CPU performance difference first hand...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
Converting 45 minute 1.2GB 720p video to ipod touch format using videora...

Main machine (e5200@3.5, 4gb, win7x64): 40 minutes
Torrent Machine (P4 2.8C, 2gb, win7x32): 1 hr 50 minutes.

I wonder how long it would take on a c2q 9550? i7 920...? Hmm.... I know I've noticed differences with games and such from upgrading but I never encoded video or anything that could literally be timed on different machines.

I know I know... cool story bro
 
AzN

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
You should be coverting videos with your video card seriously. It's 5x faster than the fastest processor.

I can convert a 2 hour video in about 15 minutes with my GTX260.
 
fffblackmage

fffblackmage

Platinum Member
Dec 28, 2007
2,548
0
76
Oxaqata said:
How is it for video quality? Guess it doesn't really matter on iPod though. :)
Click to expand...
I think that's more dependent on your chosen software than hardware.

AzN said:
You should be coverting videos with your video card seriously. It's 5x faster than the fastest processor.
Click to expand...
Since we're on this topic... what programs are there for video conversion using gpu?
 
tweakboy

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2010
9,517
2
81
www.hammiestudios.com
What program is he using. Is GPU acceleration enabled to use your GPU and CPU to encode.

With Sony Vegas I'm sure theres a option. mage is totally right !

thanks
 
R

robertk2012

Platinum Member
Dec 14, 2004
2,134
0
0
AzN said:
You should be coverting videos with your video card seriously. It's 5x faster than the fastest processor.

I can convert a 2 hour video in about 15 minutes with my GTX260.
Click to expand...

The quality is typically crap.

I use handbrake. Best option I could find.
 
A

alyarb

Platinum Member
Jan 25, 2009
2,444
0
76
the quality is abysmal at full size. the encoders are still immature. the front-end of the software is typically made for novice consumers, giving them drag-and-drop transcode capability for their phones where image/sound quality play second fiddle to compression and file size. there are no interesting parameters for the user to tweak with these GPGPU transcoders to get the output you want. what you do get is something that barely passes mustard on a 480x360 screen.

as far as i know, there are no freeware GPGPU transcoders available and it's not worth the risk of paying money to get an output that probably looks like crap, perhaps even on your tiny ipod. just use handbrake or a similar x86 application until these techniques improve. simply because one person is happy with the fourth or fifth attempt at such an encoder does not mean it's ready for prime time. there have been numerous, numerous, numerous articles written about each encoder over the past three (four?) years and how they run on various GPUs. If you want to take a look for yourself at the evolution of GPGPU transcoding image quality, google is a click away. I was excited about this technology when I first caught wind of it, and I still am. When I'm impressed, I'll be the first to start preaching.
 
Last edited:
D

Drakula

Senior member
Dec 24, 2000
642
0
71
Settings will affect the speed of transcode as well. If adjusting certain parts like motion estimation or whatever, your transcode time will increase.

Have no "supported" GPU transcoding card, thank you ATI, not sure how the quality would be, but there is a freeware called MediaCoder claimed to support Nvidia GPU acceleration for H.264 codec. Not recalling much been weeks since I went to their site. If someone is willing to give it a try, please let us know. I am interested in both quality and speed. They do claim the quality is better than x264, but you know how it is...
 
D

Drakula

Senior member
Dec 24, 2000
642
0
71
alyarb said:
you realize everyone would be shitting themselves if this was true right? and that the program would not be freeware?
Click to expand...

Well, that is why I said "you know how it is...":D, indicating that of course they would try to say theirs is better.
 
A

alyarb

Platinum Member
Jan 25, 2009
2,444
0
76
have you tried it? oh nvm. yeah i'm in your position. i can't upgrade to a 200-watt GPGPU device and have it encode for 8+ hours unless the video looks as good (and the encoder is just as smart) as on my 100-watt x86 device that runs for 16 hours.
 
Last edited:
D

Drakula

Senior member
Dec 24, 2000
642
0
71
alyarb said:
have you tried it? oh nvm. yeah i'm in your position.
Click to expand...

:) The highest end video card in possession is a X1950 Pro. Got it back when Circuit City had a sale and rebate for it. Was really happen to get it since there were talks about GPU accelerated applications. Little did I know that ATI ended up not supporting it, even worse is that newer Catalyst drivers do not support it either.:|

Anyway, while we are on the subject of video encoding, has anyone tried to do 1080i transcoding before? I tried it before with sample capture and it was unbearable, I think the program shut itself off too.:D
 
AzN

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
alyarb said:
the quality is abysmal at full size. the encoders are still immature. the front-end of the software is typically made for novice consumers, giving them drag-and-drop transcode capability for their phones where image/sound quality play second fiddle to compression and file size. there are no interesting parameters for the user to tweak with these GPGPU transcoders to get the output you want. what you do get is something that barely passes mustard on a 480x360 screen.

as far as i know, there are no freeware GPGPU transcoders available and it's not worth the risk of paying money to get an output that probably looks like crap, perhaps even on your tiny ipod. just use handbrake or a similar x86 application until these techniques improve. simply because one person is happy with the fourth or fifth attempt at such an encoder does not mean it's ready for prime time. there have been numerous, numerous, numerous articles written about each encoder over the past three (four?) years and how they run on various GPUs. If you want to take a look for yourself at the evolution of GPGPU transcoding image quality, google is a click away. I was excited about this technology when I first caught wind of it, and I still am. When I'm impressed, I'll be the first to start preaching.
Click to expand...

Were you expecting 720p quality video in your ipod touch that's been scaled down to fit 320x240 screen? You might want to try newer versions of the software as it has gotten better over time. All the videos I've converted look clear and sexy in my little zune. Now if I blow it up on my computer it looks like crap as it wasn't meant to fit into a 1080p screen just like youtube standard videos look like crap when I blow it up on my computer.
 
E

EnzoLT

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,843
4
91
yeah, gpu accelerated encoding usually sucks in terms of quality. but then since its only going to an ipod, so it works. i do video archiving and that sht sucks... lol.
 
E

elconejito

Senior member
Dec 19, 2007
607
0
76
www.harvsworld.com
I've heard that the GPU encoders are crap. And then I've heard you have to tweak the settings. And then I've heard they've gotten better. So... I'm not sure, and I've been a little hesitant to install one just to try.

At the OP's original point, Over the last several upgrades I've done I've done comparisons between old and new. I don't have them handy but each step bought me about 20-30% improvement. I started at q6600 stock 2.4Ghz, then to Q6600 OC to 3.2Ghz, then Q9650 at stock 3.0Ghz (faster than Q6600 OC to 3.2), then Q9650 at 4Ghz+

For the last upgrade, things that used to encode in about an hour now take about 40mins. I think the original Q6600 at stock took maybe about 2hours-ish.

And yeah for some reason 1080i is brutal. I can encode 720p real fast, but 1080i brings the fps down to a third or less of my fps on 720p content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom