If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
Windows XP Pro SP3
EP45-UD3L with 4 gigs Intel Quad CPU Q8400 @2.66GHz With a media server and a 4 security cameras hanging on this thing, it is about maxed out: 80-100% CPU usage. The Question: Is there anything I can do to get, say, 20+ percent more horsepower? I'm willing to buy a new mobo/CPU if the cost isn't crazy-high. -- Pete Cresswell |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Windows XP Pro SP3 EP45-UD3L with 4 gigs Intel Quad CPU Q8400 @2.66GHz With a media server and a 4 security cameras hanging on this thing, it is about maxed out: 80-100% CPU usage. The Question: Is there anything I can do to get, say, 20+ percent more horsepower? I'm willing to buy a new mobo/CPU if the cost isn't crazy-high. Are you using a BT848/BT878 capture card with uncompressed data capture on this thing, for the cameras ? Perhaps you're capturing around 20MB/sec from a camera, then compressing to MPEG in software ? That could smother a processor. If the cameras produce their own MPEG compressed streams of some sort, that might be written out to disk with fairly light CPU loading. If you had incoming MPEG, and were doing scene extraction and searching for "activity", that too might chew up the cycles. ******* The Gigabyte page lists compatible processors for your LGA775. http://www.gigabyte.com/support-down....aspx?pid=3285 For a ridiculous sum, you could get 3.2GHz. 3.2/2.66 = 1.2x That just barely meets your objective, without changing motherboards. Intel Core2 Extreme QX9770 3.20GHz 12MB Yorkfield 45nm C0 135W 1600 F2 But for the price of one of those processors, you might be able to buy a 2600K and new motherboard and new RAM, for less. 4GB of DDR3 RAM now, costs close to zero. A 2600K is around $330. 2600K 3.4GHz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115070 Motherboard (picked to be similar in brand to your current one) ~$150 You should sort through the LGA1155 ones, to find one with a good rep. You could probably spend up to $400 or so, for a bunch of gizmos you don't need, or look for one that has reasonably good reviews. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128512 But before doing that, I'd want to review what features you need from the cameras, and whether the current setup is optimal. It's possible another piece of software, would remove the need to upgrade the processor. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
Per Paul:
Are you using a BT848/BT878 capture card with uncompressed data capture on this thing, for the cameras ? Perhaps you're capturing around 20MB/sec from a camera, then compressing to MPEG in software ? That could smother a processor. If the cameras produce their own MPEG compressed streams of some sort, that might be written out to disk with fairly light CPU loading. If you had incoming MPEG, and were doing scene extraction and searching for "activity", that too might chew up the cycles. I know next to nothing about surveillance cam stuff. Basically I'm fooling around with 4 cameras trying to learn enough to set up a surfcam for a guy who owns a windsurfing shop down on a local bay. What I do know, though, is that these are IP cams. One of them is sending h.264 and the other two are doing MJPEG. -- Pete Cresswell |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
Per Paul:
But before doing that, I'd want to review what features you need from the cameras, and whether the current setup is optimal. It's possible another piece of software, would remove the need to upgrade the processor. Sounds to me like I should drop this for now. To wit: - What I was trolling for was some super-new development in mobos/CPUs that rendered my current setup obsolete. Sounds like that hasn't happened and isn't about to happen soon. - The camera thing is dynamic. I'm just experimenting and that won't be forever. The immediate issue is butting heads with the media server as it records TV shows. But that's not exactly a big deal, since cameras can be selective shut down anytime... and even on a schedule. - The muy-expensivo upgrade cited for only 20% could probably be compared unfavorably with the additional electricity cost of just putting another PC online 24-7 to handle the cameras. In round approximate numbers: .18/KwHr.... 120 watts for a second 24-7 PC... ((120 * 24) / 1000) * .18 = approx fifty cents a day... 365 days.... $180 per year... -- Pete Cresswell |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Paul: Are you using a BT848/BT878 capture card with uncompressed data capture on this thing, for the cameras ? Perhaps you're capturing around 20MB/sec from a camera, then compressing to MPEG in software ? That could smother a processor. If the cameras produce their own MPEG compressed streams of some sort, that might be written out to disk with fairly light CPU loading. If you had incoming MPEG, and were doing scene extraction and searching for "activity", that too might chew up the cycles. I know next to nothing about surveillance cam stuff. Basically I'm fooling around with 4 cameras trying to learn enough to set up