H.264 CPU/DXVA codec comparison - Core2Duo vs UVD 2.2

[NikosD]

UPDATE 22/4/2011: UVD+ (Radeon 3650 results added)

UPDATE 31/3/2011: CoreAVC 2.5.1 (CPU & DXVA results added)

This is my second post regarding codec performance/ benchmarking.

The first one is here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=156660

This time DXVA and CPU codecs are included too.

All tests have been done on
Win 7 SP1 x64 - Core 2 Duo @ 2.83GHz - Radeon 5750 (UVD 2.2) - Catalyst 11.1a

Second system is (for DXVA only):
Win XP SP3 32bit - Core 2 Duo @ 2.83GHz - Radeon 3650 AGP (UVD+) - Catalyst 11.2

The benchmark tool is DXVAChecker v2.4.0 (32bit)
Home page: http://bluesky23.yu-nagi.com/en/

You can find all reference video files here:

ftp://helpedia.com/pub/multimedia/x264/testvideos/


1.Twinpeaks1080p30fps-27Mbps

2.Samsung.Demo.Oceanic.Life-1080p30fpsRef16-40Mbps

3.Basketball - 1088p60fpsRef8-10Mbps

4.Girls.YoonYoon-1080p60fpsRef5-21Mbps

5.Birds_1080p60fpsReF2-30Mbps

6.Cat-1080p60fpsRef4-25Mbps


Benchmark instructions are here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=156660

Codecs included in comparison:

CoreAVC v2.5.1 - CPU & DXVA
CoreAVC v2.0 - CPU only
DiAVC v1.2.2 - CPU only
FFMpeg-mt v52.110.0 (rev3757) - CPU only
DivX H.264 v1.2.1 Build 9.0.1.21 - CPU & DXVA
FFDshow DXVA rev3757 - DXVA only
MPC-HC v1.5.1.2910 (32bit - standalone filter) - CPU & DXVA
Cyberlink PowerDVD 10 v1.0.2229 (latest as of 12th Feb) - CPU & DXVA
Microsoft DirectShow H.264 (built-in Win 7) - CPU & DXVA
Microsoft MediaFoundation H.264 (built-in Win 7) - CPU & DXVA


Four comments:

1) CoreAVC v2.5.1 CPU is the fastest codec. Second best is CoreAVC again -previous version v2.0

2) CoreAVC v2.5.1 DXVA has almost identical results with MPC-HC DXVA & FFDShow DXVA

3) Core2Duo@2.83 GHz is faster (with optimized codecs) than UVD 2.2 in H.264 decoding

4) UVD 2.2 is very close in MIN and AVG frame rate to UVD+ (in Radeon 3650) in supported video clips by UVD+ (BluRay spec only)

Results:


