Jump to content
  • 0
Xyzzy

Multicores Cpus Really Used In Creator 2009?

Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Does C2009 uses mutiple CPU cores to speed up video rendering?

 

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

 

I don't think anyone is trying to tell or sell you 2x or 4x faster, Gary. OP asked does 2009 use and does it speed up, obviously it does.

 

cd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And I never said it wasn't. It is multi-threaded. 'Optimized' for multi-core? Everyone seems to be missing my point. Multi-core - just like multi-threading in P4s - is over rated. Do you get what you are paying for? I don't think so. When I moved up from single core to my dual core, I felt very disappointed that I spent over $1200 and didn't get the performance I was expecting. Now with Quad core, I can see we still won't be getting 'my expectations' of what a Quad core should do. Just not worth the money at all.

 

So does Videowave use multi-core? Sure... Do you get faster rendering? Sure, but only a modest increase IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Gary,

 

Yes, the single big "uni" will most always beat smaller multi-core processors in doing parallel processing cpu intensive processing one task at a time. However, if you surf the web, run a virus scan, render some video and watch TV on a good multi-core PC, then multi-cores will show its strength. When I had "uni" PCs and a virus scan kicked in, I had to stop it so I could do other things. That is not the case today.

 

Yes, you can point your finger at Intel and MS for not being super efficient with multi-cores, but in the end, most of the software applications still need to be recoded to get the most out of multi-cores. Yes, the "hyperthreading" on a single core was mostly hype but it did have its shinning moments, however few. Expect to see more than quads hit the consumer market.

 

If you look closely at the time compodents of a transaction (batch or interactive), I/O is generally the big time constraint. If you didn't have I/O constraints or internal path and memory constraints, then your multiple tasks would always queue on one processor (one task would hog it and the others would wait). I have seen high priority FORTRAN programs grab the single core processor and basically lock all the other tasks out.

Edited by Big_Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Switching from a single 3Mhz system to a dual processor dual core (four separate execution paths) system didn't significantly decrease rendering time. However, what did change was the amount of other things that I could do while the rendering was occurring - major improvement there. Which is what mult-processor with the current code environment is really good at - doing separate things faster, not one thing much faster. For it to do one thing much faster the software would have to be written specifically for multi-processor/multi-core if the task at hand even allows it (a surprising amount of tasks don't really adapt to it well or at all). That software would then preform miserably on a single core system as it would have the considerable overhead of parallel software without the benefit of the hardware.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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.

 

Here is another set:

1 core: 14 min 33 sec

2 core: 8 min 32 sec

3 core: 7 min 27 sec

4 core: 7 min 12 sec

 

I agree, other limiting factors come into play and additional cores have diminishing effects. But still happy to take the factor of 2 :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From here: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2866

 

If video encoding is well threaded, good scaling per core can be found. I did a bit of testing on my C2D 2.33Ghz 4Mb L2 and found that it made little difference with Videowave if I used 1 core or 2. In both cases I used about 50% of the available CPU resources.

 

In the case of a single core, I found that it maintained ~100% of the single core. In dual core, it maintained about 50% of each of the 2 cores.

 

I also have only a single channel of memory (because of a bad DIMM), so I may well be memory bandwidth bound.

 

In the case of DivX 6.1, it appears that moving from 2 cores to 4 cores scales from 44 down to 30. Not perfect scaling by any means, but still significant.

 

In the case of Windows Media Encoder 9, it scales from 50.4 to 78.9. Again, not bad, but not perfect either.

 

Video encoding SHOULD be a near ideal case for multi-threading. Even if all you did was divide the video into "n" parts and rendered each part in parallel .... then sew the "n" parts together at the end, you would experience near perfect scaling with the number of cores as long as you were not memory bound or disk I/O bound.

 

I am seriously now considering ordering a set of RAM DIMM's to restore my dual channel memory setup :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The article referenced above at http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2866 is excellent but dated a bit.

