Should I be showing more than 10% CPU usage while using HDlink to transcode my AVCHD files to CFHD? Thought it would be using a lot more of my processor?

Is there anything i can do to speed up the transcoding? Not that its slow, just I have a lot of files to go through heh. Thanks!

My Computer:

Vista Ultimate 64bit
I7 920 processor
12gigs ram
ATI Radeon 4850 HD

Weird, my

Win 7 64bit
I7 920 processor
6 gigs ram
ATI Radeon 4850 HD

uses 90% CPU converting AVCHD, and does so very fast, about 2-2.5X real-time.

My system is the same (except 12 GB RAM) & my experience is the same as David's:
90% CPU
2.0-2.5 RT transcode speed

humm it will go up to around 80% for around 5 seconds every now and then (and chew through a conversion much faster), but then settles back down to around 10% where it stays a majority of the time. Is there some setting in Vista I have activated that is reserving the processors power? I seem to remember there being some setting i read about where you can unlock how many cores the processor uses, but that doesnt seem to be the issue as I see all 8 working in task manager. Any ideas?

Here's an image of the type of CPU usage spike I typically get:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/CPUspeed.jpg

Are you reading or writing to a very slow drive or networked storage? If you storage prevents data from being written quickly, you CPU will slow to match.

Good point.
I always write the CFHD transcode to a RAID 0

The AVCHD files I am transcoding are on this drive, and are also being written to this drive:
(it is not in any sort of raid)

Newegg.com - Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136284)


I dont think this is the problem as it will go up to 90% CPU usage and transcode much faster for about 10 seconds, then settle back down to 10%, how would that 90% for 10 seconds be possible if it was a bandwidth issue?

That is why I thought of a bandwidth issue, it seems like a cache is filling up. Although that drive seem fine, do check it with a speed test utility (AJA has a good one.)

Should I be showing more than 10% CPU usage while using HDlink to transcode my AVCHD files to CFHD? Thought it would be using a lot more of my processor?

Is there anything i can do to speed up the transcoding? Not that its slow, just I have a lot of files to go through heh. Thanks!

My Computer:

Vista Ultimate 64bit
I7 920 processor
12gigs ram
ATI Radeon 4850 HD

I have a similar setup but with slightly faster i7/975 and with SATA root disc but all video and work on RAID0 stripped pair of WD drives.

HDlink is wonderfully multithreaded so making CFHD out of AVCHD takes my system to 95+% utilization. However making a CFHD output from a CS4 timeline or encoding that output to SD or HD MPEG in CS4 Encore only pushes my quad to 25-30% utilization. In otherwords, for that work it might as well be a dual. I sure hope upcomming CS5 + Nvidia Quadro does a lot better than that.

Don

Sounds like a slow drive with write caching turned off....

"Sounds like a slow drive with write caching turned off.... "


That may be it, im not sure, so here are some tests I did. I dont know much about HD setup, my friend built me this machine to edit on, so let me know what i need to tweak to get the HD working right.


----------------------------
HD test #1, Read benchmark.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/PCHDDreadtest.jpg

----------------------------
HD test #2, Write benchmark. (got an error)(i dont think this drive is partitioned, so dont know what the problem is)(i do have two drives that are in Raid 0 and partitioned, but they are totally separate from my two 1TB western digital footage storage drives)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/PCHDDwritetest.jpg

----------------------------
HD test #3, File benchmark.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/PCHDDfilebench.jpg

----------------------------
HD test #4, Random access (read)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/PCHDDrandomaccessread.jpg

----------------------------
HD test #5, Random access (write) (got an error)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/PCHDDrandomaccesswrite.jpg

----------------------------
General Drive Info:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/PCHDDinfo.jpg

----------------------------


Let me know what you guys make of this. I have no idea what any of it means. Thanks


- Shawn

Don't think it's the HD. I don't have my HDs in a RAID and I'm getting a constant 90% CPU usage on my conversions.

Shawn, have you run a Prime95 test against your CPU? I'm curious if there is something wrong with it. Prime95 will peg your CPU cores at 100%. If Prime95 doesn't do that, then there might be something wrong with your CPU.

Also, download RealTemp program. It will tell you the temperature of each core. Not sure if it's a temperature issue.

Just wanted to post some info and a download link for the latest Prime95. I use it regularly for work.

Prime95 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime95)

Shawn, just because that particular drive has the capability to cache writes doesn't mean it's turned on.