A. Twinpeaks-30fps

Codec Codec type Min/Avg/Max fps


1) CoreAVC v2.5.1 CPU 80/97/107

2) CoreAVC v2.0 CPU 75/93/101

3) FFMpeg-mt CPU 68/85/94

4) DiAVC CPU 64/74/79

5) Microsoft DS CPU 55/69/95

6) PowerDVD CPU 56/68/76

7) Microsoft MFT CPU 54/66/86

8) MPC-HC CPU 44/62/69

9) Microsoft DS DXVA 50/60/100

10) DivX DXVA 49/60/86

11) FFDShow DXVA 49/60/86

12) CoreAVC v2.5.1 DXVA 50/59/83

13) MPC-HC DXVA 50/59/83

14 ) PowerDVD DXVA 50/59/78

15) Microsoft MFT DXVA 50/59/76

DivX CPU ---


B. Samsung-30fps



1) CoreAVC v2.5.1 CPU 32/49/90

2) FFMpeg-mt CPU 32/49/89

3) DiAVC CPU 34/49/81

4) CoreAVC v2.0 CPU 32/48/96

5) DivX DXVA 37/46/79

6) Microsoft DS DXVA 32/46/80

7) MPC-HC DXVA 37/46/75

8) CoreAVC v2.5.1 DXVA 37/46/74

9) DivX CPU 31/46/86

10) PowerDVD DXVA 32/45/65

11) PowerDVD CPU 22/43/79

12) Microsoft DS CPU 23/40/78

13) MPC-HC CPU 19/28/60

Microsoft MFT CPU ---
Microsoft MFT DXVA ---
FFDShow DXVA ---


C. Basket-60fps


1) CoreAVC v2.5.1 CPU 71/89/110

2) CoreAVC v2.0 CPU 72/88/111

3) DiAVC CPU 75/84/103

4) FFMpeg-mt CPU 73/83/104

5) DivX CPU CPU 70/83/98

6) PowerDVD CPU 67/78/97

7) Microsoft DS CPU 43/60/85

8) PowerDVD DXVA 55/58/70

9) Microsoft DS DXVA 50/57/107

10) DivX DXVA 55/57/81

11) MPC-HC DXVA 55/57/79

12) CoreAVC v2.5.1 DXVA 54/57/77

13) FFDShow DXVA 52/57/76

14) MPC-HC CPU 40/48/68

Microsoft MFT CPU ---
Microsoft MFT DXVA ---


D. Girls-60fps



1) CoreAVC v2.0 CPU 58/73/94

2) CoreAVC v2.5.1 CPU 59/72/90

3) DivX CPU 62/69/79

4) DiAVC CPU 58/68/83

5) FFMpeg-mt CPU 58/65/82

6) PowerDVD CPU 52/62/82

7) MPC-HC DXVA 56/57/80

8) DivX DXVA 55/57/82

9) CoreAVC v2.5.1 DXVA 55/57/81

10) FFDShow DXVA 55/57/80

11) PowerDVD DXVA 55/57/79

12) Microsoft DS DXVA 43/57/82

13) Microsoft DS CPU 43/52/72

14) MPC-HC CPU 37/40/55

Microsoft MFT CPU ---
Microsoft MFT DXVA ---


E. Birds-60fps



1) Microsoft MFT DXVA 51/163/404

2) PowerDVD CPU 52/68/71

3) DiAVC CPU 54/63/69

4) Microsoft MFT CPU 39/61/93

5) DivX CPU 53/61/71

6) CoreAVC v2.5.1 CPU 53/59/68

7) CoreAVC v2.0 CPU 41/57/71

8) PowerDVD DXVA 52/56/68

9) DivX DXVA 52/55/77

10) CoreAVC v2.5.1 DXVA 52/55/75

11) FFDShow DXVA 52/55/74

12) Microsoft DS DXVA 51/55/89

13) MPC-HC DXVA 50/55/80

14) FFMpeg-mt CPU 48/54/67

15) Microsoft DS CPU 37/48/68

16) MPC-HC CPU 30/35/41


F. Cat-60fps


1) CoreAVC v2.5.1 CPU 66/70/76

2) CoreAVC v2.0 CPU 66/70/75

3) DiAVC CPU 64/70/74

4) FFMpeg-mt CPU 63/67/72

5) PowerDVD DXVA 52/57/69

6) FFDShow DXVA 54/56/76

7) CoreAVC v2.5.1 DXVA 48/56/85

DivX CPU ---
PowerDVD CPU ---
DivX DXVA ---
Microsoft DS DXVA ---
Microsoft MFT DXVA ---
MPC-HC DXVA ---
Microsoft MFT CPU ---
Microsoft DS CPU ---
MPC-HC CPU ---

Second system:

FFDShow DXVA rev3828

A. FFDShow DXVA 43/53/61

B. Corrupted image due to L5.1 (not supported by UVD/UVD+)

C. Corrupted image due to L5.1 (not supported by UVD/UVD+)

D. FFDShow DXVA 50/55/60

E. FFDShow DXVA 49/53/59

F. FFDShow DXVA 50/55/61

Feel free to add your comments/ results.

