Motherboard Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Finally time to upgrade?

 
 
Bill Anderson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-15-2011, 10:08 PM
I built my current system in August, 2007, and as time has gone by I've
changed a few things so that I am currently running Windows 7 64-bit on:

Motherboard: ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache
LGA 775

Memory: Crucial 4GB Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR2 PC2-8500

Video Card: SAPPHIRE 100210L Radeon HD 2600XT 256MB
128-bit GDDR4 PCI Express x16

Power Supply: PC Power and Cooling ULTRA-QUIET PSU:
SILENCER(R) 610 EPS12V

Video capture: ATI VisionTek TV Wonder PCI Express

Storage: Four HDDs -- 1 Samsung 1000 GB 7200 RPM SATA II, 1 Seagate
1500 GB 7200 RPM SATA II, 2 Seagate 1500 GB 5900 RPM SATA II.

For the past few days I've been authoring DVDs (which has involved
transcoding video files) and it just seems to me that the process is
taking far too long. When I run Adobe Encore my CPU usage gadget
indicates that all four cores are constantly maxed-out for up to six
hours straight, just to produce one DVD (ISO file). My current setup
works -- in fact it works great -- but it just takes SO long to do the job.

I know this sounds a lot like Allan's current query here on the
newsgroup -- maybe there's answer to this question that will help both
of us: Can I build a new computer (MBO, CPU, Memory, Video, HDDs) that
will give me a significant, notable, impressive, breathtaking
improvement in the processing time for video files? Thanks.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2011, 02:46 AM
Bill Anderson wrote:
> I built my current system in August, 2007, and as time has gone by I've
> changed a few things so that I am currently running Windows 7 64-bit on:
>
> Motherboard: ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo
>
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache
> LGA 775
>
> Memory: Crucial 4GB Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR2 PC2-8500
>
> Video Card: SAPPHIRE 100210L Radeon HD 2600XT 256MB
> 128-bit GDDR4 PCI Express x16
>
> Power Supply: PC Power and Cooling ULTRA-QUIET PSU:
> SILENCER(R) 610 EPS12V
>
> Video capture: ATI VisionTek TV Wonder PCI Express
>
> Storage: Four HDDs -- 1 Samsung 1000 GB 7200 RPM SATA II, 1 Seagate
> 1500 GB 7200 RPM SATA II, 2 Seagate 1500 GB 5900 RPM SATA II.
>
> For the past few days I've been authoring DVDs (which has involved
> transcoding video files) and it just seems to me that the process is
> taking far too long. When I run Adobe Encore my CPU usage gadget
> indicates that all four cores are constantly maxed-out for up to six
> hours straight, just to produce one DVD (ISO file). My current setup
> works -- in fact it works great -- but it just takes SO long to do the job.
>
> I know this sounds a lot like Allan's current query here on the
> newsgroup -- maybe there's answer to this question that will help both
> of us: Can I build a new computer (MBO, CPU, Memory, Video, HDDs) that
> will give me a significant, notable, impressive, breathtaking
> improvement in the processing time for video files? Thanks.
>


I think you'd be better off surfing a forum dedicated to the subject first.
Your rendering times may depend on the resolution of the content.

You can always find *someone* out there, with abnormally long render times
(and no explanation as to why). The cheapest fixes for performance, are
in the software. It's pretty difficult to fix every problem, with
faster hardware. (Poorly written software, trumps spiffy hardware every time.)

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2575261?tstart=0

Hardware solutions include

1) CPU
2) GPU (CUDA acceleration)
3) Third party accelerator cards, Matrox or Spurs Cell Engine or the like.

In some cases, there is a performance crossover. With weaker accelerator solutions,
they actually work slower than the CPU. Eventually, with enough horsepower, the
losses going with some kind of accelerator, eventually give you enough improvement,
to surpass a CPU-only solution.

You have to cost these options out, and see which ones make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpursEngine

If you read the comments here, the SpursEngine may require a separate software
path to get the job done. (I.e. If it isn't integrated into Encore to begin
with, you may end up with a very screwy work flow.)

http://www.techpowerup.com/130454/Le...One_Board.html

And finally, a solution from Matrox (home of "expensive cards" :-) )
Now, the second page here, doesn't make it look that much faster.

http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/pc/compresshd/
http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/pc/max/media/

The Intel processors with QuickSync, can speed up processing to some extent,
as they can do things like have enough decoding power to decode five movies
at the same time. (5x realtime on the decode end of things).

The trick is, to find a worthy web page, that benchmarks stuff like this,
head to head (with same software settings in each case).

*******

If you didn't choose to do any more research, and just wanted to upgrade the
CPU, I won't argue with that logic. Software using CPU is the most flexible,
and the most likely to have fixes released for it.