 

The extra overhead in OS in support of multi-cores is going to be with us. Processor dispatcher code, resource locks (queues) and alike will get installed with the modern OS. Until Intel and MS improve on use of multi-cores, will we continue to see diminshing returns with adding more cores. Eight cores (oh my gosh) will not do eight times the work of a single core. "Large scale processor effects by IBM" shows the diminishing returns by adding more cores. Manufacturers are hitting the wall so to speak with heat, ghz and internal path lengths, hence it's cheaper to produce multi-cores than a single 10 ghz processor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Part of the problem is that Intel et al are trying to implement Moore's Law - what is happening is that, as dies get more and more semiconductors jammed on to them, they are running into a barrier of quantum levels.

 

To get round this and keep increasing the 'head count' they are pushing multi-core technology. Speeds aren't likely to rise past the 3 GHz level using gallium arsenide although there are some developments in doping zinc oxide with magnesium (the so-called 'spintronic' semiconductors) which may (or again, may not) push the semiconductor count per core even higher, giving increased speed.

 

All very well in theory, but until higher speed RAM and drives come along to complement this, it's all still in the air. There are possibilities that the existing solid state (pen drives) can be increased in size to come up to hard drive capacities and there was work being done some time back on organic based RAM (but that hstill in the laboratory stage and still under development)

 

There is a series of articles here on the CPU and Moore's Law.

 

For organic semiconductors, Sanjay K. Ram's blog has some information and links to papers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hey Folks...isn't this "Digital Life" fun!!!!!!!

Big Dave, you've definitely done your homework on Multicore processing and you understand the dynamics of I/O and bottlenecks well. Also well explained. I remember very well how many times I had to stop doing stuff on my 3.4GHz (OC'd fro 2.6) P4 Northwood, simply because my AV scanner started doing it's thing. That's a thing of the past on my Core 2 Duo E6750 and I certainly don't miss it.

Jean, excellent reports!

 

One other thing is...do we want a rendering process to consume 100% of a multi-core machine just to make it "that much faster"? I think not because then we lose one of the REAL aspects of multicore processors...multitasking. I would rather the render process stay at 75-85% and allow the rest of the power to continue other tasks. I have noticed a Marked increas on rendering a movie to DVD even with EMC10, at least twice as fast than my P4 was able to accomplish the same task. Software today is written more and more to take advantage of multicore threading so we'll see better performance in more programs soon. 2009 is written to take advantage of this and in certain areas we are bound to see improvement over other versions, but to think that 2 cores will double, and 4 cores will quadruple these improvements is simply showing a lack of understanding in what multicore processing is and how it works.

 

Gary, I believe you just set yourself up for disappointment in thinking how you did when you switched to your newer processor. Like others, I don't notice any real increases in how Fast my regular programs work now, but I sure do notice how many more things I can do at one time now over my P4, which was "theoretically" faster than my current processor but P4 had a much smaller cache and didn't properly access the L2 cache either (thru FSB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

After more research, and a better review of the information shown here, I would like to revise my original statement.

 

Video rendering is still an ideal candidate for multi-core processing. With a system that had NO OTHER BOTTLENECKS one would see near perfect scaling with the number of cores if the application had the proper architecture.

 

The most obvious reasons that scaling exercises do not show perfect core scaling:

 

  1. Non-ideal software architecture
  2. Memory bandwidth bottlenecks
  3. Hard drive or southbridge I/O bottlenecks
  4. Video card hardware rendering

 

In my study, I was saving as a DVI file which is huge. My bottleneck was my old and slow hard drive.

 

The gentleman that did the 4 core experiment appears to be bottlenecked by either poor software archtecture beyond 2 cores, or memory/I/O bottlenecks.

 

jeanrosenfeld,

 

Do you think that a DIVX high quality rendering would have different results than a DVI rendering?

 

The future of video rendering and processing is most certainly multi-core. Today, most video rendering (and most computers) take advantage of this well. In the future, improvements in the OS, processors, and software code will make multi-core processors a "must have" for all video buffs. One could say that multi-core is already a must have for video rendering (if not for many other CPU intensive tasks as well as a smooth running system while virus scan runs :) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×