VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 44 of 44
Thread
  1. Originally Posted by johns0 View Post
    I installed windows 10 and updated to Creators Update version 1709 and now when i open video files with mpc-hc the mouse comes to a crawl until the video starts playing,anyone else have this issue?
    Sounds to me like an issue with ram allocation; namely I think mpc-hc is trying to decode the file onto vram or system memory and the system experiences a slow down until the decode operation is complete.

    I have seen this with both Windows and Linux, especially with files that are not encoded using a delivery format codec.

    Try a different media player or try enabling/disabling gpu acceleration within mpc-hc and see if that helps, alternatively try decoding from a faster drive, it may be an I/O bottleneck.

    Btw, am I the only one that regrets buying a Ryzen? I had a 4790 based Xeon with 16gb ddr3 and I "upgraded" to a Ryzen 1600 with 8 gb ddr4 and I have to say I consider it a waste of money. I went into Microcenter to buy a Coffee Lake based cpu right around Thanksgiving but the motherboards were so expensive and MC was offering what seemed to be a sweet bundle price Ryzens but in all honesty once again I feel like I let AMD sucker me with their snake oil.

    The did it to me with the 6 core X6, they did it to me with their 8 core Piledriver (which should have been called "pile-of-garbage" and once again I fell for the promise of superior multithreaded performance at the expense of single threaded performance.

    I should know better, "multithread" is just a collection of "single threads", so the processor with better single threaded performance will usually be the better all around option.

    I'm seriously thinking about picking up a cheap Coffee Lake based system and retired this thing after just a few months.

    Sorry, I just had to vent.
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Its not a ryzen problem cause it worked with no issues until the newest windows update.I've gone back to windows 7 cause auto arrange got screwed up as well cause when you move the files and folders they reset every time you close and open the folder.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    what seemed to be a sweet bundle price Ryzens but in all honesty once again I feel like I let AMD sucker me with their snake oil.

    The did it to me with the 6 core X6, they did it to me with their 8 core Piledriver (which should have been called "pile-of-garbage" and once again I fell for the promise of superior multithreaded performance at the expense of single threaded performance.

    I should know better, "multithread" is just a collection of "single threads", so the processor with better single threaded performance will usually be the better all around option.
    And yet I can regularly max out my FX-6300 (6 core) with x264/x265 unless I have some serious filters in avisynth like QTGMC or some higher quality denoisers.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Originally Posted by KarMa View Post
    Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    what seemed to be a sweet bundle price Ryzens but in all honesty once again I feel like I let AMD sucker me with their snake oil.

    The did it to me with the 6 core X6, they did it to me with their 8 core Piledriver (which should have been called "pile-of-garbage" and once again I fell for the promise of superior multithreaded performance at the expense of single threaded performance.

    I should know better, "multithread" is just a collection of "single threads", so the processor with better single threaded performance will usually be the better all around option.
    And yet I can regularly max out my FX-6300 (6 core) with x264/x265 unless I have some serious filters in avisynth like QTGMC or some higher quality denoisers.
    This is part of the "snake oil" I am talking about, x264 encodes fastest with the ultrafast preset, which if you check, does NOT max out all the cores on most cpu's, preset placebo which does max out all the cores runs the slowest.

    The point is that just because a piece of software is maxing out all the cores on a cpu does not mean it is necessarily running any faster and the more threads a piece of software spans the more overhead you have thanks to context switching, thread syncing, more ram per thread and additional I/O.

    More threads does not by default mean better and as you pointed out, when you have a work flow that can get bottle-necked by single or lightly threaded parts, such as certain types of filtering during the encoding process, more cores does you no good.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member hydra3333's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    More threads does not by default mean better and as you pointed out, when you have a work flow that can get bottle-necked by single or lightly threaded parts, such as certain types of filtering during the encoding process, more cores does you no good.
    Although you may be right, why do I feel like it may be a "stuck in the single threaded past" perspective ? Everything seems to be moving toward multi-threaded; almost everything ... the more cores you have, the better other things run whilst some of the cores are occupied with your core work (pun intentional).
    Quote Quote  
  6. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    This is part of the "snake oil" I am talking about, x264 encodes fastest with the ultrafast preset, which if you check, does NOT max out all the cores on most cpu's, preset placebo which does max out all the cores runs the slowest.

    The point is that just because a piece of software is maxing out all the cores on a cpu does not mean it is necessarily running any faster and the more threads a piece of software spans the more overhead you have thanks to context switching, thread syncing, more ram per thread and additional I/O.