[altruist]

This is an excellent study. I can't believe no one else has thanked you for this.

I recently noticed CoreAVC now supports ATI hardware decoding through DXVA. Thought you might want to know if you don't already

[NikosD]

Thanks for your comments.

I know that CoreAVC 2.5.1 has DXVA support, but there is no demo version AFAIK.

When I get the new version, I will definitely try it.

UPDATE: Results for CoreAVC v2.5.1 added (CPU & DXVA)

[bobdynlan]

Originally Posted by NikosD

UPDATE 31/3/2011:
E. Birds-60fps

1) Microsoft MFT DXVA 51/163/404

Did you retest this? Does not seem like a valid result, maybe you should remove it from the top of the list.

[CruNcher]

According to that test the Samsung clip seems the most complex one even more complex then the 60 fps ones due to the high bitrate + cabac most likely and ref frames

are any of them sliced ?

Cyberlink seems also to have to fight with it quiet Hard and FFMPEG MT can even survive against CoreAVC and DiAVC on that one interesting.
You should add Arcsoft and Mainconcept to that list, many falsely belive DivX and Mainconcepts implementation are identical that is false though their are differences, especialy as Mainconcept is @ SDK 8.8 and DivX still somewhere @ the 8.5-8.7 codebase
Also Elecard released their H.264 DXVA implementation that seems also fast
Also please add on which Power Profile you tested on Win 7

the latest PowerDVD decoder is also 1.0.0.2610

[BetaBoy]

Thanx for the comparison. I'd hold of on 'true' DXVA comp stats with CoreAVC 2.5.x as we are about to release more DXVA features in upcoming releases. We have not even begun optimizations for DXVA... and we already know of bottlenecks that should make it even better/faster.

On the DivX / Main concept diffs.... they still use the same 'cores' from what others have posted here on D9.

[pirlouy]

Not sure to understand.
From these stats, can we say that CPU is better than GPU (DXVA) for 24fps movie ??

[neoufo51]

Edit: Never mind

[mark0077]

Hi,

Is it worth adding scores for the new lav cuid decoder http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=160290

Excellent thread btw, very useful.

[neoufo51]

Originally Posted by mark0077

Hi,

Is it worth adding scores for the new lav cuid decoder http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=160290

Excellent thread btw, very useful.

He can't because that's only for Nvidia cards and he is doing this on ATI cards.

[NikosD]

Originally Posted by bobdynlan

Did you retest this? Does not seem like a valid result, maybe you should remove it from the top of the list.

All tests were done 3 times and the numbers are all true.

You can see an analysis and possible explanation of those strange figures here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=156660&page=7

Check out the posts of a member named hwti and my comments

[NikosD]

Originally Posted by CruNcher

According to that test the Samsung clip seems the most complex one even more complex then the 60 fps ones due to the high bitrate + cabac most likely and ref frames

The Samsung clip is the famous difficult Samsung clip with 16 ReFrames, huge bitrate etc, etc but both CPU and DXVA codecs manage to stay above the 30fps by 50% - 49fps on average

On the other hand, because of the double frame rate (60fps) needed by the other clips, none of the DXVA & CPU codecs manage to stay above the 60fps by 50% - which means 90fps on average

Originally Posted by CruNcher

are any of them sliced ?

Sorry I don't get it.

Originally Posted by CruNcher

Cyberlink seems also to have to fight with it quiet Hard and FFMPEG MT can even survive against CoreAVC and DiAVC on that one interesting.

True

Originally Posted by CruNcher

You should add Arcsoft and Mainconcept to that list, many falsely belive DivX and Mainconcepts implementation are identical that is false though their are differences, especialy as Mainconcept is @ SDK 8.8 and DivX still somewhere @ the 8.5-8.7 codebase
Also Elecard released their H.264 DXVA implementation that seems also fast

I have some results of ArcSoft here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=156660

Mainconcept and Elecard are not so popular. If you give me some links I'll try it

Originally Posted by CruNcher

Also please add on which Power Profile you tested on Win 7

It's High Performance, but what's the difference ? They are all tested under the same conditions.

