Never heard this question yet !!!!

[Xtreme]

So what you guys think of downloading 2 TMPGenc on 2 different directories of your HD then converting 2 files at a time ? Has anyone done this yet ? Is it possible ? Picture quality the same ? Well i have tried it....but i left to work before they were both done, so i am not sure what the quality or outcome is yet. Was wondering what all of your experience was on this issue. Not sure if my specs make a difference but here they are.
Here is the specs on my machine:

Daul P3 667mhz coppermines
140gigs of HD
384megs of ram
Nvidia 64 geforce video card
SBlive gamersX sound card
SCSI adapter
SCSI Yamaha CDRW burner
Pioneer CD-Rom/DVD player
And my O/S is Win2k

[adam]

The quality isnt affected at all, its a digital conversion. But by running two power hungry encoders simultaneously you are slowing down the entire encoding process for both jobs. Its much better to setup a batch encode so that they run consecutively, not simultaneously. But if they both finish before you get home from work then I guess it doesnt matter either way.

[Xtreme]

How do you run a batch encoding ? Well i do understand what you mean about the power hungry running encoders, but i had it running for a good 20 minutes before i left and i never noticed any extreme difference in time. It didn't seem to slow anything down at all.
Could you enlighten me a little more on running a batch encoding session ?

[Xtreme]

Does anyone at all know how to run a batch of encoding ????? So many view of this , but only one response. I thought you guys were good . =)

[Truman]

Select the first source, set everything you want and save the project.(select file> save project)
Do this with all the files you want encode.
Then select file> batch encode and add all the projects.

[Horrorking]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-19 06:03:09, Xtreme wrote:
Does anyone at all know how to run a batch of encoding ????? So many view of this , but only one response. I thought you guys were good . =)
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Select input & source file, hit CTRL + M. Click outside the box that pops up if you still have more to select. Once you finish selecting all the files, hit the "run" button. Works almost flawlessly here - even over a network (My wife's PC shares the processing over a 100MB lan).

David
http://www.horrorking.com

[Xtreme]

Now i will be able to run a batch encoding with both TMPGenc programs running at the same time. I know that the encoding is CPU intensive but i have dual CPU's so it is almost like running one TMPGenc per Processor. I guess you can look at it like that. Well running those batches will be very helpful for the fact that i leave my house on weekends and dont come home until after the weekend, so i can make several batches now and come home to several done. Running 2 TMPGenc's will also be awesome because i will be able to get double the work done. Running the batches and both TMPGenc's will make my life alot easier. Thanks guys.
I noticed that no oen has answered if they have really tried running 2 of the programs at the same time or not and what kind of results they have recieved. So nobody must do this but me ?

[Truman]

Since I have only one CPU, running TMPG or any encoder 2 times at the same time is useless for me...

[adam]

I do it as well but only when I know all encodes will finish by the time I get back, like when I encode several trailers all at once or something right before I go to bed.

Actually dual processors does not actually mean that each job will run on each processor. What happens is that the encoding is done all one one processor and all filters and such are done on the other. Multithreading does take some of the strain of encoding off the main processor but not as much as you'd think. Still running multiple encodes on a dual processor system does make more sense.

[Xtreme]

So just running a batch encoding is better ? Well i ran a batch encoding on both TMPGenc programs running 3 on one of them and 4 on the other. So a total of 7 batched. When i left today at 5:30pm for work again. I only had the last one left on the one and 1 more left on the other. I was encoding movie files. So is this good or bad ? A total of 6 files encoded within a 11 hour period. Would it have been faster to run only one TMPGenc with the batch of the 7 movies ?

[alucard2050]

sounds like a good idea to have two encoders running 2 batch encoding at the same time. i think i'll give it a try in the next day or two and see if it'll work.

[speedy]

It doesn't matter if you have two processors on the system board or ten, running two instances of the same application at the same time will NOT decrease the time it takes to do two encodes.

First, in order for any application to take advantage of a second processor the appliction has to be coded to do so. I doubt Tempgenc was and even if it was, the lion's share of the work would still be done by the first CPU.

Second, running two instances of the same application at the same time is the same as trying to download from two newsgroups at the same time with a 56K dialup. Sure, you can, but what you have in effect is two 28K streams, each competing for CPU cycles.

In case anyone is wondering dual processor motherboards are primally intended for servers. Very little software is written to take advantge of them and even for the handful of applications that do, the benfits are miminal. You want to improve throughput get a motherboard that supports DDR memory which can double the FSB speed.

[adam]

TMPGenc is definitely coded to take advantage of dual processors, just look under the environmental settings under CPU. Like I said, with two processors all the filters and such will be run on one cpu while the other one does most of the actual encoding.

[9110]

On a dual cpu system you can select that TMPGenc 1 should use cpu 1 and that TMPGenc 2 should use cpu 2.

So it does not matter if the program is coded to use multi cpu or not. If the OS can handle two cpu then you can use both of your cpu´s.

But if the program is coded to suport two cpu´s then you can run that program over both cpu´s.

[speedy]

I don't want this to turn into a single verse dual processor debate like the silly Intel verse Pentium nonsense, (apples and oranges) but it seems some are laboring under the impression that a dual processor basicaly means cutting processing time in half by having in effect two instances of the same application running at the same time with the workload of one going mostly to CPU 1 and the second being taken care of by CPU 2. In order words, if you have 2 CPU's, then you'll get twice the horsepower, ie, things will be twice as fast or some other such undocumented nonsense.

Check out just one of many authorative articles that dubunks such sillness in genral terms. The one I selected is from Tom's Hardware site, a well respected how-to known for telling it straight.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q3/000911/dual-01.html

What I'm looking for is FACTS, not opinions. If someone can provide benchmarked verifable documantation of actual real world tests comparing a single CPU board running any encoder as to same running on dual processor board and approaching half the time I'm listerning, otherise I'm just hearing noise.

