CloneBD and crappy HDD blues

Discussion in 'CloneBD' started by Sabertooth, Oct 17, 2015.

  1. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    This isn't a problem post.

    It's just my crying out to my fellows having found that my conversion speed with CloneBD is being limited (to a measly 165 fps) by my crappy old tech HDD. Now I'll be forced to upgrade! And not just to one big SDD, oh no! I'll be forced to buy a multi-pack of SSD's and RAID those suckers in order to get those frame rates up as high as they can go.

    Is any one else out there finding their CloneBD speeds are limited by their hard drive? Anybody using a SSD to run their CloneBD encodes? What framerates are you getting? Anybody using a super high throughput RAID array of SSD's? Just how high can I get those framerates?

    Realistically. I have a i7-3930 6-core (12 cores with virtualization) processor. Since CloneBD indicates it's operating around 80% CPU utilization, I guess I'll only need the one big SSD to get up to 100% processor utilization.

    Good thing the 3-D NAND and the bigger cheaper SSD's it makes possible are around the corner!

    Thanx CloneBD for showing me that information. No really, thanx. :ROFLMAO:
     
  2. ddjmagic

    ddjmagic Well-Known Member

    I'm running a SSD and my optical drive is the limitation. When not using the optical drive the CPU becomes the limitation.

    When it comes to the encoding part I doubt you will see a different between a single SSD and multiple SSD's in RAID (your CPU will be the limitation)
    If you are creating an ISO image you may see a difference during that section of the process :)
     
  3. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    The optical drive is glacially slow compared to the rest so that's no surprise.

    Oh no! You just told me I have to upgrade to an $1000 8 core i7‑5960X and a new $350 2011 mainboard to get better framerates AFTER upgrading the storage. That's even worse! :cry:

    Edit: and of course those use DDR4 memory so I need new memory too!
     
  4. ddjmagic

    ddjmagic Well-Known Member

    Yes, but once you do get that extra 15-20% from your current CPU, it really becomes a question on what it's really worth spending to get those extra FPS and save a few minutes.

    Unless you have money to burn, I'd just get a good SSD, max the current CPU and be happy, as you probably will have faster encode times than 95% of other users anyway :D
     
  5. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    I have a love/hate relationship with CloneBD telling me I have an HDD bottleneck.

    Well, the 3930 is a Sandy Bridge E and while it's still competitive in some metrics, it's starting to fall a bit behind even though I'm using water cooling to crank it up to a safe 4.2GHz overclock. The 5960 is a Haswell E so it's actually a couple iterations behind Skylake the latest and greatest. But Skylake doesn't have an E series that I've heard. That said a new proc/mainboard would also have more PCIe lanes, m.2 or u.2 SSD interface, a variety of new USB interfaces among other features I currently lack so I'd gain more than just a few FPS. That said I could build it cheaper than buy it I bet probably under $2000 compared to $5000 though for $5000 it's probably also got multiple SLI video cards something i probably wouldn't do.

    What kind of processor are you rocking and what are your frame rates like with the SSD? I expect I could get up to 200 fps with the SSD (SATA3 @~500mb/s) if it scales linearly.
     
  6. ddjmagic

    ddjmagic Well-Known Member

    Yes, Broadwell doesn't even have have an Enthusiast line yet ;)


    My desktop systems (both SSD) have -
    3770K Stock - 105-115fps (actually slower than my peak ODD)
    4790K Stock - 130-140fps (slightly faster than my peak ODD)
    For comparison when setting options in CloneBD to turn off encoding (video/audio passthrough) I get 300FPS, this is using a single SSD as source/temp/destination (higher if I change destination to a different drive)
    As you can see for me at least the CPU has a long way to go to make the single SSD the bottleneck.
    For reference SSD is an older Samsung 830 with about 80GB free space.

    I'd expect you would get 180FPS+ if maxing out your 3930K.

    Maybe 'Adbear' or 'SlyFox 1' can post what speeds they are getting with the newer CloneBD - both of them have some mouthwatering systems, I would be interested to see what could be achieved with a CPU like the 5960X (if I remember correctly one of them has it)
     
  7. Adbear

    Adbear Well-Known Member

    If I remember I'll give the 5960x a go on Monday as I'm building one for a client at the moment
     
    Sabertooth and ddjmagic like this.
  8. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    I'm currently running a 256 GB Samsung 840 Pro as my system drive but I have only 43 GB of free space so it's not really useable for the blu-rays. I'm really tempted to jump out and buy a nice cheap 120GB ssd just to use for encoding!

    The 3000 series seems to be getting about 27 fps per core both the quad core and my 6 core. the 4000 series looks about 10-15% faster. That could put a 8-core 5000 series in the 250 fps plus category. Can't wait to hear your results!
     
  9. Adbear

    Adbear Well-Known Member

    Just been running a test using a 5960X with no overclocking (3GHz). Copied Insurgent to an SSD drive then told CloneBD to shrink the main movie down to around 6.5GB as an h264 MKV with AC3 audio. Frame rate varies between 260 to 310 depending on the scene. The film is around 2 hours long and took 9 minutes 29 seconds. When it hit the end credits it got up as high as 475fps

    Same film using h265 comes in around 60-70fps, but does seem to have a few issues as it's not always able to keep up and often comes up with the message that the CPU is not being used to it's fullest
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2015
  10. ddjmagic

    ddjmagic Well-Known Member

    Thanks Adbear. Wow, that CPU is a monster! :cool:
     
  11. Adbear

    Adbear Well-Known Member

    In theory I can overclock to around 4.3Ghz, but I don't have a water cooling block at the moment, and the air cooler peaks at around 3.2.
    The small amount of time it does run before throttling due to heat it gets up to around 375fps
     
    whatever_gong82 and ddjmagic like this.
  12. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Sweet! Under 10 minutes is pretty great to re-encode a 2 hour blu-ray, IMHO.

    I couldn't resist and ordered a Samsung 250 GB 850 EVO SSD ($75) just to use for encoding. Should arrive today. With my current overclock using water cooling, temps only get up to 59 C at peak load so I could go higher. I'm using a closed loop Corsair H100 for cooling the processor. Seems that the 5960 doesn't have quite the headroom for overclocking that the 3930 does (but I'd still rather have the 5960).

    Edit: 60 frames increase in your overclock is around 20% that would mean it'd take around 8 minutes to encode the movie.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2015
  13. ddjmagic

    ddjmagic Well-Known Member

    It also seems that creating a smaller 1080p MKV file (6GB) is around 20% faster than BD50 > BD25 (Partial copy)
    My 3770k stayed between 130-140 FPS compared to 105-115 FPS.

    Edit - Actually, not just file output mode, creating a 7GB 'Partial Copy' also brings higher speeds.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2015
  14. Sabertooth

    Sabertooth Well-Known Member

    Got the Samsung 850 EVO installed and benchmarked. Not too far off the rated speeds.
    as-ssd-bench Samsung SSD 850  10.20.2015 2-55-24 PM.png

    I definitely picked up a few fps but not quite to 200fps except peaks were slightly over. I used Elysium ripped to a folder and converted from 27 GB to under 3GB (maximum compression). BD Rebuilder reported the size at 157656 frames and it completed in 13:40 or 820 seconds for a calculated rate of 192.2634 fps

    The EVO is attached to an Intel x79 SATA3 6GB/s controller.