a surfcam for a guy who owns a windsurfing shop down on a local bay. What I do know, though, is that these are IP cams. One of them is sending h.264 and the other two are doing MJPEG. I bet if you record the streams, without "previewing" them, the load would go down. But you already know that. ******* With the BT878, and a non-IP camera, I can preview "for free". (The image comes across the PCI bus, in uncompressed form.) Because the feed on my camera isn't compressed, the preview doesn't cost anything, while the recording side does cost me something. Whereas, with the IP camera, the recording is free, while preview or playback require decompression (and CPU cycles). There are a number of options for video playback. You can use a software decoder (and CPU cycles). For some video standards, a new video card can decode virtually the whole stream, leaving little for the CPU to do. The video decoder in a video card, is a dedicated logic block. While the programmable shaders, can be used for additional things. The computer actually has a few tricks up its sleeve, if you have the right software to harness it. The 2600K processor, has enough internal horsepower, to decode five video streams at the same time, while using zero CPU cycles. That is done via the GPU built into the processor. The only caveat with that feature, is the GPU can only be used, if the processor is fooled into thinking you're actually using the GPU for driving the screen. The Z68 chipset/motherboard, for example, has DVI and HDMI connectors on the back, and is an example of a way to convince the software to allow you to use the 2600K GPU for functions like that. This feature is a gimmick, in the sense that you may need to find a brand new program, to make use of it. A lot of these acceleration features, if you own some older software, there may be no way to get the acceleration to be harnessed by the program. Even the little things can help. Video cards, for a number of years, have had IDCT (inverse discrete cosine transform), which can help with video decompression during playback. But the dedicated video block in the video card now, can do the whole thing, and IDCT ends up less used, because of the even better options available instead. The format most likely to benefit from stuff like this, is the H.264. I'm not sure what would help with MJPEG. The decoding functions tend to focus on things used for commercial movies, and not every format ends up accelerated (which is a shame). Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
Per Paul:
I bet if you record the streams, without "previewing" them, the load would go down. But you already know that. I'm using a utility called "BlueIris" which, I guess, is continually previewing them looking for motion to trigger recording. Disabling cams one-by-one, I see that the biggest load comes from an EdiMax 1280x1024 that is sending MJPEG. The two FosCams at 640x480/MJPEG aren't nearly as intensive. Neither is the SONY SNC-CH260 that's sending 1920x1080 at h.264. Interesting stuff. I guess the end game for lots of cameras without a lot of dedicated computing power is figuring out how to use each camera's built-in motion detection and built-in ability to write to a LAN drive. -- Pete Cresswell |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
Per Paul:
There are a number of options for video playback. You can use a software decoder (and CPU cycles). For some video standards, a new video card can decode virtually the whole stream, leaving little for the CPU to do. The video decoder in a video card, is a dedicated logic block. While the programmable shaders, can be used for additional things. The computer actually has a few tricks up its sleeve, if you have the right software to harness it. I'm still trying to digest this part..... So far, I've got "the right new video card = somebody to take over the decoding task".... Next thing I have is that, when buying multiple IP cams, h.264 is the way to go. -- Pete Cresswell |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Paul: There are a number of options for video playback. You can use a software decoder (and CPU cycles). For some video standards, a new video card can decode virtually the whole stream, leaving little for the CPU to do. The video decoder in a video card, is a dedicated logic block. While the programmable shaders, can be used for additional things. The computer actually has a few tricks up its sleeve, if you have the right software to harness it. I'm still trying to digest this part..... So far, I've got "the right new video card = somebody to take over the decoding task".... Next thing I have is that, when buying multiple IP cams, h.264 is the way to go. The point is, there are other computing resources in your computer, besides the CPU. The video card GPU has programmable shaders, as well as a dedicated video decoder (can do H.264). The video decoder seems to be fixed function, so you wouldn't expect an MJPEG acceleration feature to show up unannounced in a driver update. The programmable shaders can function to add processing power to your computer. An