TMPGEnc Processing Time VS Processor Speed

[curritch]

I have a Dell XPS 866 P3 machine (256 MB RAM, 40+40 GB 7200 RPM HD's). I have just finished encoding an 18 minute mpg2 file using TMPGEnc's best settings that took approximately 11 hours.

Does anyone have an estimate of how much that would be reduced by upgrading to, say, a 2.8 GHz P4 machine. I don't mind an overnight wait but if I tried an full hour video file using these TMPGEnc settings then I would have to dedicate a more than a day to it. I wouldn't expect the improvement to be exactly the ratio of clock speed but if is was close then I'm ready to take the plunge.

Any feedback appreciated.

[bugster]

I have a Dell XPS 866 P3 machine (256 MB RAM, 40+40 GB 7200 RPM HD's). I have just finished encoding an 18 minute mpg2 file using TMPGEnc's best settings that took approximately 11 hours.

Does anyone have an estimate of how much that would be reduced by upgrading to, say, a 2.8 GHz P4 machine. I don't mind an overnight wait but if I tried an full hour video file using these TMPGEnc settings then I would have to dedicate a more than a day to it. I wouldn't expect the improvement to be exactly the ratio of clock speed but if is was close then I'm ready to take the plunge.

Any feedback appreciated.

Actuall the improvement should be slightly better than just the clock speed would suggest as TmpGenc will utilise the SSE2 instruction set of the P4 which is not present in your current P3 machine.

[miki]

I had a P4 2.53Ghz machine with 1GB of DDR ram. I encoded in tmpgenc a 46 minutes of video (mpeg2) to mpeg1 to make a vcd, and it took me less than 19 hours. The second time i tried this on a 22 minutes video, and it took me 9 hours.

[secretagent]

What the heck are you guys doing? i have a p4 1.6, and a ninety minute movie takes me less than two hours to encode. you need to tweak some settings, (and learn how to frameserve)

[Vejita-sama]

Miki - something is wrong with your system/setup if those numbers are correct.

I mostly use CCE these days. I have an AMD 2200, in CCE most encodes run at 0.7x the source runtime. IIRC TMPGenc MPEG2 encodes are ~3.5x the source runtime.

As I said I've been using CCE for most of my encodes so I really can't remember bu exact TMPGenc numbers. But that means a 46min video should take ~ 2.5hrs, 19hrs on a 2.4Ghz! Somethings wrong there.

I remember when I first got into VCDs I had a AMD K6-500 and I encoded a 90min DivX file in ~18hrs to xVCD (Sefy's SeVCD template). So something is clearly wrong with your setup miki. Sorry

[Yirkin]

It all depends on what filters you are using and what settings you pick. Curritch is using TmpEnc's best settings which I assume means highest quality motion search precision, 10 bit DC precision, and possibly some video filters.

TMPEnc's encoding time depends on several things. I've found that it goes much faster, almost 1:1 on a P4 2.6 if I don't resize the video. Also, boosting the motion search precision up to high slows down the encoding process quite a bit but I don't think it makes much difference in the final result. Processor speed/type seem to make a big difference.

What settings are you using in TMPEnc?

Howard

[housepig]

I just did a 1 hour concert (Black Sabbath in France, 1970) with TMPGenc, took 2.5 hours to encode from 720x480 Huffyuv avi to 720x480 dvd mpeg, CBR @8000.

system is an AMD 1700XP / 768Mb Ram / 3x 80Gb hdd / WinXP Pro.

used the wizard, only special settings were trimming a few seconds off the front and back with the Source Range tool.

most of my TMPGenc encodes with CBR are 2-2.5x original time, if I use VBR they are 4-6x.

[ManixTT]

I agree with Housepig. Have almost the same exact setup, and I achieve excellent encode times. 9-11 hours is rough, something has to be wrong. My old P2 400Mhz encoded faster than that!

[ManixTT]

Oh, forgot to add something. Make sure you are not running any rigorous background services. Open your Task Manager (CTRL+ALT+DEL) and see if you are running any processes that is eating up the CPU. If some program is, for example set to a higher priority than TMPGEnc, you will see drastic slowdowns. Peace!