[DiViNeLeFT]

when did this turn into a single duel cpu debate... it was a single duel tmpeg debate!! i choose to run two tmpeg encodes at a time... yeah, running the second does slow down the first and it doesnt make it any faster... but it leaves me with perfectly cut, ready to burn files when i wake up in the morning... overall time spent encoding is the same whether i do the whole movie all at once or have the two encodes do the first and second half of the movie.

[adam]

I think most people know that doubling the processors doesnt double the power, or in this case specifically the speed. But where in this thread did anyone suggest otherwise?

[lhorwinkle]

Tom's Hardware is very opinionated, but not entirely authoritative. Tom operates a soap box. He gets the story right much of the time, but not always. Tom lets hormones get in the way of facts.

Now, that does not mean that his article http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q3/000911/dual-01.html is wrong. Indeed, much of it is correct.

But we must remember that the original post made reference to running two copies of TMPGEnc on a dual CPU box. If Windows has any intelligence at all, it will run each copy of the application on a different CPU. In this case, the availability of CPU cycle is (almost) doubled. Some performance improvement can be expected.

However, there is substantial I/O taking place when TMPGEnc encodes a video file. The entire AVI file (often gigabytes in size) is being read. Video is being crunched. And the resulting (smaller) MPEG file is being stored. So, the I/O load of two TMPGEnc instances must be shared by a single I/O subsystem.

The original poster said he has SCSI. He did not specify the drive types or the specific SCSI type. Still, the disk interface is being shared by two TMPGEnc apps, and this bottleneck will work against anyone's 2x expectations.

But if his SCSI bus is not fully loaded when running a single TMPGEnc, then some improvement can be expected when running two.

[ktnwin]

I have done this on a dual Pentium running Windows NT. It works fine, no problem at all. Actually, I do not even need to have two copies of TMPGEnc, one should be enough.

Do we gain anything here? I do not think so, because it would take the same amount of time to convert two AVI files.

For example: converting one hour AVI takes 1 hour, then converting two files, one hour each, will take 2 hours total. Each takes two hours but since they run in parallel, both complete at about same time.


Even if the AVI don't have the same lenght, the result is still the same. One the short one finish, both CPU will work on the remaining part of the long AVI.

[speedy]

So you're saying that what's posted here in the forums isn't frequently highly opinionated views often lacking in fact and sometimes even flat out wrong? ROTFLMAO!

Anyway, the original question was "So what you guys think of downloading 2 TMPGenc on 2 different directories of your HD then converting 2 files at a time ?"

Which I and I'm guessing others would loosey interpret to mean doing so there would be a benefit as in the processing taking less time considering the poser of the question stated he has dual processors which I interpreted further to mean he thought (wrongly) that there would be a gain. If not, and only wishing to do multiple encoding, I would conclude he wasn't aware of or didn't read the how-to sections at the left for such things as batch processing, frame serving etc., which would (in my opinion) result is great ecomony and better use of whatever processing power was available.

[ktnwin]

I guess my explanation is not clear enough. Having dual Pentium will definitely cutting the encoding time in half.
This is the place where we gain.

However, if we use dual Pentium to convert two AVIs, one after the next and let say it takes two hours to complete. Then we can try to fire up two sessions of TMPGenc to encode those two AVIs (one on each session). It will take two hours to complete both of them. One may finish first but by the time the second one complete, two hours went by.

There is no difference (no gain) between these two scenarios. This is my point.

With single CPU, it would take 4 hours to convert both of those. The gain obtained by dual CPU is obvious.

[BxB]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-20 12:42:23, DiViNeLeFT wrote:
when did this turn into a single duel cpu debate... it was a single duel tmpeg debate!! i choose to run two tmpeg encodes at a time... yeah, running the second does slow down the first and it doesnt make it any faster... but it leaves me with perfectly cut, ready to burn files when i wake up in the morning... overall time spent encoding is the same whether i do the whole movie all at once or have the two encodes do the first and second half of the movie.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, mon! That's exactly what I do. On a Win98 box, it doesn't try to share the CPU between the two; in fact, when TMPGEnc is in the background it doesn't seem to do much at all unless its priority is higher than anything in the foreground. So I queue up two instances of it, one to do the first half of the movie and one to do the second half. If both are set to high priority, the one in front will steal (almost) all the CPU, and when its done the one in back will start working. When its done (usually the next morning), I'm ready to burn (no cutting necessary).

The only thing that's really missing is something to shut the system off when they're done.

[speedy]

You're not reading what I said clearly.

You claim that if you have OS X and motherboard Y then the result will be Z. All well and good. I agree with you completely.

However, you overlook someone with OS X and motherboard Y1 using method B (whatever that may be) and then comparing the results of the two experiments.

That's why I asked for benchmark tests which would require someone posting a source file and various people with various setups running different encoding tests. Otherwise as I stated in the beginning; just NOISE which means what I feared is happening... another pissing contest like the Intel verses AMD crap. Lets just agree to disagree on what's being talked about.

[Xtreme]

Well guys i have done some experimenting since i last asked the question, and this is my results. First off the second processor does make a differece in the work load of the first processor. Second of all i have not notice a depresciation of the time when i run 2 TMPEGenc's at one time. Matter of fact i am getting 2 encoding's done in the same time as one encoding. Now when i run my batch encoding with both programs i get twice the work done in the same amount of time. I hope this does clear up some of the arguments that have been brought about. If it is taking longer then i cant notice the difference. I dont know about you guys but i am getting twice the results. Hope this helps. Thanks for all your help and statements.