• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

sigh, cpu's will never be fast enough

D

draggoon01

Senior member
for video encoding. for my captures, my 2000+ encodes at a whopping 6fps. since encoding scales almost linearly, i figure by the time 10ghz cpu's are out, i'll finally be able to encode at real time speeds. but wait, by the 5-6 years it'll take for those cpu's, hdtv might be standard, and resolutions will go up, which in turn would slow me down again. also h.263 compression will be out, which will make my 5fps become 0.000005 fps. sigh, i see no light ending this tunnel.
 
Ah yes, but you are forgetting one factor in your analysis: you can have more than one processor in your PC. If the software you use to encode the data is capable of taking advantage of multiple processors (and soon most of them will be), then you can use 2 or even 4 CPU's to handle the encoding, and thus speeding up the encoding process faster than the amount of data to be encoded. There is light at the end of the tunnel after all 🙂
 
Actually... i think we're expecting 10ghz CPUs a lot sooner than you think. We should start seeing them in 2005 i believe.

And like tagej said, you can always use multiple processors. And what are you encoding? divx?
 
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Actually... i think we're expecting 10ghz CPUs a lot sooner than you think. We should start seeing them in 2005 i believe.

And like tagej said, you can always use multiple processors. And what are you encoding? divx?
Click to expand...

yup, i believe it's end of 2005/early 2006 when we see a 10.2GHz chip
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: bgeh
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Actually... i think we're expecting 10ghz CPUs a lot sooner than you think. We should start seeing them in 2005 i believe.

And like tagej said, you can always use multiple processors. And what are you encoding? divx?
Click to expand...

yup, i believe it's end of 2005/early 2006 when we see a 10.2GHz chip
Click to expand...

Intel has had one for over a year.
Click to expand...

Not to nickpick, but doesn't the P4 have an ALU that runs at twice the core clock? That 10ghz ALU would mean a 5ghz cpu, righ?
 
Originally posted by: draggoon01
for video encoding. for my captures, my 2000+ encodes at a whopping 6fps. since encoding scales almost linearly, i figure by the time 10ghz cpu's are out, i'll finally be able to encode at real time speeds. but wait, by the 5-6 years it'll take for those cpu's, hdtv might be standard, and resolutions will go up, which in turn would slow me down again. also h.263 compression will be out, which will make my 5fps become 0.000005 fps. sigh, i see no light ending this tunnel.
Click to expand...

Only 6fps? What encoder and codec are you using? With Vidomi, encoding to Divx on an XP1700 would give about 13fps; with Ulead Videostudio 6 SE, encoding an edited MPEG2 to MPEG2, I also get what appears to be 10-15fps.
 
well if you do two pass you can always halv your numbers. and at what resolution did the p4 encode real time?


i'm wondering how long it'll take to have hdtv camcorders🙂 massive data massive storage! haha🙂
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: draggoon01
for video encoding. for my captures, my 2000+ encodes at a whopping 6fps. since encoding scales almost linearly, i figure by the time 10ghz cpu's are out, i'll finally be able to encode at real time speeds. but wait, by the 5-6 years it'll take for those cpu's, hdtv might be standard, and resolutions will go up, which in turn would slow me down again. also h.263 compression will be out, which will make my 5fps become 0.000005 fps. sigh, i see no light ending this tunnel.
Click to expand...

Only 6fps? What encoder and codec are you using? With Vidomi, encoding to Divx on an XP1700 would give about 13fps; with Ulead Videostudio 6 SE, encoding an edited MPEG2 to MPEG2, I also get what appears to be 10-15fps.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm wondering. On my p4 2.5, I get better than realtime with divx, and substantially better with mpeg2. What in god's name are you encoding???

 
i capture to mjpeg. from there i encode to 512x384 using divx502 1pass-quality based. but i apply spatial and temporal filters, that's where a chunk of the slow down is but necessary to cut out the noise. applying those filters at such a somewhat large resolution takes time, loads of time. but of course the resulting quality is good, so it's worth it for me.

i don't do 2 pass, because that would double my time right there. as well file sizes are pretty consistent for me using quality based pass. and i feel bad for people who do 3-5 passes with divx504.

benchmarks usually only do video without audio, and apply no filters. also sometimes they use fast recompress instead of full processing mode. all that makes the numbers higher than you'll normally get. but by comparing relative performance you can figure out how fast things on your system will be, encoding whichever way you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top