Jump to content

Upgrade from 4.56 to 5.03 is TOTALLY worth it


Recommended Posts

To anyone wondering if they should pay for the upgrade from the 4.x train to 5.x, it is absolutely worth it.

For me, encoding a 45 minute 720p avi has dropped from 2.5 hours (4.56) to around 45 minutes (5.03) [windows 10, i7-2600]. Same settings, same filters.
CPU utilization went from 25% to 99%.

Thank you! :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattD said:

CPU utilization went from 25% to 99%.

 

I think you meant that backwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting (and what I have been waiting for - I'll give it a try tonight and see if I get the same result).

 

UPDATE

I tried updating from 5.01 to 5.03 and my .mp4 video of 30 minutes rendered in 23:08 mins at 20fps, 8192kbs, 128kHz audio - I think this is the same as in 5.01. Additionally, CPU did not exceed about the 42% mark (overall CPU utilisation at the time 76%). Oh well, maybe the next release...

 

Edited by Aresby
Tried it out
Link to post
Share on other sites

Working fine for me on PC. I don't think 5.0.1 was available on PC?

I only see occasional drops to 50%, and even then the duration is short. I suspect it has something to do with hyperthreading.

 

jjgDJK1.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Just tried it with a couple of my videos and I also saw a dramatic improvement. Videos that would take hours on the old version now take much less time on the new. Unfortunately I bought VideoPad on steam, and they don't seem to be updating that version, or responding on the steam forums anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-1 at 3:22 AM, MattD said:

Working fine for me on PC. I don't think 5.0.1 was available on PC?

I only see occasional drops to 50%, and even then the duration is short. I suspect it has something to do with hyperthreading.

 

jjgDJK1.png

 

Ah ha! that screenshot explains a lot (of both your effusing and my grumbling). I don't generate H264 videos; I use .mp4 because when I started with VP it took forever to generate a 20-minute H264 video (I mean, hours). So I'm generating .mp4 which doesn't use the x264encoder hence why my CPU % is a bit like yours shown against VideoPad Editor. Worse than that, 5.01 (yes, for the PC) was so bad even generating .mp4 videos that I have dropped my framerate to 20fps, not ideal but good enough for my YouTube channel. I wanted to revert to 4.xx but my video was edited using 5.01 which does the transitions differently, meaning not backward compatible.

Maybe I should retest 5.03 generating one of my existing videos using H264? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MattDUsing either of those settings how long does it take you to generate, say, a 10 (or 15, or 30 - so I can extrapolate) minute video? I've got a less powerful PC than you, an i5 Quad Core (no hyperthreading) 2.9GHz 16Gb and it still renders in far more than real-time (so a 10 minute video takes about 20 minutes, in H264 1080P 25fps). 

If I generate a MPEG4 video at 20 fps .mp4 it takes about 75% of real-time (so a 30 minute video takes about 20 minutes to render, or thereabouts).

Hmm, I've just seen that AMD are to bring out a 16-core monster in the summer to rival Intel's i9... :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...