|
Does DVD Shrink support dual core
|
|
|
Dizzaxter
Newbie
|
21. February 2007 @ 10:14 |
Link to this message
|
While using DVD Shrink with my AMD Opteron 165 I noticed only one of the two cores was being utilized while encoding a movie.
I understand the process would be a lot faster id both cores where working.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to correct this?
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
21. February 2007 @ 10:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
In order for the dual core processors to be fully utilized, the software used must be written to do so (it has to be written with dual core processors in mind). Shrink wasn't written with dual core support, so you won't be able to utilize the feature using it.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
21. February 2007 @ 12:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
You'll find a lot of the recording software doesn't use both cores. If it did, we'd have trouble multitasking the way we like.
|
|
Dizzaxter
Newbie
|
21. February 2007 @ 14:52 |
Link to this message
|
thanks for the reply...but after further research I found a way to correct the problem.
DVD Shrink does support multiple cores, and if 1 or more of the available cores (depending on whether you have a dual or quad-core system) is not being utilized, you can correct this doing the following:
Open Task Manager
Select Processes Tab
Right-click DVD Shrink 3.2.exe
Select Set Affinity - Make sure both CPU 0 and CPU 1 are selected.
After I did this, I was able to get 100% cpu utlization and significantly shorten the encoding time
|
Senior Member
|
21. February 2007 @ 17:16 |
Link to this message
|
Mine is set just like that, but most of the time with my dual core when using DVD Shrink, the CPU usage only goes up to around 40% (if that much). Its not running in low priority mode either.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. February 2007 @ 17:17
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
21. February 2007 @ 20:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
My default settings are CPU 0 and 1. Shrink does read 100% on the CPU monitors in taskmanager. The priority setting for my system is normal. Shrink has always been a CPU "hog". If taking up 100% CPU usage with higher priority, nothing else could operate very well. Shrink is just as fast on a fast single core as on a dual core. There are no dual core advantages unless the dual core is just natually faster. Shrink has it's speed and there's no making it faster except for faster hardware. I have DVDCopy5, which is faster and in my estimation a better transcoder than DVDShrink. It should be for the price. It operates on 1 core at 50-60% CPU usage and is much faster than Shrink. In fact it's one of the fastest transcoders I've used.
|
Senior Member
|
22. February 2007 @ 04:38 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
There are no dual core advantages unless the dual core is just natually faster. Shrink has it's speed and there's no making it faster
You got it Pac.
Some just don't understand how having a multi-core processor may or may not impact their system with regard to to software used, they figure, two cores means twice as fast... right?????, not. Again, the software must be witten with a multi-core system in mind and should also be wriiten to utilize multi/hyper-threading to see gains. Shrink wasn't written to perform utilizing these new advancements (it is what it is), so it's not going to perform any better just because you've got at dual core processor or one having ten cores.
|
|
Lobo126
Newbie
|
17. August 2007 @ 02:42 |
Link to this message
|
I disagree. Dvd Shrink is definitely faster with a dual core processor. I own an AMD 4800 X2 & my encoding times are much faster with both cores turned on (or set to affinity). I recently encoded "Pathfinder" with only 1 core on and the encoding rate was only about 1800 Kb/sec. With both turned on, it got up to near 4000 Kb/sec and the overall time dropped significantly. It's definitely worth doing if you want to copy your dvd's faster.
Here's some info from digital-digest.com:
The 3.1.4 contains an updated ripping engine, designed to extract maximum performance from your drive, while at the same time reduce wear and tear. It also runs at least 5 threads during encoding: one reading, one encoding, one writing the output to your hard drive, another thread synchronizes the first three and supplies video preview if enabled, and the last thread - the main application thread - displays progress information and monitors the "pause" and "cancel" buttons.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. August 2007 @ 08:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
You disagree because you turned off part of your system's processing ability and increased the transcode time?
As I said, there is no inherent advantage built into Shrink that makes it faster on a dual core over a single core, other than the system's built in ability to process (system resources). You're dealing with one of the faster dual cores when using the 4800. Most retail systems didn't use a processor that upscale. What would have been a more fair comparison would have been to time the same transcode with a FX 57 (single core) and compare to your 4800 and other more typical (slower) single core and dual core systems.
Edit:
I think we're getting into apples and oranges. If you ask if a dual core processor uses both cores when running Shrink, I'll say yes. I'll also say other programs not optimized for dual core will do the same. With transcoding programs like DVDCopy, Shrink and others, a fast single core, like the FX 57, can do as well as many of the dual cores. I had some old OCed P4s that run Shrink as well as my newer dual core.
What you're saying is that your 4800 is faster processing with both cores operational. I won't disagree, but you'll find that true with a lot of programs. More programs are being optimized for dual core, but Shrink was released before dual core, so it couldn't have been.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. August 2007 @ 09:13
|
