DVDShrink Speed Question vs Computer Processor

I use DVD Shrink quite a bit and usually always rip with DVDDecrypt and then use DVDShrink to complete the compression and burn either in Nero or use DVDShrink. The question I have is that when I use an older version of DVDShrink it usually takes about 1 1/2 hours on my Pentium lll 1 ghz system (I have fast ATA133 Hard Drives) to do a analysis on the file. Then it takes about another 1 1/2 to 2 hrs to back it up. I find the newer 3.2 version of DVDShrink to be much slower than the previous versions. It normally takes around 5 1/2 hours for the process. Can anybody give me an ideas as to what to expect if I upgrade from my Pentium lll 1 ghz to a Pentium lV 3 ghz system. I am talking about using the Northwood Core with 800 FSB, not the slower Prescott. I have a MSI Neo2 motherboard in my closet for over a year now but the Pentium 4's are not coming down at all like I thought they would. The 2.4 to 2.6 ghz Pentium lV cpu's with the 800 FSB's are still in the area of $150. But I know they will overclock easily to over 3 ghz. Please don't reply about overclocking, I have done it for 10 years and never ever had a cpu failure because I carefully monitor my systems and provide more than adequate cooling. For those who aren't aware, all newer Pentiums within the last couple years have built in thermal protection to protect the core also and they will literally automatically slow down before any core damage could occur. I can guarantee anyone who has ever lost a cpu to overclocking has done something radically wrong. Almost all cpu's can easily tolerate a 20-25% overclock if the multiplier is within working characteristics of the motherboard. Remember, cpu's work in factories and enviroments all the time where the ambient temperature around them is 100 deg or over, your house is like 75 deg. Sorry to ramble on here but some people just get really upset about overclocking but it is no big deal if you know how to do it with a mb that is applicable. By the way, the Pentium 2.4 GHZ really is capable of supporting dual channel, and of course from there up. Any replies about speed of ripping and compression and analysis of their P4 systems sure is welcome. - - Also I have Nero Express and Express 2 yet for some reason I get a message they don't provide support for ISO burning. Any comment on that also. I purchased the DVD plug in when I bought Nero.

 

Try a backup/copy and burn not using Deep Analysis, it'sa time killer.

Don't know about Nero Express, don't use it.

luck

 

my 600mhz computer never took over 1 hr to rip and compress.

 

Sly;

I think you misread the thread. I mentioned using deep analysis. DVD Shrink only really samples 1 out of every frame without using it. So naturally a standard decrypt and backup is really fast. When using deep analysis DVDShrink samples every frame and the quality is much much better, well worth the wait. I have noticed that some videos with glitches or pauses or digital pixelation in them. When I had one like this, it usually occured on all my DVD players I used. After using deep analysis (same blank DVD media) this problem just doesn't occur. - - I guess it is best to reword the question. How many of you who use DVDShrink and always use deep analysis have upgraded your computer processor. What time difference did you notice in your upgrade. This probably would vary with the upgrade, but any samples of your upgrade, specifically from a Pentium 3 to a Pentium 4 system I am interested in. Not a Pentium Celeron, a true Pentium to Pentium upgrade.

 

Ok, i see. With my 1.6ghz (or around there), it took 45-60 min for deep analysis. upgraded to a 2.8ghz and takes around 30 min.

 

Sly;

Ok, thanks, that is the kind of information I am looking for. Probably, the most popular P4 upgrades would be with the 400 and 533 FSB and I am going for the 800 FSB. The FSB speed alone will make a difference also. I suspect there should be a number of visitors to this forum who use the above mentioned setups and hopefully use DVDShrink and do deep analysis. The largest compliment I can give to DVDShrink is that when you do use the time consuming deep analysis they just seem to play flawlessley anywhere you try them. I think for the heck of it I may try some using DVDDecrypt to decrypt and then DVD shrink to compress without deep analysis and burn the iso image using DVDDecrypt, just to look at quality and stability.

 

yeah, i didn't mention that my 2.8ghz has the 800mhz fsb.

 

Ok, guys Im interested in pushing the max speeds on backing up dvd's and Im looking for people on the high speed end to compare notes with. Mostly reading dual layer single sided discs, here's where I'm at now, sampling 25+ burns data:

Ripping with DVD Decrypter:

Plextor PX-712A DVDRW (awesome drive):
Slowest rip: The Patriot 12:46 Ave 7.5x, Max 11.3
Fastest rip: Out of Reach 4:56 Ave 10.0x, Max 13.3
Fastest Max Rip ever: Ave 9.6x, Max 14.5x

* Just did Goodfellas side A (single layer double sided disc) in 4:36, averaging 10.5, max 14.3x.