To check, you can go to the "Device Manager", right click on the drive you want to check (under the "Drives" section) and select "Properties", then check the tab "Policies" to see if write caching is enabled for that drive. It should be, if it isn't. The drive cache might have nothing to do with your problem, but a quick check will eliminate it as a possibility.

One more thing. Onboard RAID's chipsets can be really lousy and most are (please nobody flame me on this, I've found out the hard way it's a proven fact). We just got rid of RAID5's on three workstations and returned to single, mirrored drives for boot and data (four 1 TB's). They are actually faster, more secure when working and easier to replace when they fail (which they eventually will). We use MirrorFolder for this, which seems to work pretty well.

At the price of good RAID cards, it's hard to justify the layout for the benefit gained. Fast, large, single drives are so much easier and less hassle for very small workgroups or standalone systems.

Looks like write caching is on for the drive im pulling the footage off of and also writing it to"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/PCHDDwritesettings.jpg


--------------

Running Prime95 did put my processor at 100% for as long as i was running prime95.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/addicus/PCHDDprime96.jpg

--------------


Could the problem be that the drive im running Vista and Cineform on is too slow? (it also has write caching on)

Ive got two of these drives:

Newegg.com - Western Digital Caviar Black WD6401AALS 640GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136319)

in raid 0, split into 3 partitions. one for gaming, one for editing, and a media cache for render files.

Tell me your operating system is not installed on the same two-drive RAID. If so, that's your problem. Windows will take priority over your video file access.

You'll get better performance with one drive running the OS and programs with your video files on the other drive. Also, partitioning slows down drive performance.

I have 4 hard drives in my computer:


2 640gb Western Digitals in Raid 0, split into 3 partitions:

Vista ultimate 64bit gaming partition

Vista ultimate 64bit editing partition

Render file cache partition


2 1TB Western Digitals, both holding all the video files that cineform is reading and writing.

I'd switch my render file settings to use the 2-1TB RAID. Even though your current rendering is written to a separate partition on your boot drive, Windows still has and takes control of that hard drive pair, limiting access to your rendering area.

You can read up on how to configure your storage at http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+NLE+Video+Storage+FAQ/0xc0dc681654a5dba55ca08f303a6c38df.aspx

So is everyone stumped as to why im only using 10% CPU when transcoding using HDlink? because I am

Have you try converting to a different volume (like setting the target as your system drive.)

"Have you try converting to a different volume (like setting the target as your system drive.)"


This works! When i convert to any other volume besides the one the footage is on it uses around 80 - 90% of the processor. I guess it just cant read the AVCHD files from the drive and write them back onto the same drive as the converted cineform with full processor power?

Do the 1TB drives i got look like they would have problems converting footage on them and also saving the CFHD back to that same drive? I think i gave a link to what type of drive they are on the first page of this thread. Thanks David!

Guess Ill just have to save the converted files onto a separate drive then move them back onto the drive where im storing all the files for this project.

- Shawn

So is everyone stumped as to why im only using 10% CPU when transcoding using HDlink? because I am

I have been reading about issues with computing power and the i7-920.

it looks like a chinese version is on the street with many users not knowing they are operating with a cheap chip
Newegg said Monday that it is conducting an investigation of recent shipments of "questionable" Intel Core i7-920 processors from Newegg. The news was first reported by [H]ard|OCP.

^^

Those were not even real chips and would not even function. It has nothing to do with the OPs problem.

"Have you try converting to a different volume (like setting the target as your system drive.)"


This works! When i convert to any other volume besides the one the footage is on it uses around 80 - 90% of the processor. I guess it just cant read the AVCHD files from the drive and write them back onto the same drive as the converted cineform with full processor power?

Do the 1TB drives i got look like they would have problems converting footage on them and also saving the CFHD back to that same drive? I think i gave a link to what type of drive they are on the first page of this thread. Thanks David!

Guess Ill just have to save the converted files onto a separate drive then move them back onto the drive where im storing all the files for this project.

- Shawn

It is an ATA limitation (remember, Serial ATA, or SATA, is still not a full-duplex connection - but is rather only a half-duplex interface). The interface can only allow data to be transferred in one direction at a time. And if data tries to access the bus in both directions simultaneously, everything that's associated with SATA bus transfers will slow down - and the CPU utilization will be lowered to match the limitations of the bus itself.

In other words, if you try to both read and write to the same SATA drive at the same time, you might as well save the money and use just a single large-capacity internal physical drive for everything (operating system, programs and media).