PDA

View Full Version : TyTool on Athlon 64 slower than Athlon XP?



soccermommy
05-23-2005, 11:11 PM
Hi,

I just built an Athlon 64 2.4GHz (3000+ CPU overclocked from 2.0GHz) system. However, in creating key files and vob/mux'ing my ty files, I've done side-by-side comparisons and my Athlon XP 1.67GHz (1800+ overclocked from 1.53GHz) system is faster!

To create the key file, my Athlon XP processes a 2511 MB file in 100 seconds, but the Athlon 64 processes the exact same file in 107 seconds!

I've downclocked my Athlon 64 to stock speeds, thinking that the overclock is producing errors that it needs time to correct, and it's even slower than at 2.4GHz.

I did not finish the vob/mux, but the progress meters side by side was no comparison - the Athlon XP was significantly faster.

Both systems are using TyTool 9R18

Here are the differences in the systems:
Athlon 64:
Windows XP 32-bit SP2
ECS 755-A2 motherboard
512mb RAM @ 266MHz

Athlon XP:
Windows 2000 SP4
MSI K7T266 Pro2A motherboard
512mb RAM @ 266MHz

I bought the Athlon 64 mainly to process my vob files faster, but this is absolutely bizarre.

Jamie
05-23-2005, 11:50 PM
Just guessing here, but I'd suspect the speed of this particular task is limited by the disk speed more than anything else. 2500MB/100sec works out to 25MB/sec, roughly a typical average transfer rate to/from disk. Maybe you should have bought faster disks instead of a faster processor.

dlang
05-24-2005, 01:09 AM
on the other hand the Athlon 64 should support more total ram, once you get enough ram to cache the entire file things will scream after the initial load

the athlon 64 has a significant edge in memory access speed, but if you are limited by what you can pull from the disk it won't matter.

David Lang

soccermommy
05-24-2005, 01:09 AM
Well, SiSoft Sandra benchmarked my A64's disk at 49mb/s and Athlon XP's disk at 38mb/s.

Jamie
05-24-2005, 09:35 AM
Well, SiSoft Sandra benchmarked my A64's disk at 49mb/s and Athlon XP's disk at 38mb/s.Are the files fragmented on disk? This can slow things down with additional seeks. Are the input and output files on the same disk? This also causes additional seeks. I/O performance can also depend on the file position on disk, with higher I/O transfer rates on the outer cylinders reference (http://www.storagereview.com/map/lm.cgi/zone).

Win2K and XP may also have different file system and disk I/O characteristics, which could also be a factor.

shawn
05-24-2005, 10:40 AM
The 2 differences i see are Win 2K and XP
And SiS chipset vs ?
SIS is a (cost performance board)
Also the A64 is meant to multitask not speed up one process.
Whats the FSB of the SIS board?
That has alot to do with speed.
Its a $50 motherboard, ya get what ya pay for most the time.
A mistake many make is buying cheap mobo to afford the latest fastest CPU's
But end up with a board that doesnt even use all of the CPU.

SR712
05-24-2005, 11:06 AM
I bought the Athlon 64 mainly to process my vob files faster, but this is absolutely bizarre.
You are running the same 32 bit app on a 32 bit OS, but on a 64 bit chip. To your application, the underlying subsystems are still all 32 bit. Nothing you are running can use any of the additional features of the 64 bit CPU. There will be no advantage for you until you use a 64 bit OS, use 64 bit drivers for all hardware, and your app is compiled for that 64 bit OS. Sorry. We've had several 64 bit machines running the 64 bit Beta XP with Desktop Editing here at work, but have yet to see any advantage, even with the Final Release of 64bit XP a few weeks ago.

You'll have to wait for a 64 bit version of your apps to see much improvement.

cheer
05-24-2005, 11:36 AM
Hi,
Here are the differences in the systems:
Athlon 64:
Windows XP 32-bit SP2
ECS 755-A2 motherboard
512mb RAM @ 266MHz

I bought the Athlon 64 mainly to process my vob files faster, but this is absolutely bizarre.
For what it's worth, I've had issues with SiS chipset boards doing video work. (I've also had timing issues with Via chipsets when doing analog capture.) nVidia or bust, m'friend.

Not that that is necessarily the issue. But it bothered me enough in the past that now I only buy Abit or Asus boards with nVidia chipsets.