Artec DHM-G48 DVD rom (slow, not much sampling)
Slowest rip: Btrfly efct 15:43 Ave 3.4x, Max 5.0x
Fastest rip: about the same
Fastest Max Rip ever: 5.0x

LG GCC-4480B CDRW/DVD rom (better, but not great)
Slowest rip: Godsend 25:37 Ave 3.6x, Max 6.0x
Fastest rip: Big Bounce 11:55 Ave 5.3x, Max 7.2x
Fastest Max Rip ever: Ave 5.3x, Max 8.1x

I'm getting close on figuring out the good rip speed half of the equation. Next I'm onto the encoding. I use DVD Decrypter to rip it and remove all the bad stuff, and I use DVD Shrink to encode and burn (with Nero burning enabled in Shrink).

Im just starting to record the data from burning. Only a couple so far:

Red October - w/ 69% compression on Ridata 4X media (burning at 8X speed). It took 21m 44s to encode and burn.

Knockaround Guys - w/ 100% (no) compression on Ridata 4x (burning at 8X speed). It took 11m 10s to encode and burn.

Dom Disturbance - w/94.8% compression on Ridata 4x (burning at 8x speed). It took 17m 31s to encode and burn.

My computer setup is AMD 2700+ stock clocked with 1.5GB ram, Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe board, Plextor PX-712A burner, LG GCC-4480B CDRW/DVD, 2 ATA100 WD Hard drives, and a Promise Ultra 133TX2 PCI IDE controller. The 2 hard drives are on the mobo's primary channel, and the Plextor burner is on the secondary master by itself. The LG dvd-rom is on the PCI IDE controller by itself. Im running Windows XP Pro. And quite frankly... this thing flies. But I want more. Ordered a Liteon 167T dvd-rom today. It's also noteworthy that I can rip 2 movies at once, and the processor barely works up a sweat, at under 30% cpu usage. When I encode, it hits 100% and stays there. *** Will buying a faster processor do any good at this point? ***

 

[bold]@cumstd[/bold] ... I've done a fair amount of backing up with the older Shrink, as well as the newer v3.2. I was even involved in beta testing 3.2. The new Shrink has a completely different set of compression algorithms than the old, and for all practical purposes, the new Shrink is an entirely different product. These compression algorithms account for the increase in time, and quality.

I have a 2.66 P4 w/512 MB DDR, 530 FSB. I don't over-clock (yet) because my MoBo doesn't support it. A 6.7 to 7 GB DVD takes approximately 2-1/2 hours with deep analysis and enhancements. This does not include the rip time.

Shrink is a fine product, however, quality is my main goal now, so I use DVD Rebuilder with CCE. This process takes 3-1/2 hours, and the quality is substantially better on larger DVD's.

[bold]@Pontistv[/bold] ... are you sure you're on the right thread? It looks like a stretch to me. As a suggestion, you might get a lot more responses by editing/deleting your post here, and then re-posting it as your own question. (to edit, use the pencil/pad icon on the light brown divider bar.)



_X_X_X_X_X_[small].
.


You can observe a lot by watching.
(Yogi Berra 1925 - )[/small]

 

Doc 409,

I am discussing dvd shrink speed vs computer processor so I think im in the right thread. But Im open to suggestions if you have a better place to ask somebody how I can encode faster with shrink. In a nutshell, my computer flies and is a lot faster than the average guy in here's. Its just that shrink uses 100% of the processor for anywhere from 11 minutes average encode time up to 1 hr 12 min for a 56% compressed video and I am wondering would a faster processor help?

 

cuminstd

The only way you're going to speed things up with DVD Shrink 3.2, is if you get a faster processor or if you use Shrink’s lower quality settings. Lower quality settings aren't a problem if you're looking at a movie at 80% (20% compression or less) as Shrink reads it. For a larger movie you're going to have to learn to wait unless you’re willing to sacrifice video quality for speed. The other choice is to reduce the movie's size by doing a movie only backup or replace unwanted parts of the movie with still frames. Increase speed or edit there are no other alternatives using DVD Shrink.
_X_X_X_X_X_[small]

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1859-1930)[/small]

 

Pontistv...'sorry, I misread/misunderstood your post. I see now what you were getting at. Yes, I would go along with Sophocles ... you will need a faster CPU to encode faster.

Since the new Shrink came out, more people have become concerned with the time Shrink takes, and the time vs. quality issue. A 6.5 GB movie takes my P4-2.66 MHz 2.5 hours with deep analysis and enhanced quality settings. As quality is my primary goal, I use the DVD Rebuilder-CCE combo to get an exceptional backup, and it only takes an hour longer. This setup also has a batch mode, so I usually load 2 or 3 of these, and then do something like go to sleep. Whatever, I don't wait aroound for the encode to finish like I used to do with other one-click transcoders.

