x264 and Intel's Media Engine / Sandy Bridge

[popper]

Originally Posted by mariush

Is it just me that wonders what's the point of this?

You're buying a 250$ cpu, a 350$ motherboard and a 400$ video card just to use Quick Sync?

That's 1000$ to get faster Youtube quality videos? Who are they kidding....

your prices are off .... but
it seems the main purpose of the so called Intel Quick Sync ASIC is to keep Intel relevant and market share up in the post ARM video ASIC Encoding world perhaps.

this Freescale quad A9/NEON SIMD (along with solo/dual) being mass produced some time this year for instance.

http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/N...eescale-iMX-6/
"The video coprocessor, meanwhile, is said in the dual or quad versions to support 1080p60 H.264 video decode. It also provides for 720p60 encode of H.264, with "1080p planned," says Freescale. Separately, Freescale refers to a 1080p30 encode feature, but it is unclear whether this will be available in the initial release or is the aforementioned "planned" feature.

The i.MX 6's image processing unit (IPU) supports a whopping four displays via HDMI 1.4, and offers stereoscopic image sensor support for 3D imaging, says the company."

Arm and Linux being especially relevant when you consider that AMD's combined DRM/UVD Decode ASIC IS NOT Even officially recognised or even supported in Linux the Key ARM OS, never mind that they dont support any official or planed HW Encode, AMD market share will potentially fall perhaps by a lot it seems right now.

and with the Free ARM and Intel ASIC Encoders/Decoders included as standard and generic in all CPU's from now on, is AMD even relevant (given they even run assembly slower than Intel) to your next upgrade/extra device now ?.

[Didée]

Originally Posted by hajj_3

i'm pretty sure you don't need a video card, you use the built-in gpu that is in the new intel chips. Core i5 starts at £136 and £70 for H67 board or £90 for a P67 board.

But then, those midrange SB's have HD2000 graphics with only 6 stream processors - opposed to the 12 stream processors in HD3000. With HD3000 only present in the more expensive "K" models (2500K, 2600K).

If the touting is "Quick Sync is double as fast as anything else", that of course refers to HD3000. If 12 shaders are "double as fast", what speed do you expect from only 6 shaders?

[popper]

Originally Posted by Didée

But then, those midrange SB's have HD2000 graphics with only 6 stream processors - opposed to the 12 stream processors in HD3000. With HD3000 only present in the more expensive "K" models (2500K, 2600K).

If the touting is "Quick Sync is double as fast as anything else", that of course refers to HD3000. If 12 shaders are "double as fast", what speed do you expect from only 6 shaders?

well if your not going to pay the little bit extra for the K or just get an i7 then you can always over-clock it but you may NEED the K to get to 5GHz
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/c...ridge_review/8

[Didée]

Originally Posted by popper

well if your not going to pay the little bit extra for the K or just get an i7 then you can always over-clock it but you may NEED the K to get to 5GHz
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/c...ridge_review/8

An irrelevant statement that is.

To be able to overclock, you need a "K". To be able to use the iGPU, you (currently) need a board that doesn't allow overclocking. End of story.
(Bus clocking from 100 to 101~105 doesn't really count as "OC".)

Z68 probably will change the situation, but that's future. As of now, you need to pay for an OC CPU, with the regression that you cannot OC it. Only then you can use QuickSync. Hooray!

Besides, the applications featuring QuickSync supposely are all payware ... or not?

[kieranrk]

Originally Posted by kolak

That's why you have BD as a premium delivery format.
Broadcast is still way behind in terms of quality.

Andrew

You say that but Premiere Germany used to broadcast films that were better quality than the Blu-Ray, mainly because VC-1 sucked.

King Kong was a classic example of this. Our friend jarod can provide you with comparison screenshots.

[kolak]

Originally Posted by kieranrk

You say that but Premiere Germany used to broadcast films that were better quality than the Blu-Ray, mainly because VC-1 sucked.

King Kong was a classic example of this. Our friend jarod can provide you with comparison screenshots.

Old days- but not a case now. Even if you can find some examples average broadcast HD channel is no near average BD quality.

Andrew

[kieranrk]

Originally Posted by kolak

Old days- but not a case now. Even if you can find some examples average broadcast HD channel is no near average BD quality.

Andrew

Assuming the sources were good I'd speculate some of the current VC-1 releases would be outclassed by 10-15mbit H.264 assuming the H.264 encoder was good.

[kolak]

Yes- but you're talking about rare cases. Almost all studios use AVC- only one VC1

Andrew

[kieranrk]

Originally Posted by kolak

Yes- but you're talking about rare cases. Almost all studios use AVC- only one VC1

But nonetheless releases from that particular studio are major releases and considered by the public to be the "Gold Standard" for Blu-Ray.

[mp3dom]

Originally Posted by kieranrk

You say that but Premiere Germany used to broadcast films that were better quality than the Blu-Ray, mainly because VC-1 sucked.

Too many variables here, for example the VC-1 implementation (PEP/PSE, MainConcept, other brand etc.), bitrate used, settings used, 1pass/2pass/3pass (if available) encoded, was the technician competent enough, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by kieranrk

But nonetheless releases from that particular studio are major releases and considered by the public to be the "Gold Standard" for Blu-Ray.

