casey

> So I've been doing Jitter for about a year now and learning about all the

> optimization tricks, I've tried to optimize this patch as best I can, but

> I'm sure it could be better. If anyone can take a few minutes to check it

> out and make any recomendations I would really appreciate it.

"video_tiffany_processor" seems to be missing from your patch.

> So I've been doing Jitter for about a year now and learning about all the
> optimization tricks, I've tried to optimize this patch as best I can, but
> I'm sure it could be better. If anyone can take a few minutes to check it
> out and make any recomendations I would really appreciate it.

optimization-advice

> "video_tiffany_processor" seems to be missing from your patch.

> "video_tiffany_processor" seems to be missing from your patch.
>
>
also "filenamer2"

Without trying your patch (I miss a few objects):

- running the audio in a seperate instance is the only thing that will not matter for performance, since dsp processing is in a seperate thread already

- if your framerate drops, you could try to remove numboxes and other user interface elements that are updated continuously. GL stuff and user interface refreshing are in the same thread so won't spread over multiple processors (although your cpumeters will make you believe they do(!), check earlier topics for more info on that)

- I don't believe you are asking the maximum of a graphics card with this patch. Except for when the graphics card doesn't support openGL at all, I'd remain doing as much as possible on the gpu.

Another tip: if you want to add more functionality you could use more subpatchers to clean up the patch. I'd recommend to give the in- and outlets appropriate names.

Without trying your patch (I miss a few objects): 

> Sorry about that thought I had included everything,

> This one is missing some coll files but they are not part of the video

HI Casey, I couldn't find much to optimize on your patch. Like Mattijs

suggested, you could try to move the processing to the GPU, there is a

chance the mini graphics can handle it if it's able to do shaders (?). But

it will require you to redo most of the patch ofcourse.

If you want to fully exploit your dual core, you could split the video

processing in two different instances and send a matrix using the the

localhost with networking objects. I guess latency is not really an issue in

this installation, so you can split the processing like first half -> second

I tested your patch on a quad xeon 2.66 3gb and got about 15fps, but because

its one thread all cpu's are running at 25% ofcourse.

On 10/6/06, casey Farina  wrote:
>
>
> Sorry about that thought I had included everything,
> This one is missing some coll files but they are not part of the video
> processing chain.

HI Casey, I couldn't find much to optimize on your patch. Like Mattijs
suggested, you could try to move the processing to the GPU, there is a
chance the mini graphics can handle it if it's able to do shaders (?). But
it will require you to redo most of the patch ofcourse.

If you want to fully exploit your dual core, you could split the video
processing in two different instances and send a matrix using the the
localhost with networking objects. I guess latency is not really an issue in
this installation, so you can split the processing like first half -> second
half.

I tested your patch on a quad xeon 2.66 3gb and got about 15fps, but because
its one thread all cpu's are running at 25% ofcourse.

Optimization advice