New PC encodes significantly slower than previous PC

[Smells_Like_Feet]

I need some help from the PC gurus here. I have just recently completed a new PC build. Specs are below

Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 955 (Black Edition)
MB: GIGABYTE GA-MA790XT-UD4P AM3
Memory: OCZ Gold 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (using only 2 sticks for 4GB)
OS drive: 300GB Raptor (10,000 rpm)
Video Card: MSI R4350-D512Hv2 Radeon HD 4350 512MB (not used for gaming)
OS: MS Vista Ultimate 32-bit



I was curious to measure the performance increase vs my previous system (AMD Athlon X2 4400+) by running a simple encode using AutoGK. The test clip was a 2:35 minute DV-avi (720x480). On my previous system this clip required 4min 33sec to encode ( 23.29 fps). On my new setup, the identical clip required 7 min, 41sec (14.95 fps) to encode using identical settings. This is a complete shock to me.

The new machine is my first experience with MS Vista, but I have attempted to optimize it per tweakhound's vista guide. The task manager shows that the system is not particularly taxed during the encode (CPU hovers around 70%, Mem usage at 1.18GB). Are there settings that need to be enabled in Vista or the Bios that will enhance performance? Any other thoughts?

Thanks.

- Smells_Like_Feet

[mh2360]

Just a thought, but try changing the power options in the control panel to "high performance", see if that does anything...

[Smells_Like_Feet]

mh2360,

Thank you so much. After following your suggestion, the encode time dropped to 2:12 (53.92 fps). I had no idea that the power setting could impact it so much. Needless to say, I am satisfied with this result. Thanks again for the help, and the quick reply.

- Smells_Like_Feet

[lordsmurf]

Most software fails to use all the cores -- it's that simple.

[mh2360]

mh2360,

Thank you so much. After following your suggestion, the encode time dropped to 2:12 (53.92 fps). I had no idea that the power setting could impact it so much. Needless to say, I am satisfied with this result. Thanks again for the help, and the quick reply.

- Smells_Like_Feet

Yes, it's confusing as to why Microsoft would use a default power setting that could impede modern PCs so much. Makes you wonder how many Vista users there are who are oblivious to the fact that their systems are not running as fast as they could.

[yoda313]

confusing as to why Microsoft would use a default power setting that could impede modern PCs so much

My guess is its part of their "green" initiative. To make them look more ecofriendly I guess..... blah blah...

Thanks for the tip. I'm running a dual core amd x2 2.7ghz on Vista Premium 32bit. I have just changed my power setting to power performance or whatever. I'd be interested to see if that gives a power boost on the encode times. In fact I have a standard def encode I have that I can test it on.....


FYI not that I"m overly eco minded but would it make sense to throttle back to balanced if all I am using the pc for is downloading? I mean I'd only need full power for encoding jobs not for downloads.....

[disturbed1]

Most software fails to use all the cores -- it's that simple.

Besides using more than one core, some apps fail to scale well at all.

Which is why, in many cases, an e8400 (3.0x2) is faster than a q6600 (2.4x4)

[davidsama]

Smells_Like_Feet you should get a 64 bit version of vista. Since that 32bit version is only using like 3.5gb of your 6gb. With a 64 bit version you could use all the memory.

[redwudz]

Smells_Like_Feet you should get a 64 bit version of vista. Since that 32bit version is only using like 3.5gb of your 6gb. With a 64 bit version you could use all the memory.

If he's just encoding, extra memory won't make any difference and using V64 may cause other problems.


Most all laptops are set at default 'power saving' mode to increase battery life. I've disabled all that on my laptop as it runs on a power brick anyway. Don't know why they would want to do it with a desktop PC unless it is part of the 'Green' trend.

Most newer motherboard software and BIOS can ramp up the PC performance when needed, and when idle, slow it down, so there's no reason to use power saving settings within the OS, IMO. Let the MB software/firmware do it if you need to be 'Green' and you can still have your performance.

Some of my newer MBs can control the CPU voltage, CPU multiplier and fan speeds for idle use, then run the system at full power for a encode or other CPU intensive operation, all automatically.

[disturbed1]

Don't know why they would want to do it with a desktop PC unless it is part of the 'Green' trend.

I have a gigabyte desktop board that did this. Frankly it's down right annoying! You have to sit there and listen to the fans speed up, down, up, down, up, down. Damn thing used to shut the NIC off as well. This caused the DHCP address to be dropped, then a delay to poll for a new one ..... These green PCs have a ways to go. Thankfully, I could turn all that crap off in the BIOS.

Seriously, how much power savings is something like this actually going to give you? $2.00 on the year
People buy power hungry PCs because they need the power. Then again, some people aren't that smart and believe a quad core with 8gigs ram will make internet exploder load myspace faster

[yoda313]

some people aren't that smart and believe a quad core with 8gigs ram will make internet exploder load myspace faster

So then if I buy a new quad core and 8gigs ram I won't be able to encode a bluray movie to mkv in less than half an hour???? Man what a rip off!!!

[Constant Gardener]

So it's safe to assume that there are hundreds of thousands of Vista machines that will never run at full speed?

Oops.

[yoda313]

So it's safe to assume that there are hundreds of thousands of Vista machines that will never run at full speed?

Oops.

don't say "never" just highly unlikely....

[lordsmurf]

Most software fails to use all the cores -- it's that simple.

Besides using more than one core, some apps fail to scale well at all.
Which is why, in many cases, an e8400 (3.0x2) is faster than a q6600 (2.4x4)

My first quad core is a complete disappointment, speed-wise, for these reasons. I should have stuck with a dual core.

My dual systems work better in many cases, and even the single-cores in other cases.

[sikoone]

I was having the same issue and i noticed there was no available memory. Somehow i remembering reading about superfetch a long time ago before i had a Vista PC. I did a search and found this link and superfetch has since been disabled and i'm happier with my pc performance.

[lordsmurf]

I did a search and found this link and superfetch has since been disabled and i'm happier with my pc performance.

from that link...

There's no hard evidence that enabling or disabling this service will increase performance in general, but if you open and close applications often you should definitely leave it alone. You will have to test your configuration to know for sure.

Bah ...

I'll give it a try, but that one machine only has about 4 programs installed beyond the OS -- it's an encoding box, nothing more.

[sikoone]

I did a search and found this link and superfetch has since been disabled and i'm happier with my pc performance.

from that link...

There's no hard evidence that enabling or disabling this service will increase performance in general, but if you open and close applications often you should definitely leave it alone. You will have to test your configuration to know for sure.

Bah ...

I'll give it a try, but that one machine only has about 4 programs installed beyond the OS -- it's an encoding box, nothing more.

I think Vista was loading the programs i wanted to use into memory which was getting on my nerves. I was doing something really simple like joining 2 avis with Avidemux and a quad-core 8200 was taking twice as long as a dual core Amd 4400. After disabling superfetch things noticeably sped up.