I understand this was optimised for Dual CPU, however on my PC whic has an Operon 165 it uses 100% of one CPU and none of the other.
I would not describe that as optimised.
There are no updates for V6 so does anybody know if there is a way to utilise both cores or did I waste my money on this product.
DVD MovieFactory 6 & Dual CPU
-
Ron P.
- Advisor
- Posts: 12002
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:45 am
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
- motherboard: Hewlett-Packard 2AF3 1.0
- processor: 3.40 gigahertz Intel Core i7-4770
- ram: 16GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645
- sound_card: NVIDIA High Definition Audio
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 4TB
- Monitor/Display Make & Model: 1-HP 27" IPS, 1-Sanyo 21" TV/Monitor
- Corel programs: VS5,8.9,10-X5,PSP9-X8,CDGS-9,X4,Painter
- Location: Kansas, USA
-
jerryh
jerryh,
This is a copy of the ulead statement:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... n-165.html
This is a copy of the ulead statement:
Operon's are AMD Processors.Dual-core support - Get enhanced performance from Intel® Duo processors on desktops and laptops.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... n-165.html
-
jerryh
I see now they specifically state Intel on the web site.
The downloadable spec sheet and all the blurb elsewher seems to foget the Intel bit
"get faster Smart Render times with dual core or dual-CPU machines."
I can't believe they intended to leave out AMD dual core support.
I think I'll cut my losses I have a purchaser lined up for a second hand copy
The downloadable spec sheet and all the blurb elsewher seems to foget the Intel bit
"get faster Smart Render times with dual core or dual-CPU machines."
I can't believe they intended to leave out AMD dual core support.
I think I'll cut my losses I have a purchaser lined up for a second hand copy
The whole "dual core" thing is an Intel Con
I was at the forefront of multiprocessing in the 1980s, working for Sequent, who invented the thing. What people do not realise is that for one job, such as video rendering, to be split between 2 CPUs is virtually impossible, because no-one has perfected "parallel procesing" for the home or even business user. This is still the realm of research institutions. It does not matter how many 'cores' you have in the machine, only one will be doing the work you require to be done. The whole 'multi-core' thing from Intel is a complete sham, covering up the fact that the fastest single threaded CPU you can buy is almost 3 years old - they have run into a brick wall regarding single CPU performance. Moore's Law in dead!! Video rendering speeds today are the same as they were three years ago for home users. In fact, buying multi-core CPUs could actually slow down your video rendering - stick to the old P4 3.4GHz if you want rendering speed, unless you can afford hundreds of them side by side, each rendering 2 minutes of video in 24-pass oprations.
MF2, MF3, MF4, MF5, VS7, VS10+, VS12, Nero Vision Express. Ricoh and Sony 16x DVD recorder, Sony HC5 High def camera. Also Canopus ADVC110 for AV/DV input through firewire
Ruggy1 I've found the same results.
Much of this now depends on the software, I would think that 2 pass encoding could be faster if one processor was processing Multiple GOP's and passing that onto the 2nd processor to perform the final encode.
Even the command line apps I use state that assigning multiple processors may result in a quality hit. My apps limit this to 4 processors. Unless I'm writing back to tape most of my renders are done when the computer isn't in use (nightime, out working). Especially conversions to HD-WMV Video, that takes hours to complete.
These computer can be used for Professional Video work:
http://www.apple.com/macpro/
If you look at the performance specs in the link below I wouldn't consider the results to be that great for rendering alone considering that upgrading these systems is quite expensive.
The real gain is being able to playback, edit and perform other tasks all at the sametime without having the machine coming to a crawl. Overall system performance is definitely the gain here.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
I'm not comparing operating systems here because I've used many of them. What I do like about windows OS is you can channel the cpu power to one process, like rendering & real-time capturing/on the fly conversions.
Much of this now depends on the software, I would think that 2 pass encoding could be faster if one processor was processing Multiple GOP's and passing that onto the 2nd processor to perform the final encode.
Even the command line apps I use state that assigning multiple processors may result in a quality hit. My apps limit this to 4 processors. Unless I'm writing back to tape most of my renders are done when the computer isn't in use (nightime, out working). Especially conversions to HD-WMV Video, that takes hours to complete.
These computer can be used for Professional Video work:
http://www.apple.com/macpro/
If you look at the performance specs in the link below I wouldn't consider the results to be that great for rendering alone considering that upgrading these systems is quite expensive.
The real gain is being able to playback, edit and perform other tasks all at the sametime without having the machine coming to a crawl. Overall system performance is definitely the gain here.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
I'm not comparing operating systems here because I've used many of them. What I do like about windows OS is you can channel the cpu power to one process, like rendering & real-time capturing/on the fly conversions.
As a software engineer who did parallel processingI software designs going back into the 1960's I take exception to 2 comments above, the first that parallezation of software was "invented" in the 1980's, and, more important, that video processing is not amenable to being split into parallel algorithms / processes.
As anyone who runs a multiprocessor dual or quad machine like my MacPro Quad Xeon will readily agree, the compression and video processing algorithms lend themselves extremely well to being split into multiple processes. The work to be performed can be spatially divided (for example, working on separate macroblocks in different regions of the creen at the same time), temporally divided (such as performing all the DCT transforms on one processor while the other does color space transformations), or some combination of both time and space segregation in parallel.
Moore's law has indeed become less achievable, and multicore is the industry's way of delivering more MIPs per $ to arrive at comparable performance gains, but it is extremely obvioious that video processing can and indeed does benefit very greatly from using parallel approaches. Companies like Masspar, IBM's Deep Thinker computers which beat the World Champion Chess Player Bobby Fisher, and others have been demonstrating this for literally decades, as do many huge academic and industrial and government computing farms based on the same parallel concepts.
Larry
As anyone who runs a multiprocessor dual or quad machine like my MacPro Quad Xeon will readily agree, the compression and video processing algorithms lend themselves extremely well to being split into multiple processes. The work to be performed can be spatially divided (for example, working on separate macroblocks in different regions of the creen at the same time), temporally divided (such as performing all the DCT transforms on one processor while the other does color space transformations), or some combination of both time and space segregation in parallel.
Moore's law has indeed become less achievable, and multicore is the industry's way of delivering more MIPs per $ to arrive at comparable performance gains, but it is extremely obvioious that video processing can and indeed does benefit very greatly from using parallel approaches. Companies like Masspar, IBM's Deep Thinker computers which beat the World Champion Chess Player Bobby Fisher, and others have been demonstrating this for literally decades, as do many huge academic and industrial and government computing farms based on the same parallel concepts.
Larry
I stand corrected - what I meant to say was that Sequent were the first to successfully commercialise it. And yes, I know that it is 'possible' to render across multiple CPUs, but I am not holding my breath for it any time soon though in US$50 programs like Ulead.
MF2, MF3, MF4, MF5, VS7, VS10+, VS12, Nero Vision Express. Ricoh and Sony 16x DVD recorder, Sony HC5 High def camera. Also Canopus ADVC110 for AV/DV input through firewire
To end this thread on a funny note - I recently saw a quote from an AMD spokesman (I think) - it went somthing like this - "Even if you have nine wives, you cannot deliver a baby in a month"!!!
MF2, MF3, MF4, MF5, VS7, VS10+, VS12, Nero Vision Express. Ricoh and Sony 16x DVD recorder, Sony HC5 High def camera. Also Canopus ADVC110 for AV/DV input through firewire