You can compute the ratio of clock rates, on the core(s) of your new processor,
versus the old, and get some improvement. The purpose of me mentioning the other
solutions, is so you won't have "regrets" later, that you didn't look further
at other ways of doing it.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

2600K passmark = 9977 price = $315 USD
Q6600 passmark = 2983

So a new processor, gives about 3x on that benchmark. If you absolutely must have
the best processor, Intel generally wants $1000 to $1500 or so, somewhere in that
ballpark. (More than that, you're looking at server motherboards and server processors.)

(Intel pricelist - see E7 series, for examples of "over the top" - 10 cores max)
http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._1ku_Price.pdf

Then, it's a question of whether any other hardware solutions (CUDA or accelerator)
can surpass that, at a reasonable price. In the case of CUDA, there may not
be a simple proportionality between price and performance (maybe a midrange
card gives most of the performance of a high end card, depending on where
the bottlenecks are - a GTX260 might do just as well, as something newer).
Also, there can be minor quality differences between the various hardware
solutions. Obviously, a general purpose processor has the most opportunities
to have any issues fixed - with specialized solutions, you don't know how often
(or if ever), patches or improvements to the "microcode" will come out (whatever
passes for code inside the accelerator type solution).

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Anderson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2011, 03:44 AM
On 10/15/2011 10:46 PM, Paul wrote:
> Bill Anderson wrote:
>> I built my current system in August, 2007, and as time has gone by
>> I've changed a few things so that I am currently running Windows 7
>> 64-bit on:
>>
>> Motherboard: ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo
>>
>> Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache
>> LGA 775
>>
>> Memory: Crucial 4GB Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR2 PC2-8500
>>
>> Video Card: SAPPHIRE 100210L Radeon HD 2600XT 256MB
>> 128-bit GDDR4 PCI Express x16
>>
>> Power Supply: PC Power and Cooling ULTRA-QUIET PSU:
>> SILENCER(R) 610 EPS12V
>>
>> Video capture: ATI VisionTek TV Wonder PCI Express
>>
>> Storage: Four HDDs -- 1 Samsung 1000 GB 7200 RPM SATA II, 1 Seagate
>> 1500 GB 7200 RPM SATA II, 2 Seagate 1500 GB 5900 RPM SATA II.
>>
>> For the past few days I've been authoring DVDs (which has involved
>> transcoding video files) and it just seems to me that the process is
>> taking far too long. When I run Adobe Encore my CPU usage gadget
>> indicates that all four cores are constantly maxed-out for up to six
>> hours straight, just to produce one DVD (ISO file). My current setup
>> works -- in fact it works great -- but it just takes SO long to do the
>> job.
>>
>> I know this sounds a lot like Allan's current query here on the
>> newsgroup -- maybe there's answer to this question that will help both
>> of us: Can I build a new computer (MBO, CPU, Memory, Video, HDDs) that
>> will give me a significant, notable, impressive, breathtaking
>> improvement in the processing time for video files? Thanks.
>>

>
> I think you'd be better off surfing a forum dedicated to the subject first.
> Your rendering times may depend on the resolution of the content.
>
> You can always find *someone* out there, with abnormally long render times
> (and no explanation as to why). The cheapest fixes for performance, are
> in the software. It's pretty difficult to fix every problem, with
> faster hardware. (Poorly written software, trumps spiffy hardware every
> time.)
>
> http://forums.adobe.com/message/2575261?tstart=0
>
> Hardware solutions include
>
> 1) CPU
> 2) GPU (CUDA acceleration)
> 3) Third party accelerator cards, Matrox or Spurs Cell Engine or the like.
>
> In some cases, there is a performance crossover. With weaker accelerator
> solutions,
> they actually work slower than the CPU. Eventually, with enough
> horsepower, the
> losses going with some kind of accelerator, eventually give you enough
> improvement,
> to surpass a CPU-only solution.
>
> You have to cost these options out, and see which ones make sense.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpursEngine
>
> If you read the comments here, the SpursEngine may require a separate
> software
> path to get the job done. (I.e. If it isn't integrated into Encore to begin
> with, you may end up with a very screwy work flow.)
>
> http://www.techpowerup.com/130454/Le...One_Board.html
>
>
> And finally, a solution from Matrox (home of "expensive cards" :-) )
> Now, the second page here, doesn't make it look that much faster.
>
> http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/pc/compresshd/
> http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/pc/max/media/
>
> The Intel processors with QuickSync, can speed up processing to some
> extent,
> as they can do things like have enough decoding power to decode five movies
> at the same time. (5x realtime on the decode end of things).
>
> The trick is, to find a worthy web page, that benchmarks stuff like this,
> head to head (with same software settings in each case).
>
> *******
>
> If you didn't choose to do any more research, and just wanted to upgrade
> the
> CPU, I won't argue with that logic. Software using CPU is the most
> flexible,
> and the most likely to have fixes released for it.
>
> You can compute the ratio of clock rates, on the core(s) of your new
> processor,
> versus the old, and get some improvement. The purpose of me mentioning
> the other
> solutions, is so you won't have "regrets" later, that you didn't look
> further
> at other ways of doing it.
>
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
>
> 2600K passmark = 9977 price = $315 USD
> Q6600 passmark = 2983
>
> So a new processor, gives about 3x on that benchmark. If you absolutely
> must have
> the best processor, Intel generally wants $1000 to $1500 or so,
> somewhere in that
> ballpark. (More than that, you're looking at server motherboards and
> server processors.)
>
> (Intel pricelist - see E7 series, for examples of "over the top" - 10
> cores max)
> http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._1ku_Price.pdf
>
>
> Then, it's a question of whether any other hardware solutions (CUDA or
> accelerator)
> can surpass that, at a reasonable price. In the case of CUDA, there may not
> be a simple proportionality between price and performance (maybe a midrange
> card gives most of the performance of a high end card, depending on where
> the bottlenecks are - a GTX260 might do just as well, as something newer).
> Also, there can be minor quality differences between the various hardware
> solutions. Obviously, a general purpose processor has the most
> opportunities
> to have any issues fixed - with specialized solutions, you don't know
> how often
> (or if ever), patches or improvements to the "microcode" will come out
> (whatever
> passes for code inside the accelerator type solution).
>
> Paul