example, is BitCoin mining, which is a math function involving SHA256 hashing. The most expensive video card has a rating of around 600, compared to a $1000 processor being able to do about 20 in equivalent units. So about a factor of 30x the performance. But a programmable shader, would have a simplified instruction set, and there are also going to be situations where not much of its power can be brought to bear. In this example of computing SHA256 on small messages, the problem is almost infinitely scalable, as each computation is independent of its neighbor (mainly compute bound, with little I/O). A good video card has 2048 programmable shaders inside it, compared to the 4 or 8 cores in the CPU. Massive parallelism only works, if the job can be sub-divided over many computing devices. The trick with all of this, is how do you harness it in your own system ? Windows video CODECS (coder/decoder) are arranged in a decoding tree, when a decoding job needs to be done. Graphedit is a tool for looking at such trees. But I wouldn't expect to find ready-made CODECs you could install, which would offload your CPU and magically fix this. If you were writing your own code, there would be many more possibilities for unloading the CPU, yet being able to record all the streams. Older video cards, aren't nearly as useful in this regard. The video card I've got, is a non-starter, so I can't play with this stuff. A modern low end card might have 80 programmable shaders, and at least allow using the SDK (software development kit) provided by the manufacturer. (You can play with code, even on cheaper cards.) Even some of AMDs high end processors can participate. The AMD Llano has a GPU inside the processor chip, with 400 programmable shaders running at a lower speed than on a video card. So even a motherboard with one of those processors, can do GPGPU computing, without a video card being present. (With AMD, their library is OpenCL, while with NVidia, the library is CUDA. So separate development paths for things like SDKs if you were a programmer.) Many programming problems, can't be broken down into 2048 pieces, for a large speedup. For example, when post-processing movie output from a video editor, some of these things when run through the GPGPU method, get a 3x speedup, which is still worthwhile, but not awe inspiring. There are also examples, where a computing algorithm is loaded onto programmable shaders in a video card, and runs slower than a CPU based algorithm. On average, hardly any problems see 30x speedup. It's like winning the lottery when it happens. Even if you only have a CPU to work with, some software decoders work better than others. Not many software developers spend the time to optimize stuff like this, perhaps rewrite the decoding loop in assembler. And it's much easier to get an extra 20% by fixing the code, than by buying another CPU for the machine. Well written packages, will detect the CPU type, and use different code for each CPU. Paul |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Looking For Significantly-Faster Setup
PeteCresswell wrote: Sounds to me like I should drop this for now.
To wit: - What I was trolling for was some super-new development in mobos/CPUs that rendered my current setup obsolete. Sounds like that hasn't happened and isn't about to happen soon. - The camera thing is dynamic. I'm just experimenting and that won't be forever. The immediate issue is butting heads with the media server as it records TV shows. But that's not exactly a big deal, since cameras can be selective shut down anytime... and even on a schedule. - The muy-expensivo upgrade cited for only 20% could probably be compared unfavorably with the additional electricity cost of just putting another PC online 24-7 to handle the cameras. In round approximate numbers: .18/KwHr.... 120 watts for a second 24-7 PC... ((120 * 24) / 1000) * .18 = approx fifty cents a day... 365 days.... $180 per year... That Q8400 can be overclocked to 400 x 8 = 3.2 GHz with a decent cpu cooler and willing RAM. That'd probably give you your 20%. Otherwise, maybe replace the least efficient camera? I had a Q9550 overclocked to 3.4 GHz which I handed-down to my son in favor of a new Z68 + 2600K system. I notice zero difference in my media encoding and occasional DVD shrinking, but the new system is much more power efficient. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why are SATA drives faster than PATA when parallel ports are faster than serial? | Bob[_32_] | General | 8 | September 24th 10 09:50 AM |
cant install drivers "setup did not find compatable drivers......setup will exit" | Dagger | Ati Videocards | 14 | August 20th 08 09:51 PM |
CPU multiplier dropped significantly after wakeup from standby | [email protected] | General | 1 | November 11th 07 10:39 AM |
how to launch debug.exe before setup.exe using bootable cd for winxp setup | [email protected] | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | May 24th 06 01:06 PM |
New drivers for HP 7310 are significantly better | [email protected] | Printers | 0 | April 27th 05 09:10 AM |