And the above poster is correct -- I have not found an A64 to be significantly faster than an AXP at roughly similar clock speeds. If the OS and apps don't support the 64 bit extensions, there's not much there.

Having said that, I would still have expected a speed increase for you given the faster clock speed. One thing to also keep in mind is that XP does take more memory (all else being equal) than Win2K. 512, believe it or not, is a bit light for XP; I find much better performance with a gig. YMMV.

soccermommy
05-24-2005, 11:52 AM
The 2 differences i see are Win 2K and XP
And SiS chipset vs ?
SIS is a (cost performance board)
Also the A64 is meant to multitask not speed up one process.
Whats the FSB of the SIS board?
That has alot to do with speed.
Its a $50 motherboard, ya get what ya pay for most the time.
A mistake many make is buying cheap mobo to afford the latest fastest CPU's
But end up with a board that doesnt even use all of the CPU.

ECS uses SiS 755 chipset and my AXP board uses the Via KT266a chipset. I think the A64 uses a different type of FSB called HTT, and that's set to 800MHz, but the overclock I made was in the traditional FSB from 200MHz to 240MHz (and the RAM should have increased clock by the same percentage).

The SiSoft Sandra benchmarks show my A64 blowing away the AXP in CPU benchmarks. I know a cheap board will yield inferior performance to a good one, but it should not be significant. If there are chipset incompatibilites with applications, then that's a completely different story.

soccermommy
05-24-2005, 11:54 AM
You are running the same 32 bit app on a 32 bit OS, but on a 64 bit chip. To your application, the underlying subsystems are still all 32 bit. Nothing you are running can use any of the additional features of the 64 bit CPU. There will be no advantage for you until you use a 64 bit OS, use 64 bit drivers for all hardware, and your app is compiled for that 64 bit OS. Sorry. We've had several 64 bit machines running the 64 bit Beta XP with Desktop Editing here at work, but have yet to see any advantage, even with the Final Release of 64bit XP a few weeks ago.

You'll have to wait for a 64 bit version of your apps to see much improvement.

Yes, I'm not using the 64-bit features of my chip, but it should still be much faster than my AXP 2000+! I get a lot better gaming performance, and again, my SiSoft Sandra CPU benchmarks blow the AXP out of the water.

soccermommy
05-24-2005, 11:55 AM
Are the files fragmented on disk? This can slow things down with additional seeks. Are the input and output files on the same disk? This also causes additional seeks. I/O performance can also depend on the file position on disk, with higher I/O transfer rates on the outer cylinders reference (http://www.storagereview.com/map/lm.cgi/zone).

Win2K and XP may also have different file system and disk I/O characteristics, which could also be a factor.

I will double check the fragmentation, but I really doubt it since it is a brand new system.

Also, on both A64 and AXP systems, the input and output files were on the same disk, and the AXP's disk should be much more fragmented since I've been using it longer.

soccermommy
05-24-2005, 11:57 AM
Is there a definitive answer as to what resources exactly are utilized the most by TyTool when creating key file and VOB/MUX'ing a .ty file?

We may just be on the wrong track with thinking it's the CPU and Disk.

I guess I will try adding RAM next and see what happens.

Jamie
05-24-2005, 12:12 PM
Is there a definitive answer as to what resources exactly are utilized the most by TyTool when creating key file and VOB/MUX'ing a .ty file?Run the XP performance monitor and find out. I'm still willing to bet it's the disks.

soccermommy
05-24-2005, 09:35 PM
I just ran the XP performance monitor, and it did in fact showing the read disk being pegged at 100% the entire time.

CPU fluctuated between 15 and 30%.

I'll try swapping drives to see how performance improves.

My A64's drive is a Seagate, 160GB/8MB Cache 7200RPM, and my AXP's drive is a WD, 120GB/8MB Cache 7200RPM.

Thanks for all your help!

RavenStL
05-24-2005, 09:50 PM
I run Raptors and I use about 20 % of my Pentium 4. Very annoying, but I guess I cant make SATA run any faster. Does Tytools read and write as it goes? I have 2 gig of ram and would be awesome to quickly buffer the file into memory but if it can process it faster then read it from the disk, there is no point.

Wheres my RamDrive? A fully supported one form microsoft would sure be nice on XP Pro.