PC everytime something new came out. Now years and 3 kids later the chance to upgrade is few and far between! Besides you come to realize that all the overclocking, tweaking, and upgrading is realy not necessary. And just gives you more headaches on a daily basis then it does just leaving the damn thing alone.

I have'nt even overclocked in well over a year now. I don't even really browse the forums over at OC.com much anymore. Kinda got bored with the whole PC hardware, tweaking thing.
When you get to the point where you are benchmarking constantly trying to squeeze every ounce of power out of your system and do nothing else its a bit pointless. Then you start to realize that your not even using your system for what it's built to do.

[northcat_8]

and what I'm reading here is it depends on FSB???

I appologize....I was not trying to confuse.

My point with the FSB deal, was that you can increase the speed of your 2500 by overclocking it and get close to the same speed as the 3400. And I'm not sure the difference between the 3400 and an OC'ed 2500 would be worth the money, it's not to me...but I guess that part is up to you.

You are still won't cut your time in half.

[retroz]

No apologies needed, I know what you meant!

Anway, for what it's worth, I have a XP 2400 running about 2.0, 2.1 (almost) which is about the rating of XP 2600, in fact, according to Sisoft Sandra, mine is JUST as fast as a 2600.

Now, that said, a few things...I can only clock up to 140 (280 FSB) then I get the MEMORY errors (blue screen a dead giveaway)...but the thing is, it's PC 2100, and my motherboard can take 2700, so I'm wondering since it (CPU) runs so cool as is, if I where to get PC2700 RAM, I'm wondering how high I could get the 2400 XP to run at...any ideas? Perhaps 2.2, 2.3 even?? This would decrease the render time for sure. Or do you think at 140-141 (282) is the max FSB for a XP 2400???

Second, if I'm going to invest in $100 for a new set of RAM (1 gig), do I really want to do this or would I be better served getting a new CPU, mobo and ram. I'm thinking probably not as the memory, CPU difference won't be that great until the NEWER AMD XP pins (943)? come out in April which is supposed to be even faster.

Then again, the P4 3.2 looks like it does really well at rendering and the CPU is only a few hundered....

thoughts?

[northcat_8]

I am far from a OC expert. My AMD 2.2 is OC'ed, but it's been so long since I did it, I can't remember my settings.

You would be better off to seek answers to overclocking specifics at www.ocforum.com or www.overclockers.com

I have a OC'ed 2.2 AMD, running around 1.9 - 2.1 Ghz, with PC2700 RAM....I can't remember my settings but I think my multiplier is 13.5 or 14, so that would make it 148 or 142....those probably are off a little bit but it's been quite a while since I was in my BIOS.

I didn't overclock for video though. I was pretty much just screwing around with it and discovered changing "this to that, and that to this" gave me more speed. I've had to read up on what I did to actually learn what everything was called and what it did and to see exact;u what I did. Probably not the most efficient way to go about it, but that's pretty much how I've learned just about everything about computers...

If you have the money to spend on a new MoBo, RAM and CPU then go for it, I would.

[lordsmurf]

Buy fast CPU, get good FSB 400, do not overclock.

"Rendering" means something totally different. Bad choice of words.
You want to encode? The word is "encode"

[indolikaa]

P4 with 1066 RDRAM?

[tim6661234]

I built a Dual Athon XP using my existing processor and this still only runs on a 266 fsb but I have to say it did nearly half my encode time.

I'll consider uping this to XP2400 as this is the max. XP that has a 266 fsb when the price drop enough unless the price of an the Atlon MP2800 drops to a more reasonable level.

It's a cheap way to get a kind of 4GHz system but does require a mod if you use XP's

[retroz]

I built a Dual Athon XP using my existing processor and this still only runs on a 266 fsb but I have to say it did nearly half my encode time.

I'll consider uping this to XP2400 as this is the max. XP that has a 266 fsb when the price drop enough unless the price of an the Atlon MP2800 drops to a more reasonable level.

It's a cheap way to get a kind of 4GHz system but does require a mod if you use XP's

Yes, I suppose the word is encode but am a little confused....
Encoding is getting the video ready, converting correct? And rendering, well using Avid, or Vegas would be OUTPUTTING a compiled video format to a set out put format yes?

Anyway, would you mind shedding some light on the building of your system?? I would like to use my existing XP chip and get another....one of the reasons I never did was I didn't want to use the MP chips.

Also what motherboard did you use, what's the mode and I do a lot of audio work and want to make sure this doesn't mess with my audio programs. Giga Studio, Nuendo, SX, Sibelius, plug-ins...

thanks

[tim6661234]

My system

Tyan Tiger MPX Motherboard
2 x Athlon XP 2000+ (Retail versions with Heat sinks)
512 MB Standard DDR RAM (Not registered) You can use these but only in 2 of the 4 Member slots.

The main restriction is that some of the faster XP's use a higher fsb. I think the 2400 is the last one to use 266 but some of the mobile version also have 266fsb.

Link to the mod http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=393&pg=

Just noticed an interesting artical on moding the Barton core too (in the related links).

Compatability has never been an issue as Windoes XP id's them as MP chip also. You'll find that multi-tasking is much better and if your app using any multi-threading it will use both processors.

When I'm encoding it still flat lines at 100% on both CPU's but will reduce the time taken significantly.

I've only had two problems with the system
1. My pioneer 104 didn't like the IDE controller (Problem with DMA) so I got an extra controller.
2. It started locking when fully loaded after about a year so I removed the fans, cleaned them and re sealed.

Good Luck.