|
|
| Thefumigator |
| Posted: Feb 9 2005, 05:26 PM |
 |
|
Unregistered
|
Hi everyone!!, wanted to share my first testing about the speed difference between 32 and 64 bit virtual dub, running 32 and 64 bit Xvid respectively. Here are the details:
TEST:
Recompression of an Xvid file, lenght 3:10 aprox.
Hardware:
Asus K8V-X socket 754 + athlon 64 3000 + Kingston 512MB DDR400 Cas Latency 3
(similar performance impact should be achieved with an "EMT64 enabled" Intel processor)
Software:
Virtual dub 1.6.3 64 bit + Codec Xvid 64 bit (under Windows XP x64 RC)
VS
Virtual dub 1.5.1 32 bit + Xvid 32 bit (under Windows 2000 32 bit)
Results:
Second pass full recompress:
Decoder configuration 32 , 64:
 
 
Motion configuration 32 , 64:
 
Profile 32, 64:
 
Doubts:
- Don't know if closed GOV is significative in performance. I don't have enough time and I just realized watching the screenshot
-As far as I know different versions of Virtual Dub don't have perfromance impact, at least, version 1.5.1 is no faster or slower that 1.6
-It seems Xvid 64 bit I've got is compiled using Intel 64 bit compiler, which makes programs to run slower on AMD 64 processors (quite logical). However, don't know which compiler was used for Virtual dub 64 bit, but as far as I know, Microsoft has a preview 64 bit version of Visual Basic .NET 2005 so people who wants to make some noise may want to download that for free.
-Deringing to the 64 bit test, don't know if this has impact in performance.
Conclusions
the 64 bit test is 28 seconds faster than the 32 bit test. That's about 20% faster. Imagine having a 10 hours processing with Xvid, under 64 bit that would take 8 hours. It's quite interesting knowing that everythin including windows is still beta and not hardly optimized for 64 bit but just compiled to run. I hope to see a better version of 64 bit Vdub and Xvid. Does anyone know if DivX is going to release a 64 bit version? Avisynth 64 bit is going to be released it seems... Hope you like this test.
|
|
| Thefumigator |
| Posted: Feb 9 2005, 06:10 PM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
-I forgot to mention that The RC version I used is the latest available in the microsoft website. 
-Where it says "Visual Basic .NET 2005" it should say "Visual Studio .Net 2005"
Note that it's 32 bit also.  |
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Feb 9 2005, 06:56 PM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
you used XviD 1.0.x for 32 bit and XviD 1.1 for 64-bit. It is known there are speed-ups in XviD 1.1 compared with 1.0.3. Also, why didnt you use the same VirtualDub for both tests? There are 32-bit versions for the programs you used with 64-bit. It would certainly straighten out the test. 
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| Thefumigator |
| Posted: Feb 9 2005, 07:13 PM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
I'm not sure about the 64 bit Xvid compilation, I've got it from a forum I even don't remember and it only came with 2 dll and an inf file... so I can't tell if it's v 1.1 but if you know where o get something more official, tell me and I will redo the test.
As far as I know, virtual dub 1.6.3 will not make Xvid faster. But if Xvid 1.1 is faster than 1.03 then I should update mine (XviD-1.0.3-20122004 _Final Release_
) Didn't know that there was a 1.1 version of Xvid LOL.  |
|
| Thefumigator |
| Posted: Feb 9 2005, 07:38 PM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
Uhmm tested Vdub 32 bit v 1.6.3 with the latest Koepi's Xvid, quite an improvement over the old Xvid... 
Well... 32 bit version is still slower. But at least we can find the difference between new and old Xvid... 
Anyway, I still have doubts about the 64 bit version I've got, if someone knows about a compiled version of Xvid 64 bit (that expressally says 1.1b) please tell me (direct link would be good, thanks)  |
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Feb 9 2005, 07:42 PM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
it is certainly 1.1 since VHQ for b-frames was implemented first in 1.1. Doesnt it say anything in the about section in the codec config screen?
[edit] im moving this to "general" as it doesnt really fit in the bug-report section, but still is relevant for VirtualDub
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| Thefumigator |
| Posted: Feb 9 2005, 08:00 PM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
HEY!! I also tested old virtual dub with new Xvid:
