CPU usage and video encoding

[madoka]

So I got a slick deal on a Q9550 system from dell for $600. I read that this should do video encoding like a champ, so I tried DVD Fab and DVD Shrink. As I was using these programs, I pulled up the task manager and see that the CPU usage is only from 3%-30%. Why isn't 100% of my CPU cores utilized?

 

[videogames101]

Those programs may not be multi-threaded.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: madoka
So I got a slick deal on a Q9550 system from dell for $600. I read that this should do video encoding like a champ, so I tried DVD Fab and DVD Shrink. As I was using these programs, I pulled up the task manager and see that the CPU usage is only from 3%-30%. Why isn't 100% of my CPU cores utilized?

DVD Shrink isn't multithread, but DVDFab is...
The limit is probably your DVD player...

 

[Duvie]

That is transconding not encoding...Like Viditor said. You dvd-rom is the limiting factor here. How fast it can read and rip the file...You will have to do some tuff encoding like HD stuff to peg 4 cores....mpeg2 encoding is too easy and the writing to the harddrives will become the limitations..

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: madoka
So I got a slick deal on a Q9550 system from dell for $600. I read that this should do video encoding like a champ, so I tried DVD Fab and DVD Shrink. As I was using these programs, I pulled up the task manager and see that the CPU usage is only from 3%-30%. Why isn't 100% of my CPU cores utilized?

DVD Shrink isn't multithread, but DVDFab is...
The limit is probably your DVD player...

DVD Shrink certainly is multithreaded. It will max out my 3.2Ghz dual-core cpu.

 

[dbcooper1]

Both of those programs are quite multithreaded; you now have the capacity to wait for your DVD drive faster. Try copying the files to a separate hard drive first and then run it again and see what you get.

 

[taltamir]

"So I got a slick deal on a Q9550 system from dell for $600." - considering the Q9550 etails for $282.99, I wonder what the other components in the system look like... How much ram do you have? what kind? what is your mobo like? what is your HDD like?

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
DVD Shrink certainly is multithreaded. It will max out my 3.2Ghz dual-core cpu.

Originally posted by: dbcooper1
Both of those programs are quite multithreaded; you now have the capacity to wait for your DVD drive faster. Try copying the files to a separate hard drive first and then run it again and see what you get.

Strange, I never max my e8400 when encoding with Shrink. One core hits 100% and the other just runs 2-10% depending on whatever else I've got running.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
DVD Shrink certainly is multithreaded. It will max out my 3.2Ghz dual-core cpu.

Originally posted by: dbcooper1
Both of those programs are quite multithreaded; you now have the capacity to wait for your DVD drive faster. Try copying the files to a separate hard drive first and then run it again and see what you get.

Strange, I never max my e8400 when encoding with Shrink. One core hits 100% and the other just runs 2-10% depending on whatever else I've got running.

It begs the question - which versions of DVD shrink is the OP, you, and virtuallarry referring to? There are many, many DVD shrink packages out there on the intarwebz...doing a google will blitz your screen with hundreds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Shrink#Fake_Versions

 

[Cogman]

One thing to note, A processor using 100% is almost certainly going to be encoding slower then a processor using 70-80%. Utilization is not equivalent to encoding speed and therefor shouldn't be the first thing you look at. Instead, look at FPS, that's a good measure of how fast you are going.

As others have said, You are probably limited by the speed of you dvd drive. The only time this isn't going to be the case is when you are using x264 and a pretty ridged encoding profile. (IE 6 ref, 8 b-frames, badapt 2, tesa, merange 24, ect)

 

[madoka]

Originally posted by: taltamir
"So I got a slick deal on a Q9550 system from dell for $600." - considering the Q9550 etails for $282.99, I wonder what the other components in the system look like... How much ram do you have? what kind? what is your mobo like? what is your HDD like?

Studio 540 Mini-Tower: Intel Core 2 Quad processor Q9550 (12MB L2, 2.83GHz, 1333FSB)
1 Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate
1 16X DVD +/- RW w/dbl layer write capability
1 640 GB SATA Hard Drive (7200 RPM)
1 6 GB DDR2 SDRAM 800MHz (4 DIMMs)
1 256MB ATI Radeon HD 3450 supporting HDMI
Order Subtotal: $559.20
Total Amount: $605.32 After tax, shipping, fees, etc.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: madoka
Studio 540 Mini-Tower: Intel Core 2 Quad processor Q9550 (12MB L2, 2.83GHz, 1333FSB)
1 Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate
1 16X DVD +/- RW w/dbl layer write capability
1 640 GB SATA Hard Drive (7200 RPM)
1 6 GB DDR2 SDRAM 800MHz (4 DIMMs)
1 256MB ATI Radeon HD 3450 supporting HDMI
Order Subtotal: $559.20
Total Amount: $605.32 After tax, shipping, fees, etc.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Upgrade the video card, and you're golden.

I wonder what the PSU is like?

Btw, in my other thread, "E5200 at 44C", I list the specs of my friend's machine that I just helped him build. It was comparable, except he has an E5200 instead of a Q9550. I think he spent $500 or more on it.

 

[madoka]

Originally posted by: Duvie
That is transconding not encoding...Like Viditor said. You dvd-rom is the limiting factor here. How fast it can read and rip the file...You will have to do some tuff encoding like HD stuff to peg 4 cores....mpeg2 encoding is too easy and the writing to the harddrives will become the limitations..

I've got 15 other computers around the house. This one and a few others are supposed to be dedicated to just backing up my rather large DVD collection. The slowest one is a E6600 processor, but I was planning on upgrading them all for this task.

So from the responses so far, I gather that there is NO point in upgrading the rest of these computers to quad core as the limiting factor in speed is going to be the HD and/or DVD drive?

 

[taltamir]

indeed that is a sweet deal

 

[Diogenes2]

Just Curious ... How do they spread 6GB RAM over 4 DIMMs ? ( Nice looking rig though -

 

[madoka]

The PSU is 350 watts.

The memory is 2gb x 2 and 1gb x 2 = 6gb total.

 

[dbcooper1]

Originally posted by: madoka

Originally posted by: Duvie
That is transconding not encoding...Like Viditor said. You dvd-rom is the limiting factor here. How fast it can read and rip the file...You will have to do some tuff encoding like HD stuff to peg 4 cores....mpeg2 encoding is too easy and the writing to the harddrives will become the limitations..

I've got 15 other computers around the house. This one and a few others are supposed to be dedicated to just backing up my rather large DVD collection. The slowest one is a E6600 processor, but I was planning on upgrading them all for this task.

So from the responses so far, I gather that there is NO point in upgrading the rest of these computers to quad core as the limiting factor in speed is going to be the HD and/or DVD drive?

If they're all networked, you could use several systems to rip the DVDs to a central location and have your fastest machines do the CPU intensive parts; writing is going to take a while too, for much the same reason as reading.

 

[dbcooper1]

Originally posted by: Diogenes2
Just Curious ... How do they spread 6GB RAM over 4 DIMMs ? ( Nice looking rig though -

2x2 + 2x1?

 

[Duvie]

dvdshrink is only fast if you use deep analysis, shrink DVDs like 60% (which is crap quality).....Other then that a transcoding of say a DVD 80-90% is just not going to tax the cores...it is mainly about writing the new file at that point.

If you run it from the dvd-rom drive then you will never peg cores even on a single core....

f you rip to HDD first then shrink it to another spearate drive that is about how you can maximize speed of multicores in dvdshrink....and again...you have to be actually compressing it to a smaller number....80% shrinks...not so much...

Deep analysis on a rip of the HDD can use 4 cores, but that is only the front part of the application