Jump to content
  • 0

Multicores Cpus Really Used In Creator 2009?


Xyzzy
 Share

Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

It makes not one scrap of difference to rendering time to be honest

 

What does make a difference is the amount of Level 2 Cache on the CPU - when I changed from the AMD 64 to the Intel e6750, there was a marked increase but that was down to the 2 MB L2 cache per core

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Does C2009 uses mutiple CPU cores to speed up video rendering?
I think most people are under the impression that multi-core would make everthing faster. It doesn't really. As Daithi points out, what really makes a difference is shear CPU speed and the L2 cache.

 

I also own Adobe Premiere Elements which 'recognizes' multi-core systems. I have no idea if it uses all cores to render, but I can render the same file in PE and Videowave with the results being very close (as in <1 min).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
I think most people are under the impression that multi-core would make everthing faster. It doesn't really. As Daithi points out, what really makes a difference is shear CPU speed and the L2 cache.

 

If the software is written to use multi cores then you will probably see a difference but here's an explanation which is taken from wikipedia.

 

The amount of performance gained by the use of a multicore processor depends on the problem being solved and the algorithms used, as well as their implementation in software (Amdahl's law). For so-called "embarrassingly parallel" problems, a dual-core processor with two cores at 2GHz may perform very nearly as fast as a single core of 4GHz.[1] Other problems though may not yield so much speedup.

This all assumes however that the software has been designed to take advantage of available parallelism.

If it hasn't, there will not be any speedup at all. However, the processor will multitask better since it can run two programs at once, one on each core.

 

There you have it........... Multitasking is normally faster as each window will run under a separate core but video rendering and other usage purely depends on how the software is set to use multiple cores. If its not the raw power of the cpu and size of cache will determine the speed.

 

Jim

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Depending on the Duo Core platform and the process being executed, you might notice a big difference. I did some testing with Videowave EMC 9.1 on two different PCs and noticed 45-54% improvement. All processes available with Videowave might not enjoy such an improvement. It all depends on what you are doing.

Edited by Big_Dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Sorry, nobody seems to know.
Yes, Videowave/MyDVD are multi-threaded. Now whether or not that SPEEDS up rendering is the discussion. I tend to agree more wth JamesTW.

 

Multi-threading came long with single core Pentium 4 which 'fooled' the OS into thinking there were two processors. Although the threads could be executed separately, one thread would have to wait until another thread was executed, etc. Now with real multi-core processors, some threads can be processed in 'parallel' on separate cores. But the question now is the program code 'optimized' for this parallel processing? I'm afraid only the Sonic/Roxio programmers could answer that.

 

 

Personally, I would still rather have a single core running at 6Ghz than a dual core running at 3Ghz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Multi-core does appear to work well in VideoWave (I haven't tried checking for the other applications, nor do I think it would make much difference in them).

 

Multi-threading is not a gimmick, and while cache size does indeed help rendering substantially, the ability to render in parallel has a much greater potential.

 

In benchmarks on the web, VideoWave has been shown to see substantial improvements when moving from 1 core to 2 cores; however, it does not scale to 4 cores at the time of the latest benchmarks.

 

Video is an IDEAL application for multiple cores. An "n" thread application would be quite easy to apply to video rendering since each frame of rendering is independent from the next frame rendering.

 

Cinibench is a good example of how even a single picture can be divided and rendered in parallel. If you have 4 cores, the picture renders in 4 parts simultaneously (while you watch).

 

It is my belief that VideoWave is currently limited to 2 threads. If this is true, then the use of a 3 or 4 core processor would not make much sense (which is why I currently use only a core 2 duo with 4 Mb L2 shared cache).

 

As for the cache issue, Intel processors (Core 2 family) have a shared L2 between 2 cores. This allows a single core to have access to a very large cache when it needs it AND for the 2 cores to share the cache as well. In addition, the integer computing unit on the Core 2 is amazingly fast. This is the predominant part of the CPU that is exercised when rendering.

