Video Transcoding
| Overall Statistics | Video Clip Transcoding |
|---|---|
| Elapsed Time | 01:36 |
| Read Operations | 8414 |
| Write Operations | 2783 |
| Data Read | 858.09 MB |
| Data Written | 238.46 MB |
| Disk Busy Time | 3.07 s |
| Average Data Rate | 357.28 MB/s |
According to Cisco, global Internet video traffic surpassed global peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic in 2010, and by 2012, Internet video will account for over 50 percent of consumer Internet traffic. Amazingly, that number does not include the amount of video exchanged through P2P file sharing.
This underscores the pervasiveness of streaming video. Here at Tom's Hardware, we often need to throw technology-related content onto YouTube for reviews and news posts. For others, this task may be more personal than professional. Either way, it's clear that content creation is a daily fact of life.
That's certainly the logic behind Intel's decision to dedicate a block of silicon on its Sandy Bridge-based processors to accelerating video encode and decode. Dubbed QuickSync, the company makes it possible to transcode an entire unprotected Blu-ray movie in under 20 minutes. We already took a very thorough look at output quality and found Quick Sync to be surprisingly good. For more information, read Video Transcoding Examined: AMD, Intel, And Nvidia In-Depth.
In our trace, we transcode an unprotected Blu-ray video clip using the default 720p profile for the Apple iPad with CyberLink's MediaEspresso. We didn't record the time it took to load the application, but we did record 858 MB worth of reads (158 MB more than the size of our original video file). The extra data is attributable to the application's libraries and various other file dependencies for the transcoding task.
We see higher queue depths, though fewer than 1.6% of all operations occur above a queue depth of 32. Even then, we never see any operation queued more than 62 deep. As for transfer size and seek distance, our trace reflects what you'd expect of a video oriented workload: 128 KB transfers accessed sequentially.
I/O Trends:
- 30% of all operations occur at a queue depth of one
- 56% of all operations occur between a queue depth of two and six
- 91% of all data transferred is sequential
- 75% of all operations are 128 KB in transfer size
Related Stories :
- Micron Introduces SAS Solid-State Drive
- Intel Releases 20 nm, 240 GB Solid State Drive
- HGST Debuts 12 Gb/s SAS Solid State Drives
- OCZ, Marvell Debut PCI Express Z-Drive R5 Solid State Solution
- Seagate Now Shipping 2nd-Gen Solid State Hybrid Drive
- OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid: Solid-State Speed With Hard Drive Capacity
- Seagate Shipping Pulsar XT.2 Solid State Drive
- OCZ Beefs Up Solid State Drive Portfolio
- Spring 2010 Solid State Drive Roundup, Part 2
- Spring 2010 Solid State Drive Roundup, Part 1
Nice escape, Tom's... I was wondering "hmm, what kind of torrent will they download, 95% of them are copyright infringement"... nice
And a good article, too - maybe now I can convince some of our "office-only-don't-need-fancy-hardware" clients to switch to SSDs, esp. considering the HDD price increases.
I want an SSD so bad I can taste it. The biggest problem for me is Price and Size. For my system drive I would need at least 500-600 GB and these sized SSDs are way to much money. My Steam folder is like 280 GBs alone. I know alot of you are going to say just put Windows and the most critical apps on the SSD and the rest on my 1TB drive but that defeats the purpose in my book. I want all my apps to benefit from the SSD especially if I am going to invest so much money into it. Here's to hoping the prices come down and fast!
Better question: which SSD is more affordable, and which is more... reliable?
SSD's are meant for holding only your operating system and a few key applications you can't live without. All your data/media should be stored on a regular, large hard disk.
Unless you are working with huge files like pictures and videos, there isn't much a need for a huge SSD. A pair or HDD in RAID combine with a SSD can give you even better capacity and speed. I think most consumers are better with a 90-120GB SSD and a nice large HDD. I got an alright 120GB SSD for $120 w/ rebate. A good 120GB SSD cost about $180-$220. Laptops can hold two drive if your replace your dvd drive which most people rarely use. Once you get a SSD, it is hard to go back.
Your office is apparently far different that the ones I service
At least you got a virus scan and MS Word typing in there.
I suppose I can see some inexpensive reliable SSDs in office machines in the near future, mostly to reduce the failures connected with mechanical drives and speed up boot times and installation times.
I dont get it
Office computer, files on server.
SSD not really appropriate.
Unless by office computer you mean where you have the only computer in the office, or files do not need to be shared around the office.
Given the amount of work people do who open large files (where an ssd may be appropriate), they are too small/too expensive to be justified.
Example, large 3d CaD drawings, spend extra money on them loading faster, lose funds for better overall computer (graphics especially).
still love ocz vertex3
I've got a C300 in my work pc, and I have to say I'm disappointed. Not by the performance itself, but the overall result. Productivity went DOWN after the upgrade, as the size of the thing simply isn't adequate. You spend more time cleaning up and moving data than you do actually working. And I even had to move all my virtual machines to usb. That didn't exactly speed up anything either. Replacing a 750gb drive with a 120gb ssd simply isn't viable.
