BD50 -> BD25 expected re-encode speeds

justLooking

Hi All

New to DVDFab and the forums (first post - woowho!)

Been playing with trying to get optimal performance for what I consider relatively fast hardware (from more of a benchmarking standpoint like benchmarking FPS in a game).

Using my Avatar Bluray original as the base line source file.

Thing is... Not sure what the optimal Performance is (IE. What I could be getting verse what I'm actually getting). Dug around the forums; but still a bit unsure..

Note: Currently not able to get Intel Quick Sync working atm (DVDFab crashes, stops with a error code, or just runs forever).

From my testing so far (with this machine and slower AMD x4), CUDA seems to be the best (lightning recoding on or off nets about the same overall process time)

Here are my results:

Software only: about 3.18 meg/sec and a process time of around 208 minutes
Software + Lightning Recoding: about 7.69 meg/sec and a process time of about 86 minutes
Cuda: about 8.27/MB sec and a process time of about 80 minutes
Cuda + Lightning Recording: about 8.07/MB sec and a process time of about 82 minutes

Note:

- In pure software mode, CPU Speed + number of Cores looked to be deciding factor in overall conversion times.. IE.. A AMD X4-970 3.6 GHZ CPU Processed the same BD image in about 400 minutes
- Disk I/O didn't seem to make much of a difference overall as long as as the I/O subsystem could feed enough data to DVDFab During re-encoding CPU Processing. Two exceptions were when the ISO image is being initially scanned and during the building of the final ISO image, where all available disk bandwidth was in use. (added about 25 minutes over the AMD processing)
- On a machine where the CPU is crazy fast, Disk I/O would then be more of a concern. IE. AMD - 15 minutes final ISO Build Time, i7 - 2 Minutes
- Running Source ISO, TEMP files, Final ISO on different Physical Drives (SSD) may help to tweak even more performance depending on how DVDFab processes data.

So my question to the forum is.. based on my hardware (in signature):

- is 80 minutes good?
- Anyone able to re-coding faster, if so, then any ideas as to why (IE. Faster CPU, Intel QS working, Multiple SSD, etc)
- If software (with Lightening) is close to Cuda, then is Cuda really working?
- If software (with Lightening) is close to Cuda, then which could be considered the better way for overall quality?

Any input is appreciated

Thanks

Wal

**What was done and Settings**

Image Copied to Hard drive from BluRay Media. BD50 to BD50.ISO with protection stripped (about 44 minutes and is not included in the re-encode times above)

Then down sample was performed

BluRay Copy -> Full Disc
Remove HD Audio: Enabled
BD50 -> BD25 Size 56% (39.784 -> 22.461)

CommonSetttings/General/AV Codec (this waS for Cuda without lightning)

Decode
- H.264: Cuda
- VC1: Cuda
- MPEG2: Cuda

Encode
- H.264: software + Cuda
- Lighting recoding: Not enabled

CommonSetttings/Bluray-Copy
- Enable Full Scan
- EncodingSettings: SlowSpees/HighQuailty

Graphics Chipset :
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

CUDA Driver Version: 4.0
CUDA Capability revision number: 2.1

Supported Video Codecs :
CUDA_MODE_H264
CUDA_MODE_VC1
CUDA_MODE_MPEG2
DXVA_MODE_H264
DXVA_MODE_VC1
DXVA_MODE_MPEG2
INTEL_MODE_H264
INTEL_MODE_MPEG2

CoreAVC : cannot be detected.

moore327

JustLooking, don't know if this will help or not. Can you enable hyperthreading for your i7 CPU? I know the the additional cores might help.

I will try re-coding LOTR with your settings and post the results later today.

moore327

JustLooking, just tried encoding LOTR ROTK from 50 to 25 directly from disc to harddrive using CUDA only. GPU usage was @ 98%.

It averaged out to 10.0 MB per sec with a process time of 57 min. This is due to the fact that I am running a GTX 580 and my blu-ray burner is 12x and yours is 10x, so my faster read speeds are helping alot.

justLooking

Hi moore327

If you're pulling from Bluray directly, then I'm thinking your faster as I'm first imaging the Bluray to HardDrive first, and then processing it off the hard drive (found running off the Bluray too slow, as I've run like 20 re-encoding trying different things.. I like to tinker)

My break out is as followed:
40 minutes to read BD50 to iso to hard drive (one time)
5-10 minutes (check of image. 100% disk, very little cpu)
70 minutes to down sample to BD25
2 minutes to generate BD25 ISO

Unforchantely dont have LOTR on Bluray so can't do an apples to apples compare. (bought the collectors editions on DVD a few years back, and don't want to buy the series on Bluray until I can get a fair price and feel like watching it again.. seen it like 6 times.. lol)

Hyper threading is enabled (4 real and 4 hyper thread CPU). Also tested with a AMD 970 X4 at 3.5ghz which was about 1/2 as fast as the i7 using software (Would like to try a machine which has more than 8 cores; but don't have access to one :-(

Not sure about GPU.. What tool are you using to check GPU?