 

My personal recommendation for a processor suited for Roxio (best performance without wasting money on cores or features that will not help you), is the E8500 which runs at 3.16Ghz, has 2 cores and 6Mb of L2 cache: http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/core_2_duo_e8500.htm

 

For ~$180.00 you can't beat it (at this time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Video is an IDEAL application for multiple cores. An "n" thread application would be quite easy to apply to video rendering since each frame of rendering is independent from the next frame rendering.
For rendering MPEG 2, that is not true. In fact with MPEG 2, there are three different type of frames, I, B & P.

Each Group of Pictures (GOP) starts with an independant frame. The following frames are then created depending on the next following frame(s) and sometimes the previous frame(s). How much compression also depends on on how much motion occurs during those frames.

 

I'm not familiar with MPEG4 or AVCHD, but I'm sure it's just as complex or even more. This would seem to me that video rendering would not be 'ideal' to parallel processing at all.

 

As far as 'benchmarks', I've never trusted them from any source. Just like polititians, the results can be scewed or interpreted to make any hardware look good or bad.

Edited by ggrussell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Here is a trusted 'benchmark' I always use… Open MS Hearts and play a few games. It really doesn't matter how "fast" the PC is supposed to be or what benchmarks it set. If the programs I use don't run any faster, all of the tests are meaningless.

 

Those that have multi-core and run editing programs on them don't see any significant difference.

 

Gary has a more current version of Sony Vegas than I have. Seen any improvement in that rendering slug?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Here is a trusted 'benchmark' I always use… Open MS Hearts and play a few games. It really doesn't matter how "fast" the PC is supposed to be or what benchmarks it set. If the programs I use don't run any faster, all of the tests are meaningless.

 

Those that have multi-core and run editing programs on them don't see any significant difference.

 

Gary has a more current version of Sony Vegas than I have. Seen any improvement in that rendering slug?

 

I did my own testing. :blink:

 

One machine a P4 Northood 2.8 ghz 512kb L2 cache, machine two C2D 3.16 ghz 8500 6mb L2 cache, file was a 7.52gb mpg2 video file with ac3 audio.

 

I analyzed and compressd the file on both machines to a single layer DVD. Machine one took 12 min analysing and 31 min to re-encode it, at 6,000 to 7,000kb/s and 209 frames a sec. Machine two took 2 min analysing and 5 min to re-encode it, at 29,000 to 30,000kb/s at 940 frames a sec.

 

I agree with the L2 cache but I can't buy a P4 today with 6mb L2 cache to run a actual test! :) I would think FSB speed and other factors enter in, at the end of all the arguing the Multicore Cpus with larger L2 cache are waaaaaaaay faster, aren't they? :wacko:

 

I think Big_Dave and I are seeing the same results.

 

cd

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Never notice Gary that CPUs seem to have levelled off at round the 3 GHz mark?

 

It looks like the only future developments will come in the way of multi-core and larger L2 cache.

Yes, and that was reached over two years ago. Then Intel released Core Duo and started back with 1.8Ghz. They are just now getting back up to 3GHz level. Most of that was because of heat and watts used with the older technology. Now that both companies have 45nm dies, perhaps we will see an slight increase in processor speed sometime soon. Lower wattage and less heat at 45nm.

 

I've never thought about overclocking, but it's tempting just to get a faster CPU. I've seen some CPU coolers that looked like something from a car. LOL

Edited by ggrussell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

For those of you that don't agree that multi-cores are good for Creator 2009, then how about providing some benchmarks of Creator 2009 with multi-cores enabled and then with just one core enabled. Benchmark 2-3 different processes in Videowave and then report back.

 

VISTA with "superfetch" will use all the level 2 cache and memory that is available. However, there is a point where more memory will not return performance benefits. Effective cache hit ratios above 90% will not show much of an improvement on the wall clock.