Originally Posted by CruNcher

the latest PowerDVD decoder is also 1.0.0.2610

Mine was the latest as of 12th February - date of my first post

[kypec]

@NikosD: thanks for your efforts put into this extensive test rounds. Could you please post the results in more flexible format, like Google spreadsheet perhaps? I think that would provide better edit options for you and better sorting options for viewers as well.

[NikosD]

Originally Posted by pirlouy

Not sure to understand.
From these stats, can we say that CPU is better than GPU (DXVA) for 24fps movie ??

Not better, faster.

A Core2Duo@2.83GHz supported by optimized and multithreaded codecs (like CoreAVC, FFmpeg-mt, DiAVC etc) is faster than UVD 2.2.
So, a modern Core i7 with 4 or 6 cores would be a lot, lot faster than UVD or VPx (Nvidia)

But as long as the UVD or VPx (Nvidia) or Intel's hardware solution, manage to play the clips with a minimum frame rate above the frame rate of x1 - say 24fps or 30fps or 60fps - then it's working.

The main reason of using DXVA and dedicated hardware for decoding video formats is power (laptops) - because Core2Duo consumes 10 times more power than UVD.
Of course, if you have a slow CPU then speed does matter, too.

And of course, during playback on the dedicated fixed function hardware inside the GPU (UVD, VPx etc), the CPU is free of doing other things, because the CPU utilization is <5%.

So, with a dedicated hardware in GPU and DXVA, you have an extra dedicated extremely low power consuming processor in your system capable of decoding several video formats like H.264, VC-1, MPEG2, WMV, MPEG4 ASP(DivX, Xvid) besides your CPU.

[pirlouy]

Ok. For me DXVA is dangerous, because too much dependant of Nvidia or ATI or Intel development. And I rather trust ffmpeg coding than those 3.
I've tried DXVA (through MPC-HC, ffdshow and another decoder), but was not really convinced, because it was sometimes jerky.

Like I don't use laptop, power is not something to consider (even for Earth, since I don't watch HD videos all day). I prefer using GPU to upscale only (madVR renderer).

Like I don't do any post-processing stuff, and from your results, it confirms that it's better (in my case) to use CPU to decode.

Thanks for your tests.

[NikosD]

I forgot to say that on ATI recent hardware with UVD 2.x and above, you can do postprocessing on driver's level within the Catalyst suite during playback by DXVA decoding, using GPU shaders (not used by DXVA) with 0% CPU utilization for all video formats supported by UVD.

Even if you don't use post-proc or a laptop, you pay the bill for the power you consume

[pirlouy]

I've done a new test with DXVA. If I have a bit rate too high (mt2s with 20 Mbps for example), I have a lot of dropped frames (jerky videos). Yet I have quite the same GPU than you. Strange... I have catalyst from February (preview 2). But I won't search more. Everything is ok with CPU.

ps: Even if I'd watch 100 HD videos in a year, it would be ridiculous in terme of difference of power. 2€ for me and that won't do a difference for Global warming. :-)

[Luv]

Nikos,all the samples are offline.Can you re-up them please ?

[NikosD]

None of them is offline.

I think you do something wrong.

[NikosD]

Originally Posted by pirlouy

ps: Even if I'd watch 100 HD videos in a year, it would be ridiculous in terme of difference of power. 2€ for me and that won't do a difference for Global warming. :-)

I'm not trying to convince you on anything, but you have a dedicated co-processor in your system designed to do one thing better than anyone else and you prefer to give that thing to your main processor who has a lot more to do and it is definitely not designed to do that job.

Your choice.

P.S And of course video acceleration is all over Internet because of Flash videos and the new version 10.2 which uses hardware acceleration for H.264 HD videos with minