What are the most likely bottlenecks determining the performance of CamStudio screen recording?

Posted by Steve314 on Super User See other posts from Super User or by Steve314
Published on 2011-11-13T20:28:57Z Indexed on 2011/11/15 1:58 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 212

Filed under:
|
|

When doing screen recording, I can get a frame rate of maybe 15 frames per second for the full screen on my 1080p monitor using the XVID codec. I can increase the speed a bit by recording a region, changing screen modes, and tweaking other settings, but I'm curious what hardware upgrades might give me the biggest bang for my buck.

My PC is budget, but modern...

  • Athlon 2 X4 645 (3.1GHz, quad core, limited cache) processor.
  • 4GB single channel DDR3 1066 RAM.
  • ASRock motherboard with NVidia GeForce 7025/nForce 630a Chipset.
  • ATI Radeon HD 5450 graphics card - 512MB on board, not configured to steal system RAM.

I dual-boot Windows XP and Windows 7. For the moment, XP is my bigger performance concern as it's still my getting-things-done O/S as opposed to my browser-host O/S.

My goal is to make a few programming-related tutorials. For a lot of that I don't need screen recording - I can make up some slides, record audio with the PC switched off, yada yada. When I do need screen recording, I'll mostly be recording Notepad++, Visual Studio or a command prompt. Occasionally, I may be recording some kind of graphics or diagram program and using my pre-Bamboo cheap Wacom tablet - I have the CS2 versions of Photoshop and Illustrator, but I'd much more likely be using Microsoft Paint. Basically, what I'll be recording won't be making huge demands on the machine - but recording a fair number of pixels (720p preferred) will be useful.

What's particularly wierd - not so long ago I still had a five-year-old Pentium 4 based PC. And (with the same 1080p monitor) it could record at not far from the same frame rate. So clearly the performance issues are more subtle than just throw-money-at-it.

My first guess would be that the main bottleneck is the bandwidth for transferring data to/from the graphics card. Is that likely to be correct?

  • In support of that, see this [Radeon HD 5450 review][1] - the memory bandwidth is only 12.8 GB/s. If you can't get data out of graphics memory quickly, you can't transfer it back to the system memory quickly. Apparently, that's slower than some top-end cards in 2002.

© Super User or respective owner

Related posts about Performance

Related posts about bottleneck