 

Internal bus speeds, memory throughput rates (not just mhz), L1 cache speeds, pre-fetch routine effectiveness, OS dispatcher effectiveness (internal processor inference minimized), I/O throughput rates, I/O instruction path length, video card thrughput rates and many other factors will come into play with "system" performance.

 

Bottom line is that multiple cores are not going away. Expect to see higher throughput rates as Intel and Microsoft improve the effectiveness of multiple core processing.

Edited by Big_Dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
For those of you that don't agree that multi-cores are good for Creator 2009, then how about providing some benchmarks of Creator 2009 with multi-cores enabled and then with just one core enabled. Benchmark 2-3 different processes in Videowave and then report back.
Already have done my testing. My previous CPU was an AMD single core 4800+. When I purchased my latest Dual core 3GHz machine, I was expecting TWICE the speed. Two cores Right? Nope, not even close. What meager increase I got was due to the difference in processor speed and updated FSB, etc. Was I happy? Sure, but I certainly didn't think I got my money's worth.

 

I stick with my statement. A single core running at 6GHz will run circles around a Dual Core at 3GHz regardless of cache levels. Nothing beats raw power!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Gary,

 

It sounds like you haven't done any benchmarking on your new PC. You like to "render" so why not do it with one core enabled and then with both enabled. How about a 30 minute 'color" rendering processes?

 

Without any cache (l1, l2 or memory cache) your 6 ghz processor would be a waste. You wouldn't be able to get data in fast enough to keep the processor busy.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This is on my one computer with specs in signature.

 

I loaded two AVC/H.264 files into Vodeowave, duration just over 24 minutes. Rendered to mpeg2 for Video best quality.

 

Test 1: in task manager, set affinity for Videowave11.,exe to just 1 CPU. Rendered in 18 minutes.

Test 2, set affinity to all 4 CPUs, Rendered in 9 minutes 30 seconds.

 

As you can see from the performance tab, with 1 CPU it is using it at 100%, so speed limited by CPU.

At 4 cCPU, it is using only around 60% of all four cores, so speed limited by L2 cache (which is shared by the 4 CPUs.

post-112-1222482831.png

post-112-1222482842.png

Edited by jeanrosenfeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Jean,

 

That's very good results on the value of multi-cores for the test that you executed. There are probably a number of factors other than cache that are limiting the four processors from reaching 100%. In both of your test cases, page frames were minimal and available cache was significantly high. Memory throughput and I/O throughput limitations are most likey inhibiting the four processors from reaching 100%.

 

It's a vicious circle: memory, cpu and I/O. If you relieve one bottleneck then the others will be the bottlenecks. We have to remember that cache is nothing more than speed matching buffers. Internal path speeds and memory thruputs rates are not fast enough to keep the processors busy 100%. Faster pipe line and faster caches will allow higher procesor utilization.

Edited by Big_Dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
This is on my one computer with specs in signature.

 

I loaded two AVC/H.264 files into Vodeowave, duration just over 24 minutes. Rendered to mpeg2 for Video best quality.

 

Test 1: in task manager, set affinity for Videowave11.,exe to just 1 CPU. Rendered in 18 minutes.

Test 2, set affinity to all 4 CPUs, Rendered in 9 minutes 30 seconds.

 

As you can see from the performance tab, with 1 CPU it is using it at 100%, so speed limited by CPU.

At 4 cCPU, it is using only around 60% of all four cores, so speed limited by L2 cache (which is shared by the 4 CPUs.

 

 

Very good demonstration Jean, thanks..

 

cd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Test 1: in task manager, set affinity for Videowave11.,exe to just 1 CPU. Rendered in 18 minutes.

Test 2, set affinity to all 4 CPUs, Rendered in 9 minutes 30 seconds.

Good example that proves you aren't getting 4X the speed when using 4 core. You only get twice the speed. Go figure!

 

Now if there was a such thing as a single core running at 10Ghz (2.4Ghz X4), you would probably get TRUE 4X the speed.

Edited by ggrussell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...