a quad core is supposed to help me encode video faster right?

Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
trying to encode an HD video about 4GB in size into mp4 format to put on my ipod with SUPER.

even with my Q9550, 8GB RAM, it's SLOW.
cpu is hovering between 60-75% across the 4 cores. 20 minutes in, it's looks to be about 5 percent done.

i'd hate to see how long it would take a single or dual core.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
lol
super is a flaming pos
of course it runs slow, uninstall it immediately.
try something like handbrake or media coder
 

dbcooper1

Senior member
May 22, 2008
594
0
76
If CPU usage is that low, it sounds like you're reading from and writing to the same physical drive.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
oh, it doesn't matter, video encoding is generally too slow to saturate a drive. if ur encoding at speeds that flood your drive, its going freakin fast. only exception is if ur reading some ridiculously huge source file..bluray or uncompressed video.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
oh, it doesn't matter, video encoding is generally too slow to saturate a drive. if ur encoding at speeds that flood your drive, its going freakin fast. only exception is if ur reading some ridiculously huge source file..bluray or uncompressed video.

^ was going to say this.
 

dbcooper1

Senior member
May 22, 2008
594
0
76
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
oh, it doesn't matter, video encoding is generally too slow to saturate a drive. if ur encoding at speeds that flood your drive, its going freakin fast. only exception is if ur reading some ridiculously huge source file..bluray or uncompressed video.

If CPU usage is 60-75%, it's waiting for SOMETHING; what else could it be?
 

vj8usa

Senior member
Dec 19, 2005
975
0
0
Originally posted by: dbcooper1
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
oh, it doesn't matter, video encoding is generally too slow to saturate a drive. if ur encoding at speeds that flood your drive, its going freakin fast. only exception is if ur reading some ridiculously huge source file..bluray or uncompressed video.

If CPU usage is 60-75%, it's waiting for SOMETHING; what else could it be?

Maybe it just can't fully use 4 cores?
 

dbcooper1

Senior member
May 22, 2008
594
0
76
Originally posted by: vj8usa
Originally posted by: dbcooper1
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
oh, it doesn't matter, video encoding is generally too slow to saturate a drive. if ur encoding at speeds that flood your drive, its going freakin fast. only exception is if ur reading some ridiculously huge source file..bluray or uncompressed video.

If CPU usage is 60-75%, it's waiting for SOMETHING; what else could it be?

Maybe it just can't fully use 4 cores?

So, you're saying it's NOT CPU intensive? It's completely using at least 3 of the cores at times. I thought video encoding/transcoding was the one application that could use all the CPU horsepower available to it. There's a bottleneck somewhere, be it disk or RAM related.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Format factory seems to be about the same speed as SUPER, but a nicer interface.
Handbrake is much faster thab both, about 45 min.
Yes I have nvidia card. I'll check out the link later.
 

elconejito

Senior member
Dec 19, 2007
607
0
76
www.harvsworld.com
I've used AutoGK (to AVI), AutoMKV (to AVI & MP4), and Handbrake (to MP4).

By far, my favorite is handbrake. The default profile is really fast and gives reasonable quality. if I need extra quality I can choose one of the slower profiles.