Which is the studio? (Warner?). We already knows that the average public is not well trained about quality. Only a small amount can distinguish from a real good work and a quite good/discrete work. Just put an eye to some bluray reviews floating around the web. Unless completely destoyed work, most of the times all BD have 3/5 or 4/5 on the video side.

[kolak]

No - they are joke, not golden standard. Sony's current releases are decent, Criterion's and Disney's.

Andrew

[mp3dom]

Disney knows how to do the job, and above all, knows how to made proper restoration (excluding the tons of money spent for the restoration)

[kieranrk]

Originally Posted by kolak

No - they are joke, not golden standard. Sony's current releases are decent, Criterion's and Disney's.

My point is the public aren't aware of that.

[deadrats]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

If an H.264 is significantly worse than Ateme, Mainconcept, and x264 in all relevant use-cases, it is crap. As far as I can tell, the default Media SDK encoder is crap.

answer me one question and i will leave you alone:

how exactly do you know QS is crap? what metrics are you basing this on? considering SB has barely been out for a week and encoding apps that use it aren't even available to the general public yet, how can you come to such a conclusion with such certainty?

how about before you declare said technology as useless and a pile of <insert derogatory adjective du jour> you actually wait until you get some hardware and we have a chance to test it out thoroughly?

don't you think that might be a more prudent approach?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by deadrats

answer me one question and i will leave you alone:

how exactly do you know QS is crap? what metrics are you basing this on? considering SB has barely been out for a week and encoding apps that use it aren't even available to the general public yet, how can you come to such a conclusion with such certainty?

how about before you declare said technology as useless and a pile of <insert derogatory adjective du jour> you actually wait until you get some hardware and we have a chance to test it out thoroughly?

don't you think that might be a more prudent approach?

(1) It doesn't matter what "encoding app" you use, because as soon as QuickSync is involved, all the encoding work is done by QuickSync and there's nothing left to do for the application. So we can expect the results from all "QuickSync" enabled apps look identical, except for application-specific pre-processing maybe.

(2) While we can't know for sure until there is a meaningful comparison available, experience shows that hardware encoders - and I'm referring to hardware encoders that are available to consumers, not about some fancy $10.000+ devices, produce quality that is unacceptable (for people who do care). So from previous experience we can expect that QuickSync won't be anywhere near the state-of-the-art software encoders. Even if QuickSync would produce significant better quality than those "CUDA" encoders (which doesn't mean much), it would still be significant worse than state-of-the-art software encoders. If QuickSync was able to play in the same league as state-of-the-art software encoders, this would mean such an enormous jump ahead compared to previous hardware encoders, that this is highly doubtful at least.

(3) The fact that significant parts of QuickSync are "fixed" in hardware and even the software components are "closed" means that there aren't any future improvements to be expected - at least not without replacing the hardware with the next generation. At the same time the state-of-the-art software encoders will continue to evolve, as they have done over the years...

[deadrats]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

experience shows that hardware encoders - and I'm referring to hardware encoders that are available to consumers, not about some fancy $10.000+ devices, produce quality that is unacceptable

i submit to you that it may be time to reevaluate your (plural, as in everyone that worships at the alter of x264) perceptions of hardware based encoders. i downloaded the latest version of tmpg express (the japanese version, the english version isn't released yet) and after spending sometime figuring out how to use it (i don't speak japanese), i performed a number of test encodes: dvd to mp4 @ 720x480 16:9 @ 2.5 mb/s and a blu-ray rip of an adult BD: 1080p @ 15 mb/s to mp4 1080p @ 10 mb/s.

i did the tests using cbr, 128 kb/s aac, using the integrated x264 they licensed from DS and the included cuda encoder, all settings were left at default as i don't know what they say (remember, it's in japanese).

2 things jumped out at me from my tests:

1) the pegasys team has focused on high quality encodes, there was no perceptible differences between the cuda and the x264 encodes, in either test. from a quality perspective, both encoders did themselves proud.

2) the cuda encoder is so much faster than the x264 implementation that it boggles the mind. 2-3 times faster across the board.

the test hardware was a x4 620, 4 gigs ddr2 800mhz, gts 250 1gb, source and target hdd are 5400 rpm "ultra density" drives (benchmark faster than 10k raptors from a few years ago).

as soon as the english version is available i will conduct more extensive testing, but thus far, x264's case isn't that strong.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Please do! Until then I for one would be utterly shocked if we're on the same page as you with regard to "no perceptible differences between the cuda and the x264 encodes"!

I've evaluated the professional CUDA encoders and they were all rather awful compared to x264 or Mainconcept. I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that a consumer CUDA encoder could even hold a candle...

Some sample would sure be nice! Mind doing a few quick test encodes for us?

Derek

[weasel_]

deadrats:U get same quality with cuda encoder and x264 ? :facepalm:
u done imposible ( or you use some shity x264 settings)
then u dont know how to use x264.

Can u post sample or screenshots and settings
read this (first post use worst posible x264 settings ) continue reading and see ss comparison what users post..

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=148276

[Didée]

Result from a test I did some weeks ago: see this post (MediaFire link is still alive).

Having seen PLENTY of such results, it is hard to imagine that CUDA could ever output something acceptable. (at reasonable bitrates.)

[deadrats]

Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit

Some sample would sure be nice! Mind doing a few quick test encodes for us?

i'll let you pick the source, give me a test source and i'll do a couple of quick test encodes.