Using Only 23% Average CPU - Normal?

Avi to DVD and other video conversions, such as wmv to DVD, mts to DVD, mkv to DVD and more. 2 pass encoding, multi-core support, and always more files supported.

Moderators: Maggie, JJ, ckhouston, Phil, Forum admin

Post Reply
war59312
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:17 am
Location: U.S.A
Contact:

Using Only 23% Average CPU - Normal?

Post by war59312 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:18 pm

Hello,

I am getting 99.4fps average converting a 720p HD .mp4 to dvd5 with my i7 930.

Yet ConvertXToDVD is only using a max of around 30% of all CPUs according to ProcessExplorer. Average CPU is only 23% though.

I'd expect to see 100% CPU usage like I did before with my AMD Athlon X2 5200 that got 20fps.

You'd think I'd get more FPS if ConvertXToDVD would use 100% of my i7, or even better if it supported Nvidia CUDA?

So is this normal behavior or what? If not how to fix. I see in log it correctly detects all 8 cores and says it will use all 8 threads.

Thanks,

Will

ckhouston
VSO Fanatic
Posts: 4590
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by ckhouston » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:03 pm

Quoting a fps value means very little, CPU is not the only variable. Conversion speed can vary all over the place depending on such things as the complexity of scenery in the file, resize filter used if resize is neccesary, and hard drive speed.

war59312
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:17 am
Location: U.S.A
Contact:

Post by war59312 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:13 pm

Well hard drive usage is less than 1% average too. Running Western Digital's Raptors in RAID-0 config (was cheaper and way more disk space than SSD at the time). An average of only 1.6MB/s of Disk I/O. I saw has high as a whooping 6.4MB/s. Big deal, still not even 1% usage.

Still the question remains, why not using more CPU for quicker convert?

Again with old computer it did use 100% CPU.

Really looks like to me it is NOT taking advantage of my quad core (8 threads since hyper-threading is enabled) system.

ckhouston
VSO Fanatic
Posts: 4590
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by ckhouston » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:23 pm

I don't have an i7 processor, only a quad 6600, also with a Raid hard drive configuration, which I get anywhere from 2 to 20x speeds and 50 to 70% CPU usage, depending on ...

Your conversion speed is still dependent on factors mentioned plus hard drive speed, menu choice can also make a big difference.

For fast processors, the limiting factor is usually hard drive speed so the processor does not have to work as hard as a lower speed processor.

war59312
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:17 am
Location: U.S.A
Contact:

Post by war59312 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:39 pm

Right, I agree with your POV in theory.

But I'm not seeing any hard drive usage at all to speak of, less than 1%.

It seems not to matter what menu setting I use either, if I use a menu at all.

So yeah If my hard disk was maxed out I would expect to see what you mentioned. But that is simply not happening.

The software is simply not making adequate use of my CPU. Even setting thread to real time makes no difference. The threads simply are not running at 100%, not anywhere close. Like I said earlier around a total average of 23%.

Just for kicks, I converted 6 1080p BluRay rips of "The Pacific" to DVD 5. Average of 50fps and again only an average of 23% CPU usage. So half the FPS as expected.

But again if ConvertXtoDVD where using 100% CPU I would be getting more FPS, you'd think. And no more hard disk usage than before either.

So I just don't understood what the limiting factor is and why ConvertXToDVD refuses to use 100% CPU.

ckhouston
VSO Fanatic
Posts: 4590
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by ckhouston » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:52 pm

I don't work for VSO so can't answer for them, only from experience.

The newest versions are not optimized as well as earlier ones for my processor, about a 20% difference. But most with i7 processors say the latest versions are the fastest ever.

Your hard drives will never be maxed out in practical situations when speaking of quoted MB/s which are based on tests designed to sell a product. The fact remains that access and writing speeds are a limiting factor with fast processors.

The real question should be can you find a conversion program that is faster than CX2D, even one that does a relatively simple constant bitrate conversion?

Other than that, you need to take the issue up with VSO, good luck.

PS: Try defragging the hard drives to see if it makes a difference.

war59312
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:17 am
Location: U.S.A
Contact:

Post by war59312 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:16 pm

I'm not making statements based on "quoted GB/s which are based on tests designed to sell a product".

I am watching in real time: access, read, and write speeds of my hard disk. Again less than 1% usage of the max my drive can handle.

And yes I can do faster convert with ffmpeg @ http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/ using latest 32bit build. It uses 100% of my CPU and I get around 240fps converting the same video. So almost 2 and half times faster.

Hard disk is NOT fragmented either. I use http://www.mydefrag.com/ as recommended by its developer.

ckhouston
VSO Fanatic
Posts: 4590
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by ckhouston » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:34 pm

This is a waste of time, take it up with VSO.

The max your drive can handle is based on an ideal configuration and continuous read/writes, not on intermittent access, seeking and reads/writes in the real world.

Don't know how you set up ffmpeg for your test, but CX2D uses that same encoder. Again, take it up with VSO.

war59312
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:17 am
Location: U.S.A
Contact:

Post by war59312 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:57 pm

Well I thank you for the discussion anyways.

Like I said I'm monitoring in real time and know what my limits are, not just what the manufacturer says. I've measured at 100% usage for 2 weeks straight and know what to expect.

Any how, my basic question has been answered by you. That indeed this is the expected behavior of this software. Of course only 2 people seeing it though is not very accurate of course.

But again thanks anyways, so anyone else have any take on this. Developers?

eldinv
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:30 am
Location: Space

Post by eldinv » Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:55 am

That ended no where. Didn't anyone tell you that spending lots of money on hardware is fine, but MANY applications won't and CAN"T take advantage of it.

