|
Speed of CCE and Rebuilder
|
|
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
9. December 2005 @ 17:41 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Baloney! No company gets into self debates for the sake of losing. LOL
true indeed no company will wittingly put it's reputation in jeopardy (especially a tech co.) precisely the reason I would not endorse using new technology that is yet to be perfected w/out thorough testing!
as for there debate it is non-existant they simply stated that they did not reccomend it!
the thing about the test that really peaked my interest is that if it is as you say the processor is divided into two equal and seperate entities relying on a physical cpu then the processor usage would equal half 50% unless the data transfer rate was limited to less by the bandwidth of the bus or cache or sim.
yet my processor showed 75%-85% the entirety of the encode quite a big jump from 50%
the use of re-clycling threads is what I presume is happening! I've read there was a big stir when xp was designed to handle this in a more productive manner than windows 2000! kinda mispercieved because of the use of two equal graphs in task manager
there is more tech put into it via bigger bandwidths and better data execution methods now than ever
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
9. December 2005 @ 17:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
L8ter
Have you ever knowingly pissed into the wind before? LOL
No thing can exceeds its limits. You can't pump 2 gallons per hour through a 1 gallon per hour pipe.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
9. December 2005 @ 17:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
btw I have written a pm to blighter appologizing personally for "hijacking" this thread I just thought it would be good to add a public appology because this is all to frequent on this forum and
I've seen nothing from him or his post that would have deemed this necessary my good sir if you wish to recieve any further help pm me or almost any of the posters in this thread as most are very knowlegable but I think it may be over looked if you started a completely new thread!
|
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
9. December 2005 @ 18:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm also going to publicly appologize for continueing soph's miseducation!
the pipe is made of an unyet tested polymer of which when heated expands at an alarming rate to the point that it's girth is doubled beyond any fathomable measurement's exponentially decreasing it's restriction's on the l8imit of pressure by allowing for pliability maximized by the fluxometer rating applied during manufacturing of it's scientifically constructed nuclear peptide induced synthesization of the fully grounded iodized current relied upon for the gromitizing techniques used for the sole purpose of breathability!
or it uses a second virtual pipe you understand??
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
9. December 2005 @ 18:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
L8ter
Truth is!
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
9. December 2005 @ 18:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
Blighter
Member
|
10. December 2005 @ 02:52 |
Link to this message
|
So what are these settings that i can change to optimise the speed of rebuilder? I've left everything at it's default pretty much (although i remove subtitles and audio from other languages, and remove DTS)...Oh, i change the skin, but i very much doubt that that has any effect on the performance.
I use CCE SP also, if that helps?
|
|
Blighter
Member
|
10. December 2005 @ 02:52 |
Link to this message
|
So what are these settings that i can change to optimise the speed of rebuilder? I've left everything at it's default pretty much (although i remove subtitles and audio from other languages, and remove DTS)...Oh, i change the skin, but i very much doubt that that has any effect on the performance.
I use CCE SP also, if that helps?
|
|
Blighter
Member
|
10. December 2005 @ 02:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
sorry for the repeated message...
Forgot to mention - i don't leave anything scanning over night...
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
10. December 2005 @ 04:42 |
Link to this message
|
L8nights
Quote:
I'm also going to publicly appologize for continueing soph's miseducation!
Since I know without any doubt whatsoever that hyper threading does not work with CCE and you say it does, then whose mis-education are we continuing. You've stated it yourself, CCE uses 100% of a CPU's resorces on a single thread which leaves no room for it to divide the work up into two threads. Hyper threading only works if there are some unused CPU cycles left but when using CCE there is none left so hyper threading won't and can't work. Other CPU intensive uses also suffer a slowdown when hyper threading is enabled. Only a true dual processor system or a dual core processor can do that.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=a100e62d729f9e501f9cab03c...
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39237341,00.htm
Quote:
A second problem with HT comes to mind. Is CCE SMP-aware, because, if it is, it may be running two threads because it thinks you have two processors. In this situation the two threads are competing for the same resources, so there is no performance gain realized (there may actually be extra overhead reducing performance). This is a documented problem with hyperthreading, particularly with compression algorithms that, when SMP-aware, simply will run two instances of the same thread. Many companies have released patches for it. If they have not, you have to set these types of SMP aware programs to only use a single thread. Initially it may appear that this situation will still demonstrate 100% CPU usage, but often it will not:
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?s=77963cb2be3d39a4673db...
Here's Cinema Craft Encoders CPU compatibility chart. You'll note that hyperthreading is listed as unsupported.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
10. December 2005 @ 04:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Blighter
Which version of RB are you using?
If you have other applications running in the background turn them off while processing.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
10. December 2005 @ 06:22 |
Link to this message
|
here's one for those that refuse to read because they know it all!
I will reiterate my self once as it seems to be what all the cool kids are doing!
Quote:
no company will wittingly put it's reputation in jeopardy (especially a tech co.) precisely the reason I would not endorse using new technology that is yet to be perfected w/out thorough testing!
I believe this a possible explanation to your arguement that CCE say's so so I don't have to think!
Quote:
the thing about the test that really peaked my interest is that if it is as you say the processor is divided into two equal and seperate entities relying on a physical cpu then the processor usage would equal half 50% unless the data transfer rate was limited to less by the bandwidth of the bus or cache or sim
this is a nice way of reply to your misconception of how hyperthreading works re-cycling is all it does!
Quote:
Have you ever knowingly pissed into the wind before? LOL
are you saying that the short sided will continue to argue afound here instead of reading supplied test result's and supplying there own where are your test results soph oh yeah you don't use a machine that has ht! so what is this just argument to you??? I'm right at all cost?? even if it blinds me and those around me!
