Video Studio 9 on Dual Core CPUs

GuyL · Post by **GuyL** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:11 pm

"VideoStudio also optimized for Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology and Dual-CPU systems."

This is from the Video Studio product information page on Ulead's website. I'm currently running an AMD 3000+ and I am thinking of going to a AMD X2 3800+. Has anyone made a jump from any single core to dual core CPU? If so, did you notice any difference in VS?

brianosmi · Post by **brianosmi** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:35 pm

I went from a system that did not have a hyper-threading CPU (P4 2.4 ghz) to a hyper-threading CPU (P4 3.2 ghz).

I saw speed and performance improvements in every area, but the most dramatic was in rendering time. Going to the hyper-threading CPU shaved over a half hour of rendering time off of the final production to DVD, which to me was very impressive.

I'm not sure how a dual CPU set up would differ...

THoff · Post by **THoff** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:44 pm

How do you know the speed improvement isn't simply the result of having a faster CPU and possibly FSB/RAM?

I have a system with a P4D 840, which has two HT-enabled cores (i.e. Task Manager shows four processors). UVS 9 will use two processors fully while encoding to MPEG2, and the HT/dual-core enabled NVIDIA video drivers, I/O, and other processes that are running brings the total CPU utilization to around 60%, but Videostudio does not yet take full advantage of all available processor time.

The bottom line is that a two-processor (SMP or dual-core or HT enabled processor) system will be maxed out by Videostudio, and a SMP or dual-core system will be faster than a HT processor.

2Dogs · Post by **2Dogs** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:19 am

GuyL wrote:"I am thinking of going to a AMD X2 3800+. Has anyone made a jump from any single core to dual core CPU? If so, did you notice any difference in VS?

Hi GuyL,

you might check out the following links:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=2484

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=2650

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... =2410&p=10

All of the benchmark tests show a great improvement in video encoding with the X2's. AMD pretty much have the lead at the present time, whereas in the past, video encoding was one of the remaining strengths of Intel CPU's. Looks like the X2 3800+ more or less matches a Pentium 840 3.2 Extreme Edition for video encoding speed - at a fraction of the price!

Next year AMD are going over to a new socket (M2) and DDR2 support, but with no expected huge jump in performance, so an X2 3800+ is darn good bang for your buck - lucky you!

Terry Stetler · Post by **Terry Stetler** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:56 am

I noticed a major jump in rendering speed in all my Ulead and other dualie coded apps when I went from a single core to a dual core, even taking into account the clock difference (3800 vs 3000). Those 3800 X2's scream.

Tip: check the prices of the Opteron dual cores as well. They have 2x the cache per core of the X2's and often the price premium isn't as much as you'd think, esp. with the lower end versions.

GuyL · Post by **GuyL** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:02 pm

Thanks guys!

I think I will do a simple test and post it here when it is done so everyone can see the results. My system is staying the same exept for the CPU so this will be a good test. I will be going from an Athlon 64 3000+ to an Athlon 64 3800+ X2.

I think the simplest test will be to render the same AVI to MPEG2 showing the before and after. Stay tuned!

2Dogs · Post by **2Dogs** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:34 pm

GuyL wrote:
I think the simplest test will be to render the same AVI to MPGEG2 showing the before and after. Stay tuned!

Hi Guy,

I look forward to the results of your test! I'm a firm believer in the empirical approach myself, and would expect you to see something like a 50% improvement in rendering performance.

As Terry said, some of the Opterons are worth considering - particularly the 165, which you might even find for less than the X2 3800+. Check out this review if you're interested.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=2591

...and Happy Holidays!

Jabone · Post by **Jabone** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:38 am

I have a dual core AMD. I can tell you that it is fast... However, it only utilizes a single CPU. I even called support on this and they said yes, the program is not multi threaded per CPUs.

Dual core still helps, especially during capture and rendering as other PC tasks generally do not impact those operations.

cheers,

THoff · Post by **THoff** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 3:34 pm

As long as an application has multiple threads (UVS does) and doesn't change the CPU affinity masks to lock a thread to specific CPU(s), the scheduler in Windows is free to assign them to either core. Even though it may not be apparent, UVS will execute on both cores most of the time.