    More threads does not by default mean better and as you pointed out, when you have a work flow that can get bottle-necked by single or lightly threaded parts, such as certain types of filtering during the encoding process, more cores does you no good.
    I don't know what your encoding workflow looks like but it simply sounds like you have a video decoding bottleneck. Video decoding with most avisynth decoders are going to be single threaded in software (CPU), which limits you to a maximum number of frames that can be decoded and served to x264/5. I would bet if you simply converted some test content to Ut Video Codec YV12 (or maybe just uncompressed YV12)and kept it on a fast drive, you would be able to max out x264/5 at any preset. This would just be a test and impractical for actual workflows.

    You can use AVSMeter to help benchmark your avisynth settings and see how changes to your script affect processing speeds.

    There are ways to use Nvidia GPUs for decoding in avisynth, which would completely remove this bottleneck. There are also methods to get LAV filters to decode video content in avisynth too but I don't fulling understand how to do that.

    As far as my workflow, there are ways of multithreading certain filters like QTGMC with MT Avisynth but I have not gone that far as my usage of QTGMC is normally on Standard Def content and so QTGMC is not a bottleneck here. On 1080i content it's a big bottleneck.
    Last edited by KarMa; 15th Mar 2018 at 20:38.
    Quote Quote  
  7. @Karma:

    It's not a decoding bottleneck, x264+ultrafast has never been able to saturate even a quad core, let alone a higher core cpu. However, for the sake of argument let's assume that it is a decoding bottleneck, that still doesn't invalidate what the overarching argument I am presenting; there are few times when anyone is ever working with a raw uncompressed stream, and even if you're encoding from a raw uncompressed source you are still most likely using one or more filters, which will also be poorly threaded.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    I've been perfectly happy with my MKV/x.264/AC3 encodes from my BD discs and from my DVD discs using the AMD Ryzen X1700 CPU. No problems.
    Other formats, I don't know. At least for my encodes, the CPU runs at about 100% on all eight cores using VidCoder. And it seems fast for my purposes.
    Quote Quote  
  9. i get the same slow downs when i enable and disable my anti virus settings - slows right down and mouse moves very very slow - i have a threadripper 1950x but other than what i said all is excellent
    Quote Quote  
  10. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Just did a 20 gb blu-ray project with multiavchd and took 8 minutes to author,with my 2600k it would take over 20 minutes.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by johns0 View Post
    Just did a 20 gb blu-ray project with multiavchd and took 8 minutes to author,with my 2600k it would take over 20 minutes.
    I suppose it depends on your perspective, the 2600K came out in 2011, is quad core 8 thread and clocked at 3.4Ghz with a 3.8Ghz turbo; the 1700X was released a year ago, exact same clock speeds, twice the cores and threads, the 1700X is just over 3 times as fast, but in the end it matters little because you're not watching the job finish, you are setting the job and walking away or minimizing it to the background so the net effect is that you probably are not realizing the performance benefit.
    Quote Quote  
  12. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    You are assuming things a bit too much,I have done many blu-ray authorings with the 2600k and it always came to around 20 minutes,done a few with the 1700x and they all took around 8 minutes and i keep an eye on the time.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  13. How I stopped worrying and learned to love slow encode speeds

    For me authoring a BD is such a bespoke task that it takes ~week, and by the time I have exported my final DI, the actual encode is the easiest/shortest part that requires zero thinking/skill. In fact, I breathe a huge sigh of relief when I finally feel confident enough to click the encode button (i.e. no longer scared that there isn't a problem I will find that needs fixing or some edit that I want to make). With all the steps/tasks during post, encoding is the tail wagging the dog. Plus advanced filters rely on gpu acceleration making money spent there much wiser. If x264 takes 8 hours overnight (the most painful part of the process is BD compliance requires 2-pass), I couldn't care less. Instead it is time to pop a cold one or go do something else for a while.

    But my comments apply to producers. If you're a capper/ripper (cripper) ignore.
    Quote Quote  
  14. ^^^ EXACTLY!!! I came to the exact same realization only AFTER I bought my 1600X; sure it was faster than the quad core Xeon it replaced but not by that much and even if the editing only takes me a relatively short amount of time I almsot always apply at least 2 filters to my encodes, so no matter which way I slice it both the quad core Xeon and the 1600X take between 1.5 and 2 hours to render out a 30 minute flle (I also use the slow to slower presets with x264 and x265 or vp9), so in reality I don't notice the extra speed.

    In fact, if you stop and think about it, even if I went with a 12C/24T "Threadripper" 1920X, and assume it was twice as fast as the 1600X, it would still take nearly an hour to finish rendering a 30 minute file, so I'm still either walking away or putting the task in the background.

    Hardware encoder however add an interesting wrinkle, because Intel's QS is capable of encoding 9 stream simultaneously, so this does make for an interesting option if you need to encode a lot of files, either for sale or for archiving/backup purposes, something like that, you would notice the performance benefit.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!