 

I can't really complain about the encoding process. The worst time I've had yet is Carlitos Way at 56.6% compression with Shrink. It took 1 Hour and 12 Minutes with all the quality settings checked. Most movies take around 11 minutes and change for no compression. That includes encoding and burning at 8X. It would be a minute or two faster at 12X.

I'm concerned not so much with how long it takes exactly... but that it uses 100% of cpu usage. I was wondering if anyone has a cpu so fast that Shrink doesn't use 100% during the encoding process?? My puter is pretty up to speed as it is... AMD 2700+ with 1.5GB of PC2700 ram. I was wondering if going to the AMD 3200 at 400FSB would make a difference, but Im guessing that while it may encode the movie slightly faster, it will still use 100% cpu usage. Any thoughts?

 

Absolutely correct.

If that causes you problems while multi-tasking, simply switch DVD Shrink to low-priority mode.
"Edit >> Preferences"
_X_X_X_X_X_[small]

For DVD Shrink and related softwares guides and information, please visit http://www.dvdshrink.info[/small]

 

What if you have a dual processor motherboard. Would it still use 100% cpu usage?

 

Pontistv...

Shrink is the only transcoder I know of that has the ability to run in the background, which uses less than 100% of the CPU resources, and this is certainly a desirable feature if you have other apps to work on.

Ordinarily a processor is going to run at 100% when encoding, which is what you want it to do anyway if you are interested in a quick finish. This also goes for dual processors, which if the specs of each one of the doubles is the same as the single, the dual processing will be about twice as fast.

To understand CPU usage better, do Ctrl-Alt-Del >> Task Manager >> Performance. You will see a real-time CPU graph. Run these while encoding and burning a DVD. You will see 100% for the encoding, and something less than 15% for burning. This is because the burner is the bottleneck and the CPU keeps up easily. You might also see what happens to the CPU with word processing (less than 5%). As it is, video and CAD/CAM apps are the most demanding of all apps.

I looked at the specs of the AMD 2600 and the 3200. From what I could tell they are 2.17 and 2.2 GHz, resp. Not a lot of difference, except the 3200 has a 400 FSB compared to the 333 FSB. The later might also be a candidate for overclocking for a 20% increase in performance.


_X_X_X_X_X_[small].
.


I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. (Pablo Picasso)[/small]

 

Speaking of FSB, how is it that AMD Athlon XP's like mine are 333 or 400 FSB, but a comparable Pentium is 800 FSB? Wouldn't that make the Pentium go way way faster?

I have used the CPU performance ctrl/alt/del already to see what's going on. It's particularly interesting in memory usage. I suppose the video stuff is very demanding, but what suprised the heck out of me is that I can run DVD Decrypter twice at the same time (with each one using about 15% cpu usage and not much memory) without any problems. Altogether, with my Promise IDE controller and two fast drives (Plextor PX712A and Liteon SOHD-167T), I can rip two movies in as little as 5 minutes, or more average about 11 minutes. No sacrifices at all by having run two Decrypters at the same time. Very cool.

Note to those just tuning in: That's with both DVD drives hooked up by themselves as primary devices, one on the m/b and the other on a pci ide controller card. Also with a pretty hopped up computer.

 

I have had AMD processors and I like them. They have gotten rave reviews in overall performance in comparison to Pentium 4, however, when it comes to video processing the Pentium 4's in every review I have ever read are a much better processor than the AMD. I do a lot of movies and capture a lot of Television on my capture board, process the mpeg files and burn them into a DVD. There is no question the Pentium 4 is better for this. Just a google search on Pentium 4 vs AMD (or Athlon) mpeg will open many reviews on the subject. As far as processor speed fairly equivalent, the P4 always really is much further ahead in the mpeg processing and video forums. As far as other applications, there is no need to worry about the Athlon's kicking their share of butt. For years AMD had no internal thermal protection which was a very bad idea. One glitch of your fan and you lost your AMD processor. They also ran extremely hot in comparison to Pentium based processors. I think that really took its toll on AMD for a while, many people were losing a lot of AMD processors. During that period I was constantly reading up on upgrades to the higher AMD platforms and everybody loved them but they all warned a poor install of the cpu or a fan glitch and goodbye cpu. Tom's hardware guide did a test once and burned up many of them, they literally would burn up in millisec if something went wrong. Those days are now gone,they fixed that internal protection but for a while even if you had the chip that was internally protected you needed a motherboard that had the protection circuit on it or you were still out of luck. If you do a lot of different applications on your computer and love to play games, you just can't beat the AMD processors. If you are more interested in mpeg processing and movie files like me, you are quite a bit better off with the P4.