Your disk performance may be holding you back as well. On the oil effect, you are CPU bound, on a faster effect (e.g. grayscale) you will be primarily IO bound. Here's an example. Only recently (in the past 3 years) has Discreet moved to x86. Before that they were selling their highest end product (for editing 4K film) on a quad CPU 1Ghz. But they smoked the competition when it came to performance. Why? Most of the time these systems had a 10-30 fibre channel RAID behind them. This allowed the Tezro and Onyx3 systems to edit 5 streams of real-time 4k video on a system that had basically no number crunching power. 9 times out of 10 you will be limited by your disk performance, not the CPU.
I would suggest running a bonnie++ benchmark on your disks, from there you can calculate an approximate max fps processing rate for the disks. Timothy On Dec 27, 2007 10:55 AM, Scott C. Frase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi E, > My opinions are based upon only twenty-four hours of real editing time, > so I haven't had the chance to test all of Cinelerra's effects, but I'll > give you a quick summary of my impressions. > > I bought a Dell SC1430, 64-bit Intel dual quad core running at 1.6Ghz. > Since Cinelerra is optimized for multiple CPUs (cores), I thought the > more the better, right? Well..the reality is a little different. > > For specific video effects that are really CPU intensive, like the Oil > Painting effect, all processors are utilized at 100%. This is great. > However, I've noticed that for most editing and project rendering tasks > (using a project with simple transitions/fades/keyframes/effects like > histogram), Cinelerra only utilizes a small portion of each CPU, roughly > 30% at peak. This bugged me, because I had hoped that all CPUs should > be utilized 100% all the time during any task. But my opinion was based > on a naive view of how Cinelerra utilizes system resources. > > One nice thing about having lots of cores is to use them for background > rendering, a feature I never used on my single core box because it took > up too much CPU. Background rendering allows you to see the effects > you've applied to the timeline, rendered in realtime. The "realtime" > part of this doesn't really happen for me; even with eight cores, there > is lag time before I can playback the pre-rendered hdv video. I believe > the bottleneck in this case is slow CPU speed of each core: 1.6Ghz in > the case of my Dell. > > My thought so far is that if I had to do it again, I'd want a dual, dual > core running at 3.2Ghz. That way, I get the benefits of multicores, > plus the benefits of fast CPUs. Also, I'd probably go for an AMD > Opteron multicore, because the AMD hyper-transport technology has much > better throughput than the Intel Front Side Bus technology. This article > in Linux Journal was very instructive: > http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:R95w9nhv680J:www.linux-mag.com/microsites.php%3Fsite%3Dbusiness-class-hpc%26sid%3Dmain%26p%3D4183+site:linux-mag.com+opteron+quad+core+intel+cloverton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a > > "Unlike a single FSB, hyper-transport allows more total memory bandwidth > throughout the system and there is less contention for memory." I > suspect that Cinelerra would perform much better on an AMD system with > less memory bandwidth constraints than the Intel Clovertons I use. > > In sum, I think the most important factors to you should be the CPU > speed of each core and the memory throughput of the server architecture. > To answer your question specifically, my observations lead me to believe > that perhaps an FSB 1333 with duo core 3Ghz would better utilize each > CPU than a slower CPU & FSB quad core. But look into the AMDs. I'm > willing to bet that they'd give you much better performance. > > scott > > > > > > On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 21:01 +1300, E Chalaron wrote: > > Hello > > > > Just wondering about a config for a new machine. > > With the quad cores coming up I am wondering if I should invest in an > > average quad core or a good duo, being tied to a budget. > > Basically my question is > > "would a FBS 1333 with a duo core 3Ghz be faster than a 2.4 Ghz quad > > core 1066 FBS, all other thing being equal?" > > Most of my needs are : > > unsharp, histogram correction, saturation on progresive frames of 1400x1040. > > Cheers and happy new year to all. > > E. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Cinelerra mailing list > > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > > > _______________________________________________ > Cinelerra mailing list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > -- If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no one dares criticize it. (Pierre Gallois) _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
