Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
3rd May 2009, 19:53 | #821 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,295
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've performed some tests with overclocking and increasing the memory clock gives very little improvement, around 1% decreasing of gpu times with a 30% memory clock increase. The core and shader clock increase gives me a real gain, less 10% times for a 10% clock increase. It seems my gpu is shader limited. |
||
3rd May 2009, 20:24 | #822 | Link | |||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Can anybody confirm this problem? 10.7 GPixels/s. 10.7 GTexels/s. 427 GFLOPS. Quote:
Seriously, are these numbers with 1:1 display or with scaling active? I guess with 1:1 display memory bandwidth is not that much of a problem. But IIRC you had a 8600? That one really has low shader power. That may explain why you're shader limited... |
|||
3rd May 2009, 20:28 | #823 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 630
|
Not bad. SD content now (upscaled to 720p on playback) is really low in CPU consumption. 704x400avc upscaled to fit on 1280x1024 screen typically uses less than 10% CPU.
As for 720p avc content, difference is less impressive. Compared with Haali over the same file, mVR uses approx. 10%CPU extra for each scene (i.e. if scene is 12% with Haali then it is about 20-25% with mVR, if Haali uses 20% CPU then mVR uses 30%). However new totals for average time are actually higher than before. However after doing the maths and subtracting the texture update time, it is somewhat better with 0.9 version. Now the average timings are as follows (3dluts disabled): roughly 60% for update texture, 25% render, 15% resample (720p content no rescale) roughly 30% for update texture, 45% render, 25% resample (720p content slight downscale to fit in the window) roughly 20% for update texture, 30% render, 50% resample (704x400 upscaled to 720p) Interesting to check the times for the actual scaling. As for the absolute values, roughly 1.5ms rendering no rescale and 5ms rendering with rescale (720p). Update texture time is pretty much same in both cases. Resample is roughly three times larger with rescaling as well. |
3rd May 2009, 20:37 | #824 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,019
|
0.9 seems to be running significantly smoother here on my 9400 with 1080p content.
Previously, I was seeing rendering times in the 60-70ms region. Now, I can get that down to an average of 22ms if I use bilinear and no 3D LUT. (I realise that this removes a lot of the advantages of madVR, but I get almost smooth playback with this) Max GPU times are still around 45ms at times though. (which is more than a frame at 23.976) If I use madVR's chroma upsampling (I find softcubic 50 to look best) average rendering times are around 38ms with max GPU times around 60,65ms. Frame queue is generally at 16/16, though it has dropped as low as 13. With 0.8 it was hovering around 1/2. (the higher the better, right?) I'm a bit confused about the max GPU rendering time though. It seems to jump around a lot, whereas I thought the max would simply update for higher numbers and not lower ones, giving you the true peak value for a film. |
3rd May 2009, 20:41 | #825 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
I agree that v0.9 runs significant smoother for HD content
Still it renders at 60 fps, although the video only has a framerate of 24 fps. My question: Isn't that a huge wast of processing power? And can it be avoided, like other renders obviously do? (Sorry if this was answered already. This is a really huge thread, so I may have missed something)
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 3rd May 2009 at 21:03. |
3rd May 2009, 20:53 | #826 | Link | ||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Happy to hear that many of you guys notice smoother results with v0.9! However, smooth playback is still not really implemented yet. That's still due for a future version. So you can expect further improvements. v0.9 just lowered CPU and GPU consumption a bit... It's a waste of processing power, yes. I think it's at least partially responsible for the higher CPU usage compared to other renderers. The render logic will change once I implement smooth motion playback (should be soon now). |
||||
3rd May 2009, 20:59 | #827 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 630
|
Quote:
As well, I wonder about paused gpu timings. Even if 720p video is paused, it still takes roughly same average time. Why update and resample textures times are any different from zero? I'd say only rendering time needs to be used in such a case. What is even more confusing, even the window is staying still here, max rendering times are still higher than average by same roughly 50%. Why would some shader passes take considerably more time than average for the same frame? (i.e. resample texture passes take roughly double the average time). If no rescaling is used, then things are even more shocking 720p no rescale when paused uses <1ms for average resampling time and about 5-6 for max resampling time |
|
3rd May 2009, 21:01 | #828 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,019
|
Quote:
I wish I had found out about madVR before building this HTPC a few weeks ago. What sort of CPU should I need to decode 40mbps AVC/VC1 content and run madVR smoothly? (I realise that you've not fully optimised it and have smooth playback features implemented yet) Is there a chance of madVR ever working with DXVA (I assume that's something the MPC-HC guys have to fix, rather than it being a madVR problem) or would the additional GPU load then end up being too much? |
|
3rd May 2009, 21:02 | #829 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
That sounds like good news
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
3rd May 2009, 21:07 | #830 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ILLINIOS
Posts: 50
|
Quote:
Works fine for me using the Nvidia audio and video decoders with YV12.. Hope to see the smooth playback efforts soon as stated. MAK |
|
3rd May 2009, 21:10 | #831 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,295
|
Quote:
|
|
3rd May 2009, 21:20 | #832 | Link | |||||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No chance. CUDA works, though. Quote:
@nijiko, at least that one weird 700x218 clip you sent me should work properly with v0.9 now. That was the one clip where I was able to reproduce a problem. Quote:
While downscaling differences may be smaller compared to upscaling differences, I still think that Lanczos downscaling is not a bad idea at all. I once tried upscaling+downscaling an image. And using Lanczos+Lanczos produced the best results. Noticeably better than Lanczos+Bicubic. With Lanczos+Lanczos the scaled image was very near to the original. Using Lanczos+Bicubic the scaled image was noticeably softer compared to the original. |
|||||
3rd May 2009, 21:38 | #833 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 293
|
Here are the same frame (from 0.8, will install 0.9 right after). Could you or anyone point out to me where I could make mistake for EVR CP (or put me to a place that does)? In Catalyst Avivo all setting is either "use application settings" or not enable. I didn't do anything on Color page as well. I can try include mplayer's OpenGL renderer, is that gonna help? (setting: vo=gl:yuv=0:rectangle=2:lscale=5:cscale=5)
Add Haali renderer shots. Now it's hard to see the difference, but it's still there. Again, I would be happy if anyone can help me improve EVR CP result. I have to live with that until madVR got subtitle, which is still some time in the future. Last edited by Hypernova; 3rd May 2009 at 22:05. Reason: Add Haali |
3rd May 2009, 21:41 | #834 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,019
|
Quote:
I've never been one for overclocking really (I'd rather run at the rated speeds without risk) but rather than go out and replace most of the components in this computer two weeks after buying it, I'm now running at 3GHz with a 10% overclock on the GPU and it's eliminated almost all spikes to 100% on the CPU graph when playing back video. (though I need to test and see what the highest bitrate/most demanding film I have is) I've just noticed now though that, even though the GPU times are ok, CPU is at 100% usage if I enable the 3D LUT. Perhaps once CPU usage is lowered by rendering at 24/30fps rather than 60, it'll be able to cope properly. I'll have to see just how much I can push this system and have it still run reliably. |
|
3rd May 2009, 21:45 | #835 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 293
|
Quick report on 0.9: The reduce in GPU render time is about 5ms I think. (Bilinear/Bilinear, upscaling from 848x480 to 2560x1600) (I didn't take note on CPU's before, sorry). I also attach VSync.dat here
__________________
Spec: Intel Core i5-3570K, 8g ram, Intel HD4000, Samsung U28D590 4k monitor+1080p Projector, Windows 10. Last edited by Hypernova; 4th May 2009 at 07:02. Reason: Misunderstanding the GPU render time |
3rd May 2009, 22:13 | #836 | Link | |
MPC-HC Project Manager
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,317
|
Quote:
Add madVR to the mix and we would currently need a 3.3ghz C2D Your pentium dualcore doesn't even come close, you would need to OC it to between 3,8 and 4,2 ghz to get a similar performance. Most AVC's don't have tough scene's and will work fine on a slower cpu, i'm personally not going to take any changes and have ordered a e8400 (3ghz) |
|
3rd May 2009, 22:34 | #838 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I'm not saying that more CPU power is unnecessary, though. |
|
3rd May 2009, 22:58 | #839 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,019
|
Quote:
Due to the 12.5x multiplier on this, it means I'm not having to push the fsb so hard to get fairly substantial overclocks. I don't want to speak too soon, but it seems to be running stable at 3.7GHz, and not even that hot. (15℃ below operating limits under load with the stock HSF—which I'll upgrade if I decided to keep running it like this, or faster if it'll do it) Quote:
|
||
3rd May 2009, 23:18 | #840 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,295
|
Quote:
But that's different than just downscaling. I've performed some tests with Avisynth, because I'm backing up a BR movie to a lower resolution, and I have tryed the opposite: downscaling+upscaling. In the Avisynth user's guide they say that for downscaling bilinear should give the same results (or better) than bicubic, but it's not true; the image is softer. Between Bicubic, Spline64 and Lanczos, there was no visible difference. This is only true for downsampling; upsampling is a different story, then, Lanczos shows all its quality... |
|
Tags |
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling |
|
|