The biggest benefit of having multiple cores will come when you render your project to a video file, since this is the operation that can be parallelized the easiest. However, how much you benefit still depends on the codec(s) being used. If you output to MPEG2 format using the codec supplied with UVS, you'll be able to utilize two processors, real or logical (HT). If you have DivX 6 installed and output to DivX AVI, you can utilize at least four processors, though the audio codec you choose can become a bottleneck and keep you from achieving 100% CPU utilization.

renderman · Post by **renderman** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:02 pm

Hi all

Actually i have a p4 with HT and it works like a charm with ulead products. But I want it to junp into the dual core wagon. Have many doubts since I´m wanting the buy a athlon x2 for cheaper but after reading above and also reading what this guy says:

http://phpbb.ulead.com.tw/EN/viewtopic. ... light=core

I´m more cofussed. they are complaining the ulead soft don´t really uses dual core, only P4s use 100%. What do you think guys? specially Terry. Should I buy a p4D better?

Thanks.

GuyL · Post by **GuyL** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:10 pm

Jabone wrote:I have a dual core AMD. I can tell you that it is fast... However, it only utilizes a single CPU. I even called support on this and they said yes, the program is not multi threaded per CPUs.

Dual core still helps, especially during capture and rendering as other PC tasks generally do not impact those operations.

cheers,

Then how can Ulead claim that video studio is optimized for HT and Dual Core?

THoff · Post by **THoff** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:45 pm

First off, AMD processors do not support HT. Second, not all operations will benefit significantly from a second core.

MPEG2 encoding is one example where a second processor is used fully, at least on Intel processors, and I have no reason to believe that an AMD X2 processor is handled any differently.

renderman · Post by **renderman** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:33 pm

Ok that seems sense to me, But this guy complains:

"I've tested VideoStudio 9 and MediaStudio Pro 8. And they don't use dual core at all (only WMV render uses it). Nor mpeg1, mpeg2, avi, qt etc uses it. They only use 50% each CPU. I own a P4C 3.0 and it uses both threads nearly 100% in all renders."

when he says nor mpeg2, avi I think he meant rendering, then how come amd only uses 50% onf each CPU and intel uses 100%?

is ulead soft better coded to work with intel?

why the rendering is not been done in both cpus at nearly 100%?

If it takes me like 90 minutes to convert avi to mpeg2 one file on my p4 540J HT cpu, will it be faster to convert the same file on a x2 3800+ if it only uses 50/50? or maybe the guy complaining have to do some fix/trick to get both cores to work 100%.

I´m sorry for asking, probably this are dumb questions for many of you.

thanks in advance for your replies.

GuyL · Post by **GuyL** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:20 pm

THoff wrote:First off, AMD processors do not support HT. Second, not all operations will benefit significantly from a second core.

MPEG2 encoding is one example where a second processor is used fully, at least on Intel processors, and I have no reason to believe that an AMD X2 processor is handled any differently.

That is true, however, Ulead says support or both HT and dual core.

Terry Stetler · Post by **Terry Stetler** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:31 pm

First of all HT isn't all it's cracked up to be and with most functions only gives you a few percent advantage, and even then most improvements I've seen are in benchmark programs written with Intels help

I'd rather have good SMP (dual core/dual CPU) support anytime over HT.

Secondly Intels memory controller is external and AMD's is internal which, along with functional differences of the bus, gives the A64's a big advantage when it comes to pushing bits to/from host memory.

Thirdly; rendering. I give you this ZDNET/UK shootout that mirrors my experiences;

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/pro ... 5-5,00.htm

Granted these encoders are external, but what matters is that you have the option of "replacing" a non-SMP supporting internal codec, none of which by the way are written by Ulead, with an external encoder that does by frameserving. This way you can use any external encoder that can load an *.avi as if it were an internal codec.

Fortunately DebugMode offers a freeware frameserver that works in MSPro and VideoStudio;

http://www.debugmode.com/frameserver/

http://www.download.com/3000-2169_4-10418258.html

Note that the DebugMode Frameserver also allows frameserving over a network.

Fourthly; rendering speed isn't everything. SMP also gives you functional advantages, especially in the area of multitasking. Dunno about you but I multitask a lot while editing, often running other programs like AE, PhotoImpact, Cool3D etc. in the background as I edit. Dual core or Dual CPU this is an indispensible ability, and if AMD's do it better by way of its better memory control then so be it.

Alludo USER to USER Web Board

Video Studio 9 on Dual Core CPUs

Video Studio 9 on Dual Core CPUs

Re: Video Studio 9 on Dual Core CPUs