Modern, but ultra-low-end GPU. For mostly video watching. Does it exist?

[cbn]

You might be on to something, but remember that AMD traditionally uses wider memory buses than Nvidia.

That is true but Polaris 11 (1024sp) only has 128 bit bus.

So a chip with 384sp (ie, harvested Polaris 12) should be able to get by with some pretty slow memory if it also has a 128 bit bus.

In fact, I think it would be pretty nice to have a 30W Polaris 12 (harvested 384sp) with 128 bit DDR4 2400 at say $59 2GB or $69 4GB* rather than the $79 of the RX 550 2GB.

*This if Polaris 12 can support 4K netflix on edge browser but also needs more than 2GB of VRAM to do so.

 

[cbn]

Some interesting info I found here:

For 1080p youtube H.264 is actually more efficient than VP9 (although VP9, as commonly known, is more efficient at 4K than H.264)

HOW MUCH BANDWITH FOR STREAMING? (ADSL units)

VP9 CODEC
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 8K = 2,65 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 4K = 2,16 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 2K = 1,07 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 1080p = 0,320 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 720p = 0,182 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 480p = 0,090 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 360p = 0,046 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 240p = 0,019 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 144p = 0,010 MBs


H264 CODEC:
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 8K = 9,8 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 4K = 2,88 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 2K = 1,3 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 1080p = 0,28 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 720p = 0,17 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 480p = 0,14 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 360p = 0,065 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 240p = 0,030 MBs
ADSL connection bandwith for streaming 144p = 0,013 MBs

(H.264 needs about 87% of the bandwidth of VP9 for 1080p)

However, I noticed VP9 is being used for 1080p 60 FPS Youtube videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU-nK4V5idY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ImZE0K7xc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE7VzlLtp-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzVGf-K2heg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anrvBD4aTGY

So it must be at 60 FPS VP9 is more efficient than H.264 even though the resolution is 1080p, but I wonder how much more efficient?

Another thing to consider, of course, is how well a low end CPU can handle 1080p 60 FPS Youtube.

Buying a better CPU vs. buying a modern video card for 1080p monitor users? Pros and Cons?

 

[escrow4]

Its rather ironic that something like a Snapdragon 625 which is mid range ish (mobile SoC version of an i5) can hardware decode HEVC 8 bit and software decode 10-bit, as well as having no issues with 60FPS Youtube but an old desktop would likely run out of puff. Personally I don't like add on GPUs unless you game on them; I would go for a new platform and CPU. This i5 7600 non K MFX block has no issues with the above say, although it cannot hardware decode the upcoming AV1.

 

[cbn]

There is some really good free software that can make use of the GPU for non-gaming purposes. (Eg, Hit Films Express, Autodesk Fusion 360 which uses gamer cards, Unreal Engine 4 (which can be used to make movies in addition to games).

So that is something to consider also.

 

[whm1974]

Its rather ironic that something like a Snapdragon 625 which is mid range ish (mobile SoC version of an i5) can hardware decode HEVC 8 bit and software decode 10-bit, as well as having no issues with 60FPS Youtube but an old desktop would likely run out of puff. Personally I don't like add on GPUs unless you game on them; I would go for a new platform and CPU. This i5 7600 non K MFX block has no issues with the above say, although it cannot hardware decode the upcoming AV1.

Keep in mind a cheap low end modern dGPU for a older low end desktop is enough improvement for those who want to watch streaming videos to be worthwhile, especially for folks who can't afford to buy a new system.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Its rather ironic that something like a Snapdragon 625 which is mid range ish (mobile SoC version of an i5) can hardware decode HEVC 8 bit and software decode 10-bit, as well as having no issues with 60FPS Youtube but an old desktop would likely run out of puff. Personally I don't like add on GPUs unless you game on them; I would go for a new platform and CPU. This i5 7600 non K MFX block has no issues with the above say, although it cannot hardware decode the upcoming AV1.

Small snippet of info here. Apollo Lake's Gen9 IGP can actually do both 8bit and 10bit h.265 and VP9 HW decode, that's about as low-end x86 as you can possibly get. I'm not sure if the 10bit is hybrid HW decoder/shader, but there is definitely -some- acceleration going on.

I was totally surprised in fact when I found that bit out. As you can imagine...

 

[nvgpu]

Apollo Lake's HEVC decoder is full fixed function, there's nothing hybrid about it. It even supports 8K HEVC Main10 video decoding like Kaby Lake.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/Acer/Aspire_ES1-332-P91H/dxvachecker.PNG

The only downside is Apollo Lake does not have the same Kaby Lake VP9 decoder, it only decodes 4K VP9 Profile0 8bit videos where as Kaby Lake supports 8K VP9 Profile2 10bit video decoding. Second disadvantage, Apollo Lake like Kaby Lake does not support HDMI 2.0 natively, but that will be fixed in successor Gemini Lake, which does support HDMI 2.0 natively.

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2017-February/118609.html

Geminilake has a native HDMI 2.0 controller, which is capable of
driving clocks upto 594Mhz.

