Neat Video community Forum Index
www.neatvideo.com
Neat Video community
support - help - questions and answers - sharing experience and opinions - feedback - suggestions - backup contact
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

XP with CS3 is faster than vista with CS4?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Neat Video community Forum Index -> Bugs, issues
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sonics



Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:42 pm    Post subject: XP with CS3 is faster than vista with CS4? Reply with quote

I own an E6400 @ 2.6Ghz

With windows XP 32 bit with premiere CS3.20 I rendered a 10 second 1440x1080 clip with temp filter 1 and adaptive 1

I did the same with windows vista 64 bit with premiere CS4.00

result:

XP 32 -> CS3 : 4 minutes 16 seconds
Vista 64 -> CS4 : 5 minutes 46 seconds


How can this be? :s

I expected it to be the same at least.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NVTeam



Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vista is slower than XP, a lot of people have been discussing that all over the Internet..

Vlad
_________________
Neat Video team
noise reduction for video and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ECB



Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suggest you rerun the same test but use CS3 on Vista X64. There are some performance issues with PP CS4.

EB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jpsdr



Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello.

Maybe simply try XP 64 and not Vista 64 ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sonics



Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The update from cs4.00 to cs4.01 did some good.

I did all tests now:

1440x1080 clip 15 sec neat video rendering

XP32 + CS3.20 5 min 50
xp32 + CS4.01 6 min 05

vista64 + CS3.20 5 min 56
vista64 + CS4.01 6 min 29

1440 x 1080 H264 rendering showed similar results (1 min 40 clip no filters)

XP32 + CS3.20 8 min 50
xp32 + CS4.01 10 min 15

vista64 + CS3.20 9 min 05
vista64 + CS4.01 10 min 50

some performance loss when using CS4 and also with vista64
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sonics



Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Today I upgraded to a Q9400 and put it on 3.2 Ghz
In theory it should be 120% faster than my E6400 2.66 Ghz

It showed some interesting results:

Neat video rendering were around 72% faster

H264 encoding (no filters) were around 130% faster

somehow when rendering the work area in CS3 / 4 neatvideo doesn't benefit the CPU boost as much as H264 encoding?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NVTeam



Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps the encoding really needs some of the new processor instructions available in Q9400 but not available in E6400, while NV doesn't need/use them. The most important parameters for NV to run faster are processor speed and memory bandwidth.
_________________
Neat Video team
noise reduction for video and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sonics



Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NVTeam wrote:
Perhaps the encoding really needs some of the new processor instructions available in Q9400 but not available in E6400, while NV doesn't need/use them. The most important parameters for NV to run faster are processor speed and memory bandwidth.


Well I had a 2.66Ghz dual core, now a 3.2 Ghz quadcore, that is 120% more processor speed. My memory bandwith went from 333Mhz to 400Mhz.

That's why I wondered why rendertime only decreased 72%. I did another test with a 15 sec 1440x1080 clip:

1 core enabled: 07 minutes 11
2 cores enabled: 04 minutes 09
3 cores enabled: 03 minutes 35
4 cores enabled: 03 minutes 24

It seems neatvideo (in combo with premiere?) does not realy benefit using core 3 and 4.

My E6400 @ 2.66Ghz did this in 5 minutes 50
My Q9400 with 2 cores enabled in 4 minutes 09, is 40% faster.
20% of it due to more clock speed and the rest new instructions?

ah well maybey i go too much offtopic here for this forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NVTeam



Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My interpetation of the figures for 1, 2, 3 and 4 cores - the memory bandwidth of that specific computer is the main bottleneck in the computation process when more cores are enabled. With 1 or 2 cores, the bottleneck is the processor speed, with 4 cores - memory bandwidth. The change from 333Mhz to 400Mhz (20% increase) is clearly not significant enough to satisfy the needs of 2 times more cores doing two times more of memory intensive work.

So, Q9400 does work faster than E6400, but its potential is not fully utilized because of the limited memory bandwidth.

BTW, I think Q9450 would better (than Q9400) cope with the bandwidth problem thanks to its two times larger L2 cache.

Vlad
_________________
Neat Video team
noise reduction for video and photos


Last edited by NVTeam on Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sonics



Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NVTeam wrote:


BTW, I think Q9450 would better (than Q9400) cope with the bandwidth problem thanks to its two times larger L2 cache.

Vlad


How fast does your Q9450 render a HDV clip? Is it a big difference or like 10-15% compared to the Q9400?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NVTeam



Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Q9450 3.3GHz, XP32, Pr CS4.0.1, 1440x1080 25p, 15 sec, filtered by NV (rad 1), encoded into h264: 4 min 55 sec

Q9450 3.3GHz, XP32, VirtualDub, 1440x1080 25p, 15 sec, filtered by NV (rad 1), uncompressed output: 2 min 45 sec

Vlad
_________________
Neat Video team
noise reduction for video and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sonics



Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NVTeam wrote:
Q9450 3.3GHz, XP32, Pr CS4.0.1, 1440x1080 25p, 15 sec, filtered by NV (rad 1), encoded into h264: 4 min 55 sec

Vlad


VBR 1 pass?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NVTeam



Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 2237

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most likely (my colleague who did the test is offline now).

Vlad
_________________
Neat Video team
noise reduction for video and photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sonics



Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NVTeam wrote:
Q9450 3.3GHz, XP32, Pr CS4.0.1, 1440x1080 25p, 15 sec, filtered by NV (rad 1), encoded into h264: 4 min 55 sec

Vlad


with vbr 1-pass I did the same one in 5 min 48

That is 18% faster

since your q9450 is more overclocked than mine (running 3% faster + 3% more bandwith) it would mean that the 6M more L2 means 12% faster rendering.

btw cbr rendering was only 6 seconds faster.

good to know Smile thanks for the efforts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Neat Video community Forum Index -> Bugs, issues All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group