As you can see in the post above, I seem to get a slight performance boost (2:38 against 2:28) when using the new Vdub 1.6.3.
I hoped to get better performance in 64 bit...
many 32 bit programs out there run quite slower than their 64 bit versions... trying to test 64 bit capabilities with virtual dub 64 and Xvid 64 was quite a mistake, since they are too new... I'll wait for the x86-64 asm code to be optimized for speed
|
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Feb 9 2005, 08:23 PM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
i must warn you though, the tests you do are rather short (take 10.000 frames as a minimum). And to be really proper you should actually reboot after each encode... but yeah, its still indicative i think.
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| Thefumigator |
| Posted: Feb 10 2005, 12:45 AM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
One note to add though, someone at doom9 forum told me that my encode was quite slow, and that his pentium 3 1.1Ghz was almost that speedy. The file is already encoded in Xvid (so I recompressed in Xvid) and it is 720x352, quite huge surface to encode, and decoding that resolution is quite a task I mean, maybe is not as encoding but it takes a little bit of CPU usage.
ALSO: Don't look at framerate since the it goes down and up all the time, I suggest to look at time spend to encode.
I disagree, I actually don't need to reboot, I take care of my windows installation as if it was a Ford Mustang maniac. Trust me... |
|
| fccHandler |
| Posted: Feb 10 2005, 07:06 AM |
|
|
Administrator n00b
Group: Moderators
Posts: 3961
Member No.: 280
Joined: 13-September 02
|
| QUOTE (Thefumigator @ Feb 9 2005, 08:45 PM) | | I disagree, I actually don't need to reboot, I take care of my windows installation as if it was a Ford Mustang maniac. Trust me... |
Me too!
But Windows itself caches file reads (and presumably lots of other stuff). Haven't you ever noticed that the second time you read from a file it's often significantly faster than the first time?
Rebooting flushes all of Window's buffers and caches, so theoretically it should make your results more accurate.
--------------------
May the FOURCC be with you... |
|
| phaeron |
| Posted: Feb 10 2005, 07:23 AM |
|
|
Virtualdub Developer
Group: Administrator
Posts: 7773
Member No.: 61
Joined: 30-July 02
|
The 32-bit build of VirtualDub is cheating slightly -- it is using MMX-optimized pixmap converters while the 64-bit build is not (because I haven't written 64-bit SSE2 versions yet). Tweaking the video format to do direct YCbCr-to-YCbCr recoding so that the pixmap converters aren't used may make a difference. Check the real-time profiler and make sure the video compression is taking the lion's share of the CPU time.
|
|
| squid_80 |
| Posted: Feb 10 2005, 09:22 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 594
Member No.: 13813
Joined: 22-January 05
|
In case anyone's wondering, there's more information about the windows x64 port of xvid at doom9.org.
I've also done a x64 version of huffyuv: http://home.iprimus.com.au/ajdunstan/huffyuv64.zip
There's no exe installer, just unzip, right click the inf file and install. Also I haven't tested huffyuv on RC1 (1289).
(now you see why I want to get MPEG2 streams into vdub64 ) |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Feb 10 2005, 09:51 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
in the context of this story, this one holds some interesting points too;
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/pentium4-xvid-opt/
who said person building xvid will hit all the right switches needed for codec to go faster?
perhaps squid's version is better, though.
--------------------
my signature:
 |
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Feb 10 2005, 11:35 AM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
| QUOTE (Thefumigator @ Feb 10 2005, 01:45 AM) | | I disagree, I actually don't need to reboot, I take care of my windows installation as if it was a Ford Mustang maniac. Trust me... |
me too: almost 7 days uptime now --> http://www.uptime-project.net/page.php?pag...ofile&uid=42418
but yeah, flushing the caches was my main concern.
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| Thefumigator |
| Posted: Feb 10 2005, 08:58 PM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
stephan V : I think I have a record here 
Phaeron: What do you mean? "Check the real-time profiler and make sure the video compression is taking the lion's share of the CPU time"
Squid_80: Keep Working on it! |
|