Quote:
Since I know without any doubt whatsoever that hyper threading does not work with CCE and you say it does
umm this is very disheartening I thought you of all ppl was an opened minded one!
first of all I never said I know that ht works and you are wrong nor have I belittled you in your umm pursuit for knowledge??
in any kind of way I actually invited everybody to run there own testing to verify that mine was not just an anomolie or fluke!
since you have not run any personal test you must have invented ht technology??? or maybe the author of CCE??
I don't know but I'm sure glad to have had this conversation w/ you even though I did extensive testing and devoted hrs to overseeing details and minding them to make sure the results were unbiased, that state the opposite I now know that you are right and any more posting in this thread is fruitless!
so finally what color is the sky soph because I'm not sure whether or not to trust my eyes but I now know you are alway's right!
I know I will never get that answer because if I've learned anything it's that you are not going to read the entirety of this post just pick the parts you don't agree w/ and call me a moron or something equally disgraceful to us both!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
10. December 2005 @ 06:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
the thing about the test that really peaked my interest is that if it is as you say the processor is divided into two equal and separate entities relying on a physical cpu then the processor usage would equal half 50% unless the data transfer rate was limited to less by the bandwidth of the bus or cache or sim]
I never said that the processor divided into two equal entities, I said that the second thread makes use of unused CPU cycles and since there are no unused cycles using CCE there will be no effective second thread. The problem with hyper threading is that it often tries to make use of what isn't there and that results in a slowdown nit a speedup.
I would appreciate it if you toned down your language and stopped making it personal. If you feel that Cinema Craft Encoders web site is wrong then go tell them about it and if they side with you then so will I. There are numerous explanations for Rockas' success and you have to consider that CCE plays only a part of the process. Avisynth, RB, and DGDecode are all single threaded.
Rockas' experiment is flawed somewhere because the differences that he posted "50 minutes" or an almost doubling of the encode speed wouldn't even happen with a true smp system with dual core or dual procs. BTW, there's a difference between being open minded and in search of the truth and just being argumentative for the sake of an arguments. I will continue to take the side of CCE's people because they are more likely to know if it will work or not. If not then test it yourself, I did.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
10. December 2005 @ 08:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
I digress sometimes I have to be reminded just how tight I am wound!!
appologies all around
I must have read to much into your post!
I was just revamping an old theory to test the improvement's in both intel's support of ht and the manufacturer's improved knowledge of enabling usage of this feature even when using single threaded applications!
I will take suggestions on my test to make sure the test is not flawed!
I remember a time when I was actually known as the cat that curiousity could not kill
and I have found this too
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. ~Andre Gide
this was quoted from a wise man that quoted a wise man!
p.s. could you reveal the results of your test!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
10. December 2005 @ 09:21 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
p.s. could you reveal the results of your test!
When I pull my p4 out of the mothballs I can run it again. LOL
brobear has a P4 Northwood which should render decent results, ask him if he will test with you. As it is with the coming Procoder versus CCE test and hyperthreading test no one will have a break.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Blighter
Member
|
11. December 2005 @ 05:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have everything shut off in the background, and i'm using DVD RB 1.00 RC 5.1. I tried upgrading to latest version but i kept getting errors at the end of each process and RB shutdown on me :-(
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
11. December 2005 @ 06:16 |
Link to this message
|
I use DVD RB Ver 1 RC.1 with CCE 2.70.
Rebuilding Star Wars 3 took 94 minutes from start to finishing making ISO.
Burning was longer, but not relevant to the speed of CCE.
Main difference for me, is that I can still happily other applications on my PC when rebuilder is running without always having delays.
Best CPU I used before on RB/CCE was using an FX55 and although quick, it was still using all the CPU resource and making multi-app work a pain.
|
|
Blighter
Member
|
11. December 2005 @ 11:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
So basically, you're saying that it's the type of CPU which matters mainly, not how fast the cpu clock is?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. December 2005 @ 12:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Blighter
Clock speed does make a difference but it's only part of the equation. The reason that Intel P4 always encoded faster than AMD's was the result of their faster clock speeds. Never mind that Intel lost in almost every other measurable category. With the latest AMD CPU releases clock Intel lost some of their clock speed advantage for a couple of reasons. The first is that AMD's clock speeds are beginning to approach those of Intel chips and their overclock-ability brought them even closer still. The 2nd is AMD's front side bus and memory handling in general.
But where AMD really took over was with their dual core chips, Intel dual cores were built as an afterthought while AMD chips were designed from the ground up. Intel dual cores are still stuck with an 800 mhz front side bus while AMD's dual cores have an effective 2000 MHz front side bus. The front side bus feeds directly to system memory and it takes into consideration both input and output which divides the frontside bus up into two lanes of traffic. Two lanes of 400 Mhz going each way which bottlenecks the Intel dual core. AMD has a much more effective design which allows for a much more effective relationship with memory and front side bus speeds.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Tweak32
Newbie
|
11. December 2005 @ 14:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles, you seem to have a nice computer setup, have you ever done any encoding with DVD-RB/CCE? How long did it take?
I just started using DVD-RB, and my little 1.4 pentium takes around 6 hours for one movie, so I'm looking to upgrade.
Thanks
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. December 2005 @ 14:45 |
Link to this message
|
This is about average for me. I've had some faster and some slower, for instance the movie Pocahontas took only 34 minutes for prepare/encode/rebuild. Here is a screen shot of a recent encode.
77 minutes for all three stages and another 7 to burn.
I've been known to use RB/CCE once or twice.
http://forums.afterdawn.com/forum_view.cfm/157
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. December 2005 @ 14:47
|
