TMPGenc plus 2 SLOW ENCODING!!

[yunakokimama]

I am encoding AVI video to MPEG 2 using TMPGenc plus 2. But encoding is VERY SLOW. Avi video is 1 hour, but it takes me to finish encoding in 4 hours, which is very crazy slow.

I setup setting to low quality video 3000 birate so that I can put 5 or 6 MPEG 2 video into 1 DVD.

Is it noraml or slow??

Do you know other encoder that is faster??

[ntscuser]

Think yourself lucky, it takes me 10 hours with Ver 1.6 which is supposedly faster!
EDIT: Sorry, that should read Ver 2.5 Plus. I was thinking of TDA Ver 1.6

[Barnabas]

About normal. I have used TMPGEnc 2. 5 for years, but finally bought CCE Basic and now use it, speed difference is like night in day!

[jagabo]

Things you can do to speed up TMPGEnc Plus:

1) If you are using 2-pass VBR enable Option -> Environment Setting -> CPU -> Save Analyzing Result of Multi Pass VBR to Cache and set a large cache size.

2) On Setting -> Video set Motion Search Precision to Motion Estimate Search or Normal. Using the higher quality settings takes much longer to render but usually delivers very little additional quality.

3) If you don't need files of a particular size use Constant Quality encoding. Pick a quality level your happy with and encode in a single pass. Let the files come out whatever size they do, put as many as will fit on each DVD. Quality with CQ vs VBR will be about the same when the file sizes come out the same.

4) If you want to spend money get a dual core processor. TMPGEnc Plus runs twice as fast with two cores.

5) Switch to a faster encoder like CCE. CCE is 2 to 4 times faster than TMPGEnc! Quality is comparable.

[discguy001]

I run tsunami 2.5 on a core2duo machine (2.13ghz clock speed per core), with normal motion search, dvd mpeg2 and 1 pass vbr encode-takes about 1/2 hour for 1 hour of avi video. Compare this to my true-dual athlon mp 1800 (1.5ghz clock speed per processor) box which takes 1 hour for 1 hour with same settings.

core2 kicks some butt.

[ntscuser]

4) If you want to spend money get a dual core processor. TMPGEnc Plus runs twice as fast with two cores.

Does that include "Core Duo" as that is virtually standard on entry-level PCs sold around here?

[jagabo]

4) If you want to spend money get a dual core processor. TMPGEnc Plus runs twice as fast with two cores.

Does that include "Core Duo" as that is virtually standard on entry-level PCs sold around here?

I don't have any personal experience with Core Duo laptops, but from the reviews I've seen comparing Core Duo with Pentium M I think you will see a large increase in rendering speed.

Pentium M 760 vs Core Duo T2500 (both 2 GHz):

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=10

[ntscuser]

Thanks for that. I'm most interested in how a Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz - as now fitted to many entry-level desktops - compares with my existing Pentium 4 2.00Ghz. Some comparisons have been less than flattering. If the performance gain is marginal, I shan't bother.

[jagabo]

Thanks for that. I'm most interested in how a Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz - as now fitted to many entry-level desktops - compares with my existing Pentium 4 2.00Ghz. Some comparisons have been less than flattering. If the performance gain is marginal, I shan't bother.

Comparing those two processors, almost everything will run faster on the C2D. Single threaded programs run 1 at a time may not show a lot of improvement. Well multithreaded programs could run 3 times faster.

Tom's Hardware as an interactive chart where you can compare different processors. The slowest P4 they show is 2.8 GHz, and the slowest C2D is the E6400. Look at those two processors with:

MainConcept h.264 encoding:
P4 2.8 GHz: 10:38 (mm:ss)
C2D E6400: 4:45
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=463&model2=433&chart=182

Premiere HD MPEG to WMV:
P4 2.8 GHz: 13:56 (mm:ss)
C2D E6400: 6:04
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=463&model2=433&chart=185

3D Studio Max rendering:
P4 2.8 GHz: 4:53 (mm:ss)
C2D E6400: 1:50
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=463&model2=433&chart=188

Since you're considering upgrading a 2.0 GHz P4 to an C2D E6300 you will see even greater ratios between the two.

I upgraded from a 2.8 GHz P4 to a C2D E6300. TMPGEnc encodes twice as fast now. CCE about 1.8 times faster.

[deadrats]

Thanks for that. I'm most interested in how a Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz - as now fitted to many entry-level desktops - compares with my existing Pentium 4 2.00Ghz. Some comparisons have been less than flattering. If the performance gain is marginal, I shan't bother.

not sure what comparisons you have seen, but a Core 2 Duo E6300 is at least 4 times as fast as a Pentium 4 2Ghz. compare:

E6300 uses a 1066 mhz fsb, P4 2ghz uses a 400 mhz fsb

E6300 has 2 cores and each core is capable of fetching, decoding, and retiring 4 instructions per cycle (more if it can fuse some instructions together) for a total of 8 instructions per cycle, P4 2 ghz has one core that can fetch, decode and retire 3 instructions per cycle.

E6400 has a single cycle SSE engine, meaning it can execute 128bit SSE instructions in a single cycle and supports SSE/SSE2/SSE3/SSE4, P4 2 ghz needs 2 cycles to execute 128 bit SSE instructions and only supports SSE/SSE2.

basically it would take a severe night of drinking to even think that an E6300 is "marginally faster" than a P4 2ghz.