Transcoding Multiple Streams (Intel Quick Sync)
|Overall Statistics||Transcoding, Quick Sync|
|Read Operations||144 885|
|Data Read||16.00 GB|
|Data Written||756.30 MB|
|Disk Busy Time||41.72 s|
|Average Data Rate||410.91 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, which went into Intel's decision to dedicate silicon on its Sandy Bridge-based processors to accelerating video encode and decode. Dubbed Quick Sync, 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.
That's exactly why we profiled transcoding in our previous examination of storage in office productivity. Unfortunately, that was somewhat limited in scope because it only involved transcoding a single video clip. Using the same applications, it's often possible to transcode multiple video clips simultaneously. Fraps is a perfect example. The software truncates each video file to 4 GB, so we have a total of six video clips from our Battlefield 3 gameplay.
While CyberLink's MediaEspresso only allows a total of four simultaneous transcoding operations, that still counts as encoding multiple files at the same time. Overall, the access pattern is still sequential involving 128 KB transfers. Queue depth is where we see things diverge. With more files accessed at the same time, the majority of the operations are queued between two and five deep.
- 16% of all operations occur at a queue depth of one
- 47% of all operations occur at queue depths between two and four
- 30% of all operations occur at queue depths between five and eight
- 82% of all data transferred is sequential
- 88% of all operations are 128 KB in transfer size
Makes all your encoding bench's completely worthless until a method is figured to have the software CPU engine do the exact same workload as the QS engine.
How some queue depth,transfer size and seek distance bars can show me how better the ssd is? In the case of the encoding it is time ,but thats all. I realize ssd are faaaaaar better but such tables aren't helping.
Boot drives are great for an SSD as that is pretty much limited by disk reads and content creation can be limited somewhat by disk reads, but I do think hard drives in RAID provide good enough performance with substantially greater storage space.
For one, due to your GPU selection you are not using the Mercury Playback Engine CUDA processing in Premiere, which will bottleneck the CPU during use, and skew the test results compared to an editing rig (in this case I believe it would tilt the results in the SSD's favor).
2nd, no serious editor is going to use a single HDD for video editing. At the very least you would have a content drive and a scratch disc (in addition to the system drive), and typically you would have a RAID0/1 for editing with. All of these setups are well within the budget of a single SSD, and will support much larger sizes.
3rd, Editing on a 240GB drive (much less using Adobe Premiere with only 8GB of Ram) would be a logistical nightmare for file storage. Yes, it does make the point that the SSD is faster (no contest there, and nobody would believe for a second that a HDD could beat an SSD in any performance metric), but comparing a 2TB drive (which has plenty of space), to a 240GB drive (which could only hold a few projects and files on it at once) is unfair price-wise. Yes, it may work for 5min youtube projects, but for wedding videos, or other longer projects (especially if there is a lot of raw footage) it would be impratical to use, and you would constantly have to be moving files, and deleting old projects to make space, which will waste much more time than the few minutes saved on export.
In general, buying a RAID setup (or having multiple raids for content and scratch discs) will provide much more space, and overwhelm even the fastest i7 processors on the market today, and still be cheaper than a decent sized SSD. Until CPUs and GPUs get faster there is no practical 'need' for having an SSD to serve up your content for video editing, unless you are on a server/workstation grade computer with duel Xeon processors. In short, if you have the money for a large enough SSD, you would see much more improvement in the system to invest in other parts. If you happen to have a top notch system already, then you could throw money at an SSD, but the test system used here would not qualify as being high end for video editing.
All that said, I would still invest in a 120 or 240GB SSD for a system drive. It is just for editing and data storage that it becomes impractical.
Bingo, that's bang on. It is disappointing that they did not test a mechanical HD raid 0 setup which offers all the throughput needed while offering far more storage space (which is definitely a huge plus in media content creation) at the same or lower price.