View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
TmpgencXpress v4 will support multiple cores. 64Bit is a harder order to fill. It'll still run just fine as a 32bit application. It also converts to many different formats.
I need an all in one video converter that supports Intel Quad Core and 64bit vista. I have searched for hours and haven't found one. Does anyone know of one?
TmpgencXpress v4 will support multiple cores. 64Bit is a harder order to fill. It'll still run just fine as a 32bit application. It also converts to many different formats.
Any free ones?
Winmenc is free http://winmenc.blogspot.com/
You can specify the number of threads/cores
I use DVD Flick for an "all-in-one".
TM shows all 4 cores active.
I'm not sure it plays nice with Vista though?
jmohn
What about one that works with Ipods? H.264
although not free, nero recode or tmpeg with x264 installed will use all four cores. as far as 64-bit goes, xvid makes a 64-bit version , but the peformance increase is neglibible due to the fact it just changes the memory scheme to 64 bit. also in linux x264 uses all four cores but in 32 or 64 bit mode the perfomance is the same. bottom line: video encoding only effectively uses 32 bits for now. any 64 bit one out is a 32 bit engine with a 64 bit memory 'interface'
hope this helps
if all else fails read the manual
I have video lan installed. Is that x264
bump
Ok. You all have been amazing but I need this program to be freeware. Are there any freeware all in one converters that support quad core?
bump
Dude, what's with all the bumping?
64bit Vista (also XP, Linux and not yet Mac) are development environments currently. This goes double for heavy video processing which still struggles at 32 bit.Originally Posted by edk128
Then you add "free"? Write your own apps.
Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/about
edk128, please wait a reasonable amount of time before bumping your topic. From our rules:Moderator redwudzPlease try not to "bump" your topic.
Replying to your own topic to get it to the top is annoying. Try to have some patience, this is a bulletin board, not IRC. It may take some time (e.g., one or two days) before someone can answer your query or question.
(edk128)...and your question have been answered, there is no need to "bump it" again.
You know, new software - specially specific 64-bit freeware relevant to your question - isn't released even every month, much less every half an hour!
Haha, sorry about the bumping. I must have lost track of time.
The answer is:
1) No current software supports "all in one", ie. every single conversion/codec/file format/container
2) No current software effectively utilizes 100% cpu utilization over all 4 cores, except those using x264 CLI as a backend on very high settings. All can utilize 1 core at least - that is, having a quad core won't prevent you from using software
3) Most software is not fully compatible with 64-bit, and most still have issues with Vista
The best solution as of now, is to use specific software for a specific goal.
Winff will do multicore if you add -threads auto to the settings:
But WinFF doesn't convert to all formats, as poisondeathray mentioned.
Winff will do multicore if you add -threads auto to the settings:
But WinFF doesn't convert to all formats, as poisondeathray mentioned.
Well, I can imagine if the software was written specifically for multithreading, it may do encoding simultaneously by 'starting threads' from few points of the same file, and 'merge them back in the final process, but I'll be happy if someone would explain how is it exactly done?
Because, with linear software, even 100 cores in theory will do nothing - since they can't encode P frames before B frames are encoded, and B frames cannot be encoded before I frame is done, so unless we are talking about something completely different (like "recoding" a multititleset DVD or such where different titlesets - that means completely different streams - are simulatnously encoded). I don't see how few cores can be utilized to speed-up encoding of a single stream when linear approach is required (cannot do P before B before I).
I haven't found any significant encoding time speed-up on my quad core intel machine vs old single-core intel when using my old CCE 2.5 (obviously). The difference that is there came from just overall-faster new processor, not from its 4 cores.
We have an 'encoding farm' (kinda like 'rendering farm' in other studio - same idea where many CPUs are doing same job) but I have no clue how it works either (ain't my job anyways
well there is 1 way: if you scan the source stream for i-frames you can assign 'sections' to each core. as long as you end each section with a i-frame you wont notice a visual diffrence. sure the file might be a smigen bigger but it is possible.
if all else fails read the manual
theoretically the only time you wouldnt use all the cores in that fashion is short clips where there aint enough 'sections' for each core. how to write such a program is beyond me , but it should be simple see's how the encoder just sees the de-coded frame. ijust getting the decoder to report sections to the program to pass the approiate frame numbers to the encoder.
if all else fails read the manual
My new I5 3470 quad core with a 1080p fraps video, encoding maxed out at 55 FPS. So yummy! The 4 processors hovered around 85% or so during the process. Wicked.
If you want to see what I've done with my videos,
check out my video work on youtube, http://www.youtube.com/user/duhmez/
Handbrake support quadcore and freeware
FormatFactory also supports quad core and is free.
TEncoder
To deal with a singular file and to speed up the utilization of multi core processors one should split the singular file into parts equal to number of processors available.
On my I5 all 4 cores run at near 100% during the encoding process.
This thread originally started and ended in 2008. It is now 2012, and of course more programs can use all four cores in a quad core CPU. duhmez's post is one of the best examples of pointless grave-robbing I have seen to date.