[paulwill]

I have a Pentium IV, 1.8 GHz with 1 MB RAM and I'm currently encoding a half hour of video at TMPGEnc best settings (recommended in the MPEG to DVD guide here); it will take about 9 hours, so those of you who say it shouldn't take that long, aren't using the optimal settings, cuz it does seem to take that long.

[housepig]

Make sure you are not running any rigorous background services.

true - didn't even think of that. my encoding / video work computer is only for video and audio editing - no web surfing, no games, no word processing, etc.

and I've turned off everything that wants to take over on startup, so there's not a bunch of crap running in the background unnecessarily.

from other posts, it seems that antivirus software is particulary bad about interfering with encodes.

[Yirkin]

I assume you meant 1gb of RAM.

It takes me about 50 mins to encode 25 mins of DivX AVI. Encoding something I captured using huffy takes a little bit longer. If I use 2 pass VBR then of course it doubles the encoding time. I wouldn't call anything that takes 9 hours to encode 30 mins of video "optimal".

What settings are you using paulwill and what sort of filters are you running the video through?

Howard

[mh2360]

Make sure Tmpgenc's task prioty settings are not on idle...

[paulwill]

Ha ha, funny! 1 MB of RAM! Yes, 1 gig of RAM. I have TMPGEnc set up just as the article that the link "Encoding MPGEG 2 for high quality video" leads to here: http://dvd-hq.info/Compression.html
The thing that takes it longest, I think, is the 2 pass VBR and it set to do it at the slowest (best quality). I have no other apps running in the background. If somebody could tell me how I can encode the same way in lesser time, that would be really great! But for as long as I've used TMPGEnc (which isn't very often), I alway thought it took a long time...

[mrtristan]

Sounds about right. Tmpgenc is no speed demon, when it come to encoding. I can encode 640X480 capture material to 480X480 mpeg2 in real time, if I don't use any filters and use the normal setting for motion precision.

However, I use the noise reduction filter, sharpen edge filter, and deinterlace set to double natively in Tmpgenc. Using Virtualdub to frameserve can shave off a little bit of encoding time, but I prefer to use Tmpgenc's native filters.

The noise reduction filter is the one that adds encoding time. The amount of time that it increases is directly related to the amount of noise reduction that you want. At the highest setting, it takes me about 10 1/2 hours to encode 22 minutes of video.

My machine specs are in my profile.

[miki]

I agree with paulwill.
when i encode with tmpgenc, I disabled my internet and antivirus program. I just leave my computer to encode.thinking it will be faster not to disturbe the cpu.
when i look at the taskmanager, tmpgenc takes 100% and all the rest are 0%, there are 23 processes running. btw, i used the wizard in tmpg, with all the default settings in filters and sets at the highest quality. and oh when i look at the task priority, it remains in low, even if i changed it to high or normal, it will turn back to low. but the settings in tmpg itself was set to when active-high priority.
again in my system it takes 19hrs. for a 46min.video. if you guys are saying that we need to tweak to lessen the time.well, please be more specific so we also enjoy tmpg and not waste time. ..thanks

[Yirkin]

I guess that is normal if you are using several filters, 2 pass vbr, and the highest quality settings. 9 hours of encoding for 30 mins of video seems like a long time to me but I admit that I haven't tried it after enabling a slew of filters. =)

Howard

[curritch]

Well, I've seen numbers all over the lot here, some consistent with my experience and some not. When I say TMPGEnc's best settings I'm talking about 2pass VBR and the highest quality motion search precision. I realize that I can speed things up by changing settings.

But the nature of my question is what can I expect when going from an 866 MHz P3 to a 2.8 GHz P4 using my preferred settings.

One response was that I could expect more improvement than clock speed would indicate due to other features of the P4. I like that answer.

So I may be on the horn tomorrow with Dell.

[THE RIPPER]

I can encode a 60 min divx to vcd in 20-25 mins with my rig.

