XP with CS3 is faster than vista with CS4?
XP with CS3 is faster than vista with CS4?
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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?
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.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.
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.
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
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
Last edited by NVTeam on Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
with vbr 1-pass I did the same one in 5 min 48NVTeam 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
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 thanks for the efforts