Other applications might use more CPU resources, but it comes down your output files, would I rather see a better picture by an application that maybe didn't make the most use of my hardware or something mediocre that stress my hardware.
"live long and prosper"

JoeB
VSO Fanatic
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: Canada

Post by JoeB » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:20 am

eldinv wrote:That ended no where. Didn't anyone tell you that spending lots of money on hardware is fine, but MANY applications won't and CAN"T take advantage of it.

Other applications might use more CPU resources, but it comes down your output files, would I rather see a better picture by an application that maybe didn't make the most use of my hardware or something mediocre that stress my hardware.
Good point - and for it's purpose (creating very good quality DVD compliant output) ConvertX is likely the best consumer priced program available!

Regards,

JoeB

war59312
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:17 am
Location: U.S.A
Contact:

Post by war59312 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:35 am

This topic was not meant to discuss what software is better or whatever. Not meant as a "who's got the bigger dick" contest either. Please!

I was simply asking if it was the expected behavior so I take it that it is. Fine!

eldinv, that's all fine and gravy, but this topic was nothing about picture quality. I simply wanted to know if it was expected behavior and why, that's it.

So yes if it stressed my computer more than I'd expect to get more FPS in the conversion. It's not about picture quality, it's like you kinda said, it's about taking advantage of resources available to get the job does as quickly as possible.

This is not me complaining either, before someone says that crap.

My goal is to get a technical answer as to what is happening, not people's opinion on what software or hardware is better.

But looks like so far I got my answer in that it is in fact the expected behavior and that is fine. Though I'd still like to know why, but life is not perfect and we don't always get what we want.

I'd just was wondering if I was all alone in my conclusion and appears I am not. Fine!

If anyone has anything to add about the topic at hand that adds to this discussion, please do so. Thank you.

User avatar
JJ
VSO Moderators
Posts: 6178
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:25 pm
Location: Finland

Post by JJ » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:06 am

Only thing to add here is that writing to SSD is sometimes very slow. Some older models have huge issues when reading and writing simultaneously, forcing write operations to almost halt.
Check if your SSD model has that issue, try using normal hd for conversion.

Edit: after reading your response on other thread I added this:
I get 99.4fps average converting a 720p HD .mp4 to dvd5 with my i7 930.

Yet ConvertXToDVD is only using a max of around 30% of all CPUs according to ProcessExplorer. Average CPU is only 23% though.

My old PC which was running with an AMD Athlon X2 5200 only got 20fps using 100% of CPU.
100% CPU means that hd usage was not limiting, resulting 20fps to be max on that configuration.
Your new system gets 100fps, that means 5 times faster.
Are your drives 5 times faster than previous system? If not then it is clear that there is your slowdown.
Last edited by JJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

eldinv
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:30 am
Location: Space

Post by eldinv » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:20 am

Then you already know your answer, I can understand you want to to know your hardware is not going to waste, just like many feel "Why can't CX2D fill my DVD".

It's understandable, but we/you should also look what's the objective of the application, producing a DVD.

That's what most care about and sorry but I assumed that's what you cared about.
"live long and prosper"

ckhouston
VSO Fanatic
Posts: 4590
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by ckhouston » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:24 am

It appears that the people that complain about CPU usage the most are those with the fastest processors, thus, again, the conclusion that their hard drives are the limiting factor.

Then there are those that say so and so programs utilize much more of their CPU. Could that be because those programs are inefficient compared to CX2D so CPUs have to work harder and hard drives are not as important? Could it be that war59312's comparison with the ffmpeg encoder showed more CPU usage because he didn't set it up as efficiently as CX2D does?

The real question should not be an obsession with CPU usage, but how fast is the conversion, and, as stated, any comparison has to be made with all variables that affect speed equal.

AndyMutz
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:58 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Post by AndyMutz » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:13 am

war59312 wrote:I was simply asking if it was the expected behavior so I take it that it is.
yes, it's perfectly normal behaviour. i have an i7-870 @ 4,1 GHz (HT disabled) and while converting 1080p blu-ray sources, i too get around 40% usage. also as in your system, in mine the harddisks seem not to be the limiting factor, so that's just how convertxtodvd works.

-andy-
Image

User avatar
Claire
VSO Team Member
Posts: 5913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by Claire » Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:05 pm

If you want a reply from the developer the best chances of getting one is being a registered user and sending in your question directly to VSO Software from the technical support from on the official website.

The clearer your message and questions are the easier it is to get an answer. Providing your machine details and numbering questions, using complete ans short sentences helps too.

If it is possible to get this info from the developer I try and post on the forum so the information gets around (I try to do this in general). The developer has not been known to be very communicative about his choices or about his descriptions on how and why ConvertXtoDVD works the way it does....that is maybe by CKhouston says, 'good luck'. The application is complex and the developer has written it to be the most efficient in the in the majority of cases. There are always reasons why exceptions on made to not do this or that, to prevent crashes on machines that may have this or that.

vsx8162
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:00 am

Re: Using Only 23% Average CPU - Normal?

Post by vsx8162 » Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:08 am

I have mine installed on Ramdisk with 32GB of memory with



Intel Xenon E5-2695V2
ASUS P9X79-E WS LGA 2011 Intel X7
G Skill 32GB DDR3-2133 CL11-11-11-31 1.50V XMP
Diamond 6870PE51GB AMD Radeon HD 6870 1024MB GDDR5
Intel SSD DC S3700 Series 400GB
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 760 Watt ATX
Corsair Hydro Series H80 Liquid Cooling
Corsair Carbide Series 400R

It was at 430 Fps. Muhaha Only takes me 8 minutes to incode and 5 minutes to burn at 8x, 16 if i wanted :D

Post Reply