I find it ironic that the only place your tiny ssd drives are good enough are in computers where speed isn't important in the first place. Until 320GB ssd's can compete with regular magnetic drives, it isn't an option to upgrade.
Imagine the added cost of upgrading the 2442 registered clients to ssd drives! About half could make do with a 120GB drive, and the rest would need at least 160GB and possibly bigger.
That's an expense you can't possibly gain in productivity.
Replacing sas drives with ssd's might make sense for your database or vmware/hyper-v systems, but it isn't going to make much sense on the majority of workstations.
Good article, but I think it missed this:
A AutoCAD (or some other CAD software) benchmark for loading and saving a file.
In this case, it's not just about how many second of work I lose per day. I waste a minute just to open the damn program on this notebook (which runs a HDD), and another half a minute to open a file. Saving also takes from 5 to 15 seconds (autosave is a bitch, but it is needed).
"It's not just about how many seconds I waste" because while it is working/saving/loading, i tend to alt+tab to something else and get distracted. I have absolutely no patience to wait 10 seconds for something, and I move to the next or get distracted, wasting even more time. That's why I think such a benchmark would've been important. And remember: Autosave is a (much needed) bitch. :S
I waste a minute just to open the damn program on this notebook (which runs a HDD), and another half a minute to open a file.
I don't have Autocad on this system, but I just opened Inventor 2012 Pro and loaded a new file based on the ansi (mm) idw file (so I didn't have to use scroll) - this took a total of 54 seconds on my C300 SSD.
That's only 30 secs less than your estimated time.
Office computer, files on server.SSD not really appropriate. Unless by office computer you mean where you have the only computer in the office, or files do not need to be shared around the office.Given the amount of work people do who open large files (where an ssd may be appropriate), they are too small/too expensive to be justified.Example, large 3d CaD drawings, spend extra money on them loading faster, lose funds for better overall computer (graphics especially).
You sound a bit like Mordin, from ME 2...
The problem IMO is the long list of startup programs-Hell its not the end of the world if i don't check adobe flash for updates right away.And after my intervention ,when i finally decide to update it pops up again.Many of my less tech savvy friends do not take care for their windows ,and after 2 years they decide to buy a new laptop.Of course startup windows times isn't the only benefit of buying ssd ,but it can be felt right away.When the price for GB falls under half a dollar I AM IN.
The key advantage for an SSD with MS Outlook is search. If you're a heavy email user, you're using the search feature of Outlook dozens of times per day. Outlook 2010's indexing is good, and on a HDD it's usable, but on an SSD it simply flies, bringing back results faster than Google's Instant Search.
What office worker have a GTX 580 and an i5-2500k for outlook and word? I would more agree if this article is do it with a more office rig, like C2D or i3 2nd generation both with non good mobos, generic RAM and not dedicated GPU.
Just my 2 cents.
The last video pretty much sums up the advantages of SSD over an HDD in many uses. It's actually quite astonishing.
last page, 3rd paragraph: "Launch times are only only component of performance, though."
While an interesting review I think you glossed over the main point through the article, but then illustrated it well in the video at the end. SSD's do not help with traditional performance. They do not make programs run faster, they will hot help your FPS in games, and they do not let your computer handle larger workloads; those tasks are specifically for the processor, GPU, and Ram (respectively).
SSD's are great however at killing load times. I would love to see an article about SSD use on older or value processors, because it really brings new life to the computer. A perfect example of this is a comparison of my wife's PC and mine. She has a Core2Duo 2.66GHz with 4GB of ram and a passive 8600GTS, and a 60GB SSD (OCZ Solid3, and no, we have not had any firmware issues, it works great!). Not a speed demon, but a very respectable computer with a nice large screen and good stereo. Mine was a clone of that until I upgraded last month to an i7 2600 3.4GHz, 16GB Ram, and a GTX570, but mine has traditional HDDs.
My wife's PC will run circles around mine all day long for office use, because the programs are more reliant on fast access to files, and quickly opening and closing programs, and not so much on raw processing requirements of said programs. The 3 second wake/sleep is fairly impressive as well. However, when it comes to video editing (which is what mine is made/designed for), and the occasional game, hers simply cannot run the programs, while mine will run them smooth as warm butter on freshly baked raisin bread (mmmmm).
So is an SSD worth the money? For businesses and secretarial use; Absolutely! It will decrease waiting time way more then upgrading the computer in most cases (I mean, if you are running a Pentium 4 then it is time to upgrade, but if it is a duel core processor then the money is better spent on the SSD). For production and design work? If it came down to more ram, better GPU, or a Processor, vs having an SSD, then I would (and did) hold off on the SSD until later. While an SSD adds convenience, it does not do the work any faster in heavy workloads, and money is better spent on the processor and GPU and Ram (to a point of course). However, after using an SSD I must say... there is no going back once you get use to the fast load times!