Support for 8 cores?

[Deathspawner]

Hi all,

The PC I use for ripping/converting has 8 cores, and because Batch Converter can handle multi-core, I assumed that it would be able to take advantage of all the cores the PC has. When converting 5,000 FLAC to MP3s though, the program doesn't touch the second processor at all.

Is it possible to perform a batch convert and use all 8 cores (or even more)?

Thanks much for any help!

[LtData]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

Yes, if you have the Reference version of dMC. Check dBpoweramp Configuration (see "Need to find your version?" below) to see what version of dMC you have.

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/db-versions.htm

Edit: Per Spoon's post below, 4 cores is the maximum. I apologize for any confusion.

[Deathspawner]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

Hi LtData,

Thanks for the quick response! I am using 12.4 Reference. Because the program uses the first four cores in the machine fine, however, I believe the feature is working fine. I just need to know how, if it's possible, to have the program utilize all eight. Right now, it ignores the second processor entirely.

[Spoon]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

4 is the maximum, your hard disc will be the bottle neck if you had 8 cores going flac to mp3.

[bhoar]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

4 is the maximum, your hard disc will be the bottle neck if you had 8 cores going flac to mp3.

Spoon: this assumes you are using a single spinning platter drive. There are setups with RAID 0 arrays of hard disks or SSDs where the storage is not the bottleneck.

-brendan

[Deathspawner]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

RAID would indeed be different, or perhaps a 10,000RPM+ drive would even help. Regardless, I have a regular 500GB disk, so the rule that Spoon mentioned would apply... I can't believe I didn't consider that.

Thanks for all the help regardless. I did the process through the night and it took around five hours and finished without a hitch. I've used other batch programs in the past and they all seemed to crash half-way through, but this was flawless.

I also like the fact that the program emulates perfectly in Linux... it's one of the few programs I've had run so well through Wine.

Thanks again!

[Snowknight26]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

Forgive me for bumping such an old thread, but it was the only one I could find relevant to my question.

I've noticed that the current limit to simultaneous transcodes is 4. Are there any plans to raise that limit to 8 or even 16? I would hate to see my 16-core beast sit there with 75% of its processing power being unused. :p

[Spoon]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

It is likely the bottleneck is the HDD not the CPUs.

[Snowknight26]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

Not when it also has a RAID with an average read/write speed of 700MB/s.

[bhoar]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

Not when it also has a RAID with an average read/write speed of 700MB/s.

Tell me about this RAID system!

-brendan

[Snowknight26]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

Though I don't wish to get off topic, oh well.

12x1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11s (ST31000340AS) in RAID6 on an Areca 1280ML with a 4GB cache.

[bhoar]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

Though I don't wish to get off topic, oh well.

12x1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11s (ST31000340AS) in RAID6 on an Areca 1280ML with a 4GB cache.

Ok, last comment before we get back on topic: I'm a big fan of the Areca controllers.

-brendan

[Spoon]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

In future it might change for R14, but for the majority of people even enabling 4 cores (the program will smartly select), such as Apple Lossless >> FLAC is slower than 1.

[Snowknight26]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

I'm sorry, how can enabling more cores be slower? Please don't say HDD bottleneck. Today's HDDs can easily do 50, 70, even 100MB/s+.

[LtData]

Re: Support for 8 cores?

But you are having to read from the drive to get the file and then write it back, so yes, the HDD is a bottleneck, especially with large lossless files.