 

[cbn]

Its rather ironic that something like a Snapdragon 625 which is mid range ish (mobile SoC version of an i5) can hardware decode HEVC 8 bit and software decode 10-bit, as well as having no issues with 60FPS Youtube but an old desktop would likely run out of puff. Personally I don't like add on GPUs unless you game on them

My stock speed Core i5 3470 (no dGPU) did acceptable in the first 1080p 60 FPS video from post #102:

135 dropped frames out of 22532 (which was the whole 6:15 viewing time).

Later on, I will test my E8400.

 

[cbn]

E8400 results for 1080p 60 FPS youtube video found in previous post:

5460 dropped frames out of 22532.

There were pauses throughout so the 6:15 video ended up taking 6:25 to finish (ie,10 seconds worth of pauses).

P.S. Both Core i5 3470 and the E8400 used Chrome Browser (and Windows 10).

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Apollo Lake's HEVC decoder is full fixed function, there's nothing hybrid about it. It even supports 8K HEVC Main10 video decoding like Kaby Lake.

The only downside is Apollo Lake does not have the same Kaby Lake VP9 decoder, it only decodes 4K VP9 Profile0 8bit videos where as Kaby Lake supports 8K VP9 Profile2 10bit video decoding. Second disadvantage, Apollo Lake like Kaby Lake does not support HDMI 2.0 natively, but that will be fixed in successor Gemini Lake, which does support HDMI 2.0 natively.

The decoder should be identical to first gen Skylake Gen9. Kaby Lake uses Gen9.5 and doesn't support HDMI 2.0 either without an Alpine Ridge controller or a DisplayPort connection with HDMI 2.0 adaptor, so that's a wash outside those specific circumstances.

The DXVA Checker screenshot you linked appears to use a slightly older driver version, because the system I'm having access to list both VP9_VLD_Profile0 and VP9_VLD_Intel. No idea what the later is for.

 

[cbn]

This i5 7600 non K MFX block has no issues with the above say, although it cannot hardware decode the upcoming AV1.

That AV1 codec is pretty exciting because it will allow a single 4K stream to work even on a low end internet connetion.

So I wonder how much CPU to software decode that?

 

[cbn]

After doing the testing in post #109, I decided later on that Tuesday to install my my GT 730 GDDR5 (into the box with the E8400) to see if it had hybrid decoding for VP9. It didn't, and I did bother watching the whole video because the frame dropping looked about the same as my E8400 with the dGPU.

Then yesterday I tried Firefox with that same 1080p 60 FPS video from post #108 (using E8400 and GT 730 GDDR5) and noticed it was using H.264 (rather than VP9 as in Chrome). Dropped frames were 87 over the 22530 (with 60 of those dropped frames happening at the very beginning of the video). So Firefox worked well with the GT 730 GDDR5 whereas Chrome did not.

Then today, I tested the following 4K video with E8400 and GT 730 GDDR5:

It is only 30 FPS in Firefox (not 60 FPS) but I didn't get any dropped frames in the entire video. Internet connection speed is 25 Mbps.

 

[cbn]

According to Wikipedia Display port 1.2 (approved December 2009) is capable of 4K at 60 Mhz:

(The original display port (approved April 2007) is capable of 4K at 30 Mhz)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Resolution_and_refresh_frequency_limits_for_DisplayPort

So I am wondering how well an Ivy Bridge Pre-built (which I would think has Display port 1.2) would work for AV1 codec just on the CPU?

EDIT: According this Anandtech article Ivy Bridge needs two display ports to drive a 4K panel. Fortunately some Pre-bults of this era did have two display ports (eg, HP Elite 8300 USDT and Dell Optiplex 9010 SFF below):

 

[cbn]

Just ran the 4K video from post #112 on my Core i5 3470 (using the iGPU) with Windows 10.

Here are the results (with 25 Mbps internet connection*):

Chrome (using VP9): 10 dropped frames out of 9261
Firefox (using H.264): 0 dropped frames out of 9240

Both browsers ran that video at 30 FPS (even though it says in the title it is a 4K 60 FPS video).

*Internet connection was running 26.5 Mbps to 28.5 Mbps according to "Stats for Nerds".

 

[nvgpu]

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia-geforce-1030&num=1

 

[cbn]

Recently I noticed there exists usb 3.0 to Display/HDMI 2.0 adapters. These are actually little external GPUs (Example here and here)

So now I am thinking we will probably see the same thing with usb 3.1/c and Display Port/HDMI 2.1 for 8K60 video:

https://www.displayport.org/displayport-over-usb-c/

Full DisplayPort audio/video (A/V) performance (up to 8k at 60Hz)

Okay, so if these little usb-c to 8K adapter/external GPUs end up existing then how far of a jump is to a card? A basic usb-c (usb 3.1) upgrade card (plugging into PCIe 2.0 or PCIe 3.0 lanes) that also has the little GPU and decode built-in as an added feature?

 

[cbn]

Building off what I wrote in post #116, maybe we could get something like this:

But instead of four Mini-display ports it could have four display port over usb-c?

Then we could upgrade our PCs not only with GPU and display output, but usb connectivity as well.

(Or even better yet, Thunderbolt III which is royalty free starting this year)