Many thanks once again, Paul, for your very helpful advice. I will
explore the possibilities. I guess long gone are the days when a
rebuild every two years made the world right again.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2011, 04:32 AM
Bill Anderson wrote:


>
> Many thanks once again, Paul, for your very helpful advice. I will
> explore the possibilities. I guess long gone are the days when a
> rebuild every two years made the world right again.
>


Some years, it isn't worth it.

*******

We need AMD to scare Intel a bit more, to get things heated up again.

This socket is coming soon, but you'll want to read some articles
about what's happening behind the scenes, before getting too excited.
They may not deliver on all the features. I'd especially want to
see some benchmarks, to see whether quad memory channels actually
makes sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA2011

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
Quiet Man
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2011, 06:33 PM
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:08:40 -0400, Bill Anderson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I built my current system in August, 2007, and as time has gone by I've
>changed a few things so that I am currently running Windows 7 64-bit on:
>
>Motherboard: ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo
>
>Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache
>LGA 775
>
>Memory: Crucial 4GB Ballistix 240-pin DIMM, DDR2 PC2-8500
>
>Video Card: SAPPHIRE 100210L Radeon HD 2600XT 256MB
>128-bit GDDR4 PCI Express x16
>
>Power Supply: PC Power and Cooling ULTRA-QUIET PSU:
>SILENCER(R) 610 EPS12V
>
>Video capture: ATI VisionTek TV Wonder PCI Express
>
>Storage: Four HDDs -- 1 Samsung 1000 GB 7200 RPM SATA II, 1 Seagate
>1500 GB 7200 RPM SATA II, 2 Seagate 1500 GB 5900 RPM SATA II.
>
>For the past few days I've been authoring DVDs (which has involved
>transcoding video files) and it just seems to me that the process is
>taking far too long. When I run Adobe Encore my CPU usage gadget
>indicates that all four cores are constantly maxed-out for up to six
>hours straight, just to produce one DVD (ISO file). My current setup
>works -- in fact it works great -- but it just takes SO long to do the job.
>
>I know this sounds a lot like Allan's current query here on the
>newsgroup -- maybe there's answer to this question that will help both
>of us: Can I build a new computer (MBO, CPU, Memory, Video, HDDs) that
>will give me a significant, notable, impressive, breathtaking
>improvement in the processing time for video files? Thanks.


Check your software. I have a similar setup but with 2 10,000 rpm
150Gb Seagates. I use Nero 10 for most stuff and Microsoft Moviemaker
for 2x, 4x, and 8x speedups only, moving stuff back and forth as
needed. I don't seem to be maxing out anything.

Of course, I spend most of my time editing to get rid of boring
footage, hence lots of crossfade where I'm leaving out parts of clips,
and lots of speedups to get through stuff where I have to show the
whole process to give people a feel for the amount of work, but don't
need the detail. Also lots of soundtrack fixup with Audacity. The new
beta has MUCH better noise removal than the last stable version.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NF7s v2.0: Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhh, soundstorm probs finally solved Doug Abit 6 03-26-2005 12:56 PM
KX7-333 Finally Given Up Hamman Abit 6 05-06-2004 03:46 PM
Re: KT7A-RAID v1.0 - Finally time for a new CPU - OK... Erik Abit 2 01-12-2004 09:31 PM
KT7A-RAID v1.0 - Finally time for a new CPU GlassVial Abit 39 01-10-2004 08:52 PM
Finally! 5.1sound on A7N8X v2.00 (non-deluxe) Ed Asus 0 07-08-2003 01:29 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:35 PM.


Welcome!
Welcome to Motherboard Point
 

Advertisment