Is there video render/conversion sofware that takes advantage of quad cores

[johnharlin]

Are there any video rendering/conversion software or formats that can take advantage of a quad core or more processor.

With multi-core processors, if the software could somehow manage to divide the tasks up evenly for each core it would make an incredible difference in render/conversion time.

I suppose you might also be able to do it manually by splitting a movie apart and then render/convert each section separately. It seems like that would work but I'm not completely sure.

[Budman1]

I had occasion to use handbrake recently and it ripped a DVD in 20 minutes but I noticed my fans kicked up and ran SIW to check. My processors (6 cores/12 processors)were ALL running at 80-85% and my core temp had increased from 99F to 160F. There are others here that are more familiar with Handbrake but I'd have to say, from this experience, it utilizes all cores.

BTW.. I really like handbrake being able to reduce DVD conversion in this manner since I'm trying to set up my videos on hard drives and play through network to my TV.

I also know PAVTube (Purchased) uses CUDA/ATI to use certain graphics card GPU's to decrease conversion time.

[Umen Pich]

Sure, there is.
Avidemux
WinFF (ffmpeg)
to name a few

[jagabo]

Pretty much every modern encoder takes advantage of multiple cores.

[deadrats]

any video encoder worth it's salt will load up a quad core, especially for h264 encoding but also for mpeg-2 and even divx with the most aggressive settings will up a quad core to about 70%. the better software will load up 16-24 logical cores, procoder as far back as version 3 was able to use 16 cores, sony vegas can go all the way up to 24, x264 can launch up to 128 threads (IIRC) but the recommend that you stay under 16 for quality purposes.

i'm currently using an i7 3770k and despite only having it for less than a month i'm already feeling the upgrade bug, seriously considering going with a 3930k, though i may just wait for haswell.

as far as specific video related software that will use a quad core:

xmedia recode
media coder
rhozet carbon coder
total coder
cce
tmpg video mastering works
any x264 front end
sony vegas and it's lower priced brethren
adobe premiere
edius

the list goes on.

[mh2360]

Sure, there is.
Avidemux
WinFF (ffmpeg)
to name a few

With ffmpeg (and mencoder), it depends on the encoder. Most are not threaded very well.

x264 of course is multithreaded very well, with 100% of the CPU used.

XVID is multi threaded to some extent in that you do get an increase in speed the more threads you use, however it never approaches 100% usage like x264 does.

MPEG2 is not multi threaded very well, if at all.

FFV1 lossless is not multi threaded at all.

FFMPEG's internal MPEG4 ASP encoder is threaded, but seems to get messed up when more than one thread is used.

[dfisher052]

Format Factory will use up to 4 cores on converting videos.

[MilesAhead]

TEncoder does a nice job especially in batch. If you run with more than one file in the queue you see the difference in core utilization. Also a nice feature, it has a CPU meter. It's just a fluctuating progress bar. But it gives total CPU utilization. I don't have to watch Core Temp adding up the percentages from each core dividing by 4 in my head.

[poisondeathray]

certain settings or filters may induce a bottleneck and you won't get 100% cpu usage in those scenarios

ripbot has distributed encoding - it divides up the work and stitches up pieces after so you can use multiple multicore computers on a network

[Stears555]

The knowledge and options of Handbrake resembles an average software from the mid 2000s.

[ozok]

The knowledge and options of Handbrake resembles an average software from the mid 2000s.

I do not why you throw dirt at handbrake or avidemux at every topic.

@OP
As many people before me stated, there are codecs that support it. I think x264 has the best support for it.

Also it is possible to do parallelization in file level as TEncoder does, it is really good if encoder does not support internal parallelization. I think Xilisoft's converters do the same thing.

[jagabo]

Does the OP really think the programmers in a competitive, processing intensive industry are too stupid to think of multithreading? Every video encoder is now multithreaded. The only exceptions are old encoders that are no longer being maintained.

[JoeBolden]

....ripbot has distributed encoding - it divides up the work and stitches up pieces after so you can use multiple multicore computers on a network

Nice, Wonder how good it works and if anyone here has any experience with it?

Noticed these added in addition to others added in the last 2 updates
v1.17.3 -Added:Multiple Encoding Servers can be activated on single PC (Maybe usefull if for some reason CPU usage is not at 100%)
v1.17.2 -Added: Encoding Client now supports 8 servers

Found this from last July
A look at hardware video transcoding on the PC
Performance and image quality with black boxes and OpenCL http://techreport.com/review/23324/a-look-at-hardware-video-transcoding-on-the-pc
by Cyril Kowaliski — 3:50 PM on July 30, 2012

In part read the article for more info

We used the following test applications:
Handbrake 0.9.6.4477
ArcSoft MediaConverter 7.5.29.120
CyberLink MediaEspresso 6.5.2811.44122

Conclusion
"The unfortunate truth is that, right now, hardware-accelerated video transcoding on the PC is a mess."
.......
"For the time being, the best option for quick, high-quality video transcoding is unfortunately to buckle down, get yourself a fast CPU, and run the best software encoder you can find (which may be Handbrake)"

GPU manufacturer's are working hard to fix some of these problems and some may be much better since this article.
ADDED Well maybe not. jagabo, thanks for your reply

Here is Movavi (claimed?) charts for Gaining Performance with NVIDIA® CUDA™, Optimization for Multi-core Processors and See Movavi Video Converter + Intel Media Technologies in action:
http://www.movavi.com/videoconverter/performance.html

So yes, there are conversion software available that takes advantage of quad cpu.

Better faster (properly overclocked) quad or more cores CPU along with good compatible hardware will be your best bet. Faster enabled accelerated video decoding/encoding GPU may help CPU's (slower ones for sure) so but may introduce undesirable affects with certain video conversions. You really have to search and read.

So the debate continues and sooner or later it will get better.

[jagabo]

GPU manufacturer's are working hard to fix some of these problems

No they're not. They came up with crude proof-of-concept encoders and expected everyone else to write their own. But everyone else is just writing shells to feed the manufacturers' encoders.