[mgh]

This may help
Had a PIII 800 MHz-changed to a PIV 2.4 GHz about a month back. Seemed to be very little difference in speed and then I enabled DMA for the HD;
the PC took off like a rocket.
Re speeds now;
VCD to DivX with DrDivx with two pass encoding-max 70 % of real time
VCD to DivX with Virtualdub two pass - slightly better than real time per pass (provided encoding parameters meet the definition of one of the profiles)

As people have said the noise filter in TMPGEnc is very slow especially if you want to remove a lot of noise and want to encode to DVD . The smoother filter in virtualdub has a noise removal check box-use that to remove part of the noise-so that when you feed the video to TMPGEnc you do not need to set the noise filter at a high setting. Very noisy videos are not worth the effort -encode to VCD format and save time.

To answer your question: yes, it is worth upgrading to a PIV !

[pentagan]

HI
GUYS I HAVE AMD 2200 XP MACHINE WITH 1 GB DDRRAM 80GB 7200RPM HARDDISK AND SONY DVD-ROM AND TWO ASUS 48X16X48 DRIVES. I USE DVDDECRYPTER TO RIP A DVD TO MY HARDDISK AND IT DOES THE JOB IN EXACTLY 3 TO 4 MINUTES. I USE DVDTOAVI 1.77 TO CONVERT THE VOB FILES TO D2V AND WAVE FILES WICH TAKES MAXIUM OF 6 MINUTES FOR A 2 HOUR MOVIE.I LOAD THE ABOVE FILES INTO TMPEG AND WITH VCD TEMPLATES OF TMPEG AND IN THE NORMAL QUALITY MODE IT TAKES ME ONLY 2HOURS FOR A 2 HOUR MOVIE. SO NOW THE TOTAL TIME TAKEN FOR A 2 HOUR MOVIE IS EXACTLY 2HOURS AND 10 MINUTES.

NOTE: PLEASE SET 48MHZ TO 44MHZ TO OFF MODE IN DVD2AVI UNDER AUDIO SETTINGS.

[bugster]

Lots of 'apple to oranges' type comparisons here. Unless you the exact same source file and exact same TmpGenc settings, any comparison of encode times is pretty much meaningless.

The original poster wanted to know if going from an 866Mhz P3 to a 2.8Ghz P4 would show the improvement in encode times that simple maths on the clock speed would suggest, assuming everything else being equal.

[ZippyP.]

Lots of 'apple to oranges' type comparisons here. Unless you the exact same source file and exact same TmpGenc settings, any comparison of encode times is pretty much meaningless.

The original poster wanted to know if going from an 866Mhz P3 to a 2.8Ghz P4 would show the improvement in encode times that simple maths on the clock speed would suggest, assuming everything else being equal.

Well said bugster. I think your original answer in the second post was bang on as well.

[bob rock]

you must be doing something wron. i have athlon 2400+ with 512 ram and processing is little bit faster than the real time of encoded material. check your settings.

[curritch]

bugster. A lot of noise on this channel but I hear you loud and hear.

My inclination is as you suggest.

Actually I had an event yesterday that would have solved the question. My computer crashed big time and refused to to recognize my D drive. I was ready to use this as a message from God but a new boot solved everything.

So now I am back where I started. When Oh When do I upgrade?

[txpharoah]

When Oh When do I upgrade?

Well, if you're near Dallas, Austin, or Houston, watch the Fry's ads. I see cheap mobo/CPU setups for under $100 all the time. Some are not great, some are stellar deals. Not a bad place to start looking. They have new ads every 3 days in the major papers (DMN, AAS, THC).

[Syphic]

Why dont youy all use Main Concept encoder. Seems to work faster.

[energy80s]

I used to have an AMD K6-500 and when I upgraded this to a 1600XP chip I had a seven times increase in encoding speed.

[bugster]

Why dont youy all use Main Concept encoder. Seems to work faster.

Yep, faster than Tmpgenc, but IMHO, quality not quite as good.

Besides which, I have used Tmpgenc for quite a while now and am very familiar with its setup and quirks. Changing would mean learning all over again!

[housepig]

Syphic wrote:
Why dont youy all use Main Concept encoder. Seems to work faster.

Yep, faster than Tmpgenc, but IMHO, quality not quite as good.

thank god! I thought I was the only one.. I'm not alone in the wilderness...