|
|
| venomousmule |
| Posted: Aug 31 2010, 06:14 AM |
 |
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 4
Member No.: 22238
Joined: 11-October 07
|
I'm a long time, casual vdub user who just upgraded my home pc. I've not found any codecs which have been coded for x64 systems - I know the 32 bit versions work just fine but I just bought this 64 bit system and I feel like I should use it. Also, I've not seen any codecs which take advantage of multi-core encoding. Does anyone have any suggestions? |
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Aug 31 2010, 10:44 AM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
Almost all main stream codecs (e.g. DivX, XviD, x264) use multiple cores nowadays, but not so much 64 bit.
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| fredgiblet |
| Posted: Aug 31 2010, 09:30 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 356
Member No.: 22601
Joined: 13-December 07
|
Seriously don't bother with the 64-bit, I did the same thing you are doing and it's not worth it.
Pretty much every modern codec has multi-threading support, in the XviD configuration it's under Other Options at the bottom of the configuration screen (default is autodetect), in x264 it's under the Rate Control and Other tab in the upper-right, set it to 1.5 times the number of cores you have. |
|
| venomousmule |
| Posted: Sep 1 2010, 04:42 AM |
|
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 4
Member No.: 22238
Joined: 11-October 07
|
Thanks for the feedback, on the positive side it seems like eventually things will migrate to 64 but at this rate I'll probably upgrade my computer again before then. |
|
| evropej |
| Posted: Sep 1 2010, 09:03 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 514
Member No.: 26523
Joined: 28-November 09
|
I tried using windows 7 64 bit for the extra ram.
Boy was it a worthless adventure.
You would think after so many years of 64 bit processors that it would be mainstream but the fact is that most programmers are still 32 bit. |
|
| fredgiblet |
| Posted: Sep 1 2010, 09:43 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 356
Member No.: 22601
Joined: 13-December 07
|
Processors are less important than you think, OS support is crucial. MS released XP x64 5 years ago, but no one bought it, Vista came with a 64-bit version but it wasn't standard so for the first year or so no one bought it, then RAM prices dropped, 4GB of RAM became common and 64-bit Vista started being used.
From a programmers standpoint 64-bit has only been mainstream for 1-2 years, and even now 64-bit OS's probably make up less than 25% of the market since there's so many older computers out there that are either running 32-bit processors or 32-bit OS's. Add to this the facts that 64-bit offers effectively no benefit for the vast majority of programs and that 64-bit OS's will run 32 bit software and that MS apparently hasn't made the 64-bit Windows programming environment particularly inviting and there's very little motivation to make a 64-bit version of their products. So it's not really that surprising at all one you take in all the issues.
Things will change in the future somewhat, Windows 8 will only come in 64-bit versions and once SP1 for 7 is released there will likely be an influx of 64-bit computers from corporate users who are waiting to upgrade to 7. In the meantime it really doesn't make much of a difference, the programs that WILL benefit from 64-bit for the most part are already being released in it and have been for some time. |
|