What CPU usage is shown during the re-encoding? I'm running about 70-80% CPU.

Aside: If you ever use passmark.com to benchmark your machine? If so, I've attached my PT file for this machine, which can be used to get an idea on where the 2 machines differences (if interested). Also included a JPG of the difference between my i7 and AMD X4 (CPU upgraded from a X2)

Thanks for the reply

Wal

moore327

Not sure about GPU.. What tool are you using to check GPU?

I am using the latest version of GPU-Z.

What CPU usage is shown during the re-encoding? I'm running about 70-80% CPU.

When I have both software and cuda selected, I am at about 50-60% cpu usage across 12 cores.

I'll have to try the iso thingy to see how it compares... more to follow on this.

ernielee

[QUOTE=justLooking;94034]Hi All

New to DVDFab and the forums (first post - woowho!)

Been playing with trying to get optimal performance for what I consider relatively fast hardware (from more of a benchmarking standpoint like benchmarking FPS in a game).

Using my Avatar Bluray original as the base line source file.

Thing is... Not sure what the optimal Performance is (IE. What I could be getting verse what I'm actually getting). Dug around the forums; but still a bit unsure..

Note: Currently not able to get Intel Quick Sync working atm (DVDFab crashes, stops with a error code, or just runs forever).

From my testing so far (with this machine and slower AMD x4), CUDA seems to be the best (lightning recoding on or off nets about the same overall process time)

Here are my results:

Software only: about 3.18 meg/sec and a process time of around 208 minutes
Software + Lightning Recoding: about 7.69 meg/sec and a process time of about 86 minutes
Cuda: about 8.27/MB sec and a process time of about 80 minutes
Cuda + Lightning Recording: about 8.07/MB sec and a process time of about 82 minutes

Note:

- In pure software mode, CPU Speed + number of Cores looked to be deciding factor in overall conversion times.. IE.. A AMD X4-970 3.6 GHZ CPU Processed the same BD image in about 400 minutes
- Disk I/O didn't seem to make much of a difference overall as long as as the I/O subsystem could feed enough data to DVDFab During re-encoding CPU Processing. Two exceptions were when the ISO image is being initially scanned and during the building of the final ISO image, where all available disk bandwidth was in use. (added about 25 minutes over the AMD processing)
- On a machine where the CPU is crazy fast, Disk I/O would then be more of a concern. IE. AMD - 15 minutes final ISO Build Time, i7 - 2 Minutes
- Running Source ISO, TEMP files, Final ISO on different Physical Drives (SSD) may help to tweak even more performance depending on how DVDFab processes data.

So my question to the forum is.. based on my hardware (in signature):

- is 80 minutes good?
- Anyone able to re-coding faster, if so, then any ideas as to why (IE. Faster CPU, Intel QS working, Multiple SSD, etc)
- If software (with Lightening) is close to Cuda, then is Cuda really working?
- If software (with Lightening) is close to Cuda, then which could be considered the better way for overall quality?

Any input is appreciated

Thanks

Wal

**What was done and Settings**

Image Copied to Hard drive from BluRay Media. BD50 to BD50.ISO with protection stripped (about 44 minutes and is not included in the re-encode times above)

Then down sample was performed

BluRay Copy -> Full Disc
Remove HD Audio: Enabled
BD50 -> BD25 Size 56% (39.784 -> 22.461)

CommonSetttings/General/AV Codec (this waS for Cuda without lightning)

Decode
- H.264: Cuda
- VC1: Cuda
- MPEG2: Cuda

Encode
- H.264: software + Cuda
- Lighting recoding: Not enabled

CommonSetttings/Bluray-Copy
- Enable Full Scan
- EncodingSettings: SlowSpees/HighQuailty

Graphics Chipset :
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

CUDA Driver Version: 4.0
CUDA Capability revision number: 2.1

Supported Video Codecs :
CUDA_MODE_H264
CUDA_MODE_VC1
CUDA_MODE_MPEG2
DXVA_MODE_H264
DXVA_MODE_VC1
DXVA_MODE_MPEG2
INTEL_MODE_H264
INTEL_MODE_MPEG2

CoreAVC : cannot be detected.[/QUOTE]

Try Decode all to software and Encode Cuda+Software on your A/V setting.
Your I7 2600 has Turbo check if it is on Turbo on your CPU is @3.8
Do a test let us know if you get better time.
80-82min is very good.

justLooking

Find attached, a jpg of an encode in progress with perfmon, cpu-z, gpu-z stats

I am using the latest version of GPU-Z

Running 99% most of the time. Thanks for the info on this tool :-)

I'll have to try the iso thingy to see how it compares

Think it'll be another nail in my systems coffin... Expect you'll drop another 5-10 minutes ;-)

Aside: the more I think on this "iso thingy" :-) , your current Direct From Bluray Reader method seems more logical/easier , as you can start it up, and come back with it all done... Might have some extra wear/tear on the reader; but less baby sitting. Getting everything quickly is only really relevant if your sitting waiting for it to finish.

Anyhow, I've come to the sad realization, that this system I put together is faster than the previous; but not nearly as fast as I was expected and truly gets smoked by faster machines (some are 4x what mine rates at)

As per your system, the overall Video card benchmark posted on passmark is at least 25% faster than mine

Since the CPU isn't maxing out on yours or my machines, most likely the Nvida Video Card is the bottle neck where you're 25% works out to somewhere around our difference in times. Looks like I'll be looking into a upcoming GForce 6 :D

Hopefully the Sandybridge Quick Sync ain't just hype, and when i can get it working with DVDFab, will get some improvement over CUDA. I really wanted to beat my chest on the awesomeness of this machine.. lol

Wal

justLooking

[QUOTE=ernielee;94059]Try Decode all to software and Encode Cuda+Software on your A/V setting.[/QUOTE]

Humm.. Offload all the decoding to the CPU (which has about %20 spare), which hopefully max out the CPU and free up the CUDA for encoding only.. Sounds like something to try

Your I7 2600 has Turbo check if it is on Turbo on your CPU is @3.8

Its enabled I believe; but from what I've read, its not meant to step up when all cores are going full tilt, over temperature, over current usage. From what I've noticed the CPU ramps up to 104%. I'll have another dig into it though, as I could of pooched something (machine is the new tinker-toy :-)

80-82min is very good.

I'm hoping for better... lol

Do a test let us know if you get better time.

For sure.. I'm sure I'm going to be re-encoding this Avatar Bluray image many more times with IQS testing, once I get solid feel of how to max on CUDA ;-)

Thanks for your input

Wal

justLooking

[QUOTE=ernielee;94059]Try Decode all to software and Encode Cuda+Software on your A/V setting[/QUOTE]

Not good.. CPU at 100% ,GPU 24%. Well over 3 hours.. Didn't finish it.

Oh well... worth a try

Wal

ernielee

[QUOTE=justLooking;94065]Not good.. CPU at 100% ,GPU 24%. Well over 3 hours.. Didn't finish it.

Oh well... worth a try

Wal[/QUOTE]

One more thing to try in
CommonSetttings/Bluray-Copy
- Enable Full Scan
- EncodingSettings: SlowSpees/HighQuailty
Change EncodingSetting:FastSpeed/NormalQuality

justLooking

[QUOTE=ernielee;94085]
- Enable Full Scan
- EncodingSettings: SlowSpees/HighQuailty
Change EncodingSetting:FastSpeed/NormalQuality[/QUOTE]

A little faster.. Didn't run in the whole way through. Based on what I've seen, a little over 60 minutes would of been the overall time

was getting about 10.8MB/s when I stopped the test (Kids wanted to use the machine for LOL)

GPU about the same, CPU a lot more erratic (30-80%)

Looks like the bottle neck is the GPU :-(

Wal

ernielee

10.8MB/s that very good.
I do movie only decode software encode software+cuda and
avg is 12.5MB/s @40min avg time, CPU 95% GPU 60% avg.Some movies are faster.

justLooking

[QUOTE=ernielee;94169]10.8MB/s that very good.[/QUOTE]

But at the possible sacrifice of quality using FastSpeed/NormalQuality over SlowSpees/HighQuailty... it may not be worth the savings in time..

Gotta have a balance over screaming something through verse having the best end results (do it fast verse do it right).

I do movie only decode software encode software+cuda and
avg is 12.5MB/s @40min avg time, CPU 95% GPU 60% avg.

Only been doing the full Disk

Look like your bottle neck is most likely CPU based.

I've been doing some more digging in the forums and seeing some opinions that CUDA helps in throughput; but lacks in overall quality

It might of been wiser for me to spend a bit more, and get the fastest CPU, verses spending an extra 100 dollars on a video card... Who really needs 130+ FPS in games when 60 would do :-)

I'm just running another test with Software Decoding and Software + Lightning encoding, getting about 9.6MB/s at around 90 minutes expected finish time

The strange thing is, that my CPU is between 80% and 95% usage. Would of expected closer to 100% usuage

Some movies are faster.

Very true. Depends on how much work is involved to decode/encode based on amount of video data, and how much motion is occurring.

For us to have a more accurate representation of the differences, we'd have to be using the same source.