Foobar2000: Conversion is using too much CPU

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

akse0435

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2021
Messages
17
Location
Denmark
Hi,

I have some iso files ripped from SACD's, which I'm trying to convert to flac files with Foobar2000. However, when I start the conversion, Foobar2000 just seems to use all the CPU threats, and the computer imediately gets extremely slow and unuseable, and I haven't been able to find a way to change that.

How can you change how many threats the program will use for conversion?

Thank you.

Kind regards
 
I've seen that, I let it go and it was done later. I've no idea how long it took.
 
When converting from one format to another, a good encoder will always find a way to maximize your CPU to get the job done as fast as possible. If you have a lower-end device, it isn't recommended to convert stuff while you're actively using the computer.
 
I've never encountered any slowdowns from doing file conversion in Foo that I'm aware of. My older machine is a 6th gen i7/16GB RAM, my newer one is a 10th gen i7/32GB RAM.
The only app I ever notice getting bogged down is the Dolby Reference Player when I open Outlook.
 
When converting from one format to another, a good encoder will always find a way to maximize your CPU to get the job done as fast as possible. If you have a lower-end device, it isn't recommended to convert stuff while you're actively using the computer.
I also suspect the computer is old and/or underpowered. You might be able to assign Foobar a lower cpu priority, which will allow it to more easily release the cpu when another task asks for processing. I think by default it should be low or normal priority though, I wouldn't suspect having to change this. So I still think that the underlying issue is the computer is just slow.
 
I also suspect the computer is old and/or underpowered. You might be able to assign Foobar a lower cpu priority, which will allow it to more easily release the cpu when another task asks for processing. I think by default it should be low or normal priority though, I wouldn't suspect having to change this. So I still think that the underlying issue is the computer is just slow.
Yup. The PC I noticed it on has only 4G RAM.
 
Well yes, I suppose my computer is a bit underpowered. I'm using 1 TB SSD, 16 GB RAM, but only a 3rd generation Intel I5 processor with 2.8 GHz, so I suppose that could be why.
 
Well yes, I suppose my computer is a bit underpowered. I'm using 1 TB SSD, 16 GB RAM, but only a 3rd generation Intel I5 processor with 2.8 GHz, so I suppose that could be why.
It may be slow by todays standards, but that should be plenty of horsepower to do conversions.

An I5 has 2 cores and each core can hyperthread 2 threads if the software allows.
 
One of the best improvements in audio/video app speed I've encountered is using multiple task designated storage devices. In my set up that means one good size high performing SSD for OS & apps only (even browser cache is off loaded) and then 3, 4TB internal HDD's. The basic idea is to design a workflow where you are reading from 1 HDD & writing to another. Specifically I have 1 HDD for ripping, downloading, general storage, browser cache. And my AA3 and other editing A/V apps use this as a designated temp file storage.

Then I have 2 more HDD's that are pretty much the work drives where I open & edit what ever in one drive & save/write to the other drive. In batch processing it works great where files are opened up & automatically saved from one drive to the other. I think the more conventional way of just using a large single drive, partitioned into 2 or more sections , or just using whole would be a real drag.

I am impressed at many of the PC/MAC whatever systems our members have. Mine is pretty good but it's eclipsed by some of the monster set ups I randomly run across here. It might be good to start a dedicated thread for computer set ups & compare notes.
 
Well yes, I suppose my computer is a bit underpowered. I'm using 1 TB SSD, 16 GB RAM, but only a 3rd generation Intel I5 processor with 2.8 GHz, so I suppose that could be why.
The i5 should be adequate, but the SSD is running over the SATA port and that's limits it a bit, especially when accessing data from within a mounted ISO and converting that in real time to a new file on the same SSD. At least, if I were to guess nothing else wrong/all things being equal, that's probably where the bottleneck is.
 
Last edited:
The i5 should be adequate, but the SSD is running over the SATA port and that's limits it a bit, especially when accessing data from within a mounted ISO and converting that in real time to a new file on the same SSD. At least, if I were to guess nothing else wrong/all things being equal, that's probably where the bottleneck is.

Almost spot on, but I am, in fact, converting the files to another SSD, but maybe it doesn't make a difference.
 
Back
Top