Alright, so I'm going to build myself a new computer, and I plan on putting a quad-core processor in it. This is the processor that I want, actually. I also plan on putting the 64-bit version of Vista on my new computer, if that makes any difference.
I'm wondering if processing video, specifically compressing video using Divx, Xvid and x264, will use all four cores of a quad-core processor? Or does it depend on the program I use to compress video with? The primary programs I use are VirtualDub, avidemux, occasionally Windows Movie Maker and a few other random ones once in a great while. I also use DVD Shrink sometimes, even though that actually reencodes VOBs.
I've looked around the web, but could find basically no information on this, so if anybody knows anything, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks a bunch in advance.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread
-
-
x264 scales particularly well with the number of cores. Divx and Xvid not as well but still faster than 2 or 1 cores. The codecs themselves can spawn multiple threads so even if you are using a single threaded editor you will benefit from multiple cores.
https://forum.videohelp.com/topic363342.html
https://forum.videohelp.com/topic336716.html -
Xvid and divx can use up to two cores, x264 can use more ..... use as many cores as an Irish Rock band, but not as many as a "Carry on" Film.. thats my motto
Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons. -
There is also a newer comparison thread by graysky: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic347859.html
-
Originally Posted by RabidDog
-
The above only applies to a straight encode, no filtering with limited settings.
As soon as you use any filters (e.g. resizing, color filters, noise filters, deinterlacers etc...), they usually aren't coded to be multithreaded or optimized poorly - so they become the bottleneck.
Some recently implemented x264 settings are not multithreaded, e.g. --b-adapt 2; and may be the bottleneck. Graysky's testing & benchmark was before the new b-frame decision
If you can't "feed" the encoder fast enough, using all 4 cores or 16 cores is a moot point, when the filter/settings limit you to 1. -
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
You can also encode two or more videos at the same time to get improvements in throughput. Until I/O becomes the bottleneck. -
Take a look at the E8400 3 GHz dual-core - it's about the same price, and will run faster than the quad when you have filters bottlenecking your video. I used an E8400 in a recent build and the client loves it.
-
Originally Posted by Constant Gardener
-
Sorry for the late reply, guys.
So, putting the model-specifics aside, the verdict is basically that quad-core is faster than dual for encoding, unless a filter is involved because they are only programmed to use one core. But if VirtualDub is used, it makes the filter use one core while the codec uses the other remaining cores?
I'm upgrading from a single-core 2.8Ghz Celeron, so really, no matter what I get will be an improvement, but I want something that's decent compared to the other processors on the market. Also, this isn't a passively worded question. I've pretty much decided already (unless some radical new information comes my way) - only just gathering some information so I know what I'm getting myself into.
By the way, thanks for the information, I really appreciate it! -
If you are a Vdub user, have a read of this thread : https://forum.videohelp.com/topic361608.html
Read my blog here.
-
Originally Posted by sincostan45
-
Yes, I am a heavy VirtualDub user, so it would seem that I will be able to take advantage of that multithreading that was talked about in that thread you linked me to.
I had not considered that the processing power varies from filter to filter. It actually all makes sense now. I don't use processor-intensive filters that often, but when I did, I did notice that I wasn't compressing as fast as usual.
When I use VirtualDub, I typically use filters related to deinterlacing (discard one field) and resizing. The processor-intensive filters that I was using were related to cleaning up crappy analog captures. However, I don't capture from those kinds of sources very often, so what I do 99% of the time is discard a field and resize. And in fact, I want to start capturing progressive signals, so I wouldn't even need to deinterlace or resize anything, and therefore, use no filters.
So, in this case, I suppose four cores is significant improvement over two, huh? -
If you are building look at the chart for cpu's performance I posted
https://forum.videohelp.com/topic363342.html -
Originally Posted by sincostan45
1 core, 740 seconds
2 cores, 459 seconds
4 cores, 351 seconds
Similar Threads
-
Intel i5 2430M processor or AMD A8-3500M quad-core processor?
By jbitakis in forum ComputerReplies: 5Last Post: 11th Nov 2011, 20:31 -
Suggestion on motherboard for Intel Core 2 Q9650 Quad Processor
By G)-(OST in forum ComputerReplies: 11Last Post: 28th Jan 2009, 03:13 -
How do I get faster encoding time from quad-core processor?
By nick101181 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 5Last Post: 26th Oct 2008, 14:54 -
Intel Slashes Quad-core, Dual-core Processor Prices
By louv68 in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 0Last Post: 22nd Apr 2008, 18:14 -
Quad core processing
By Bully9 in forum Video ConversionReplies: 3Last Post: 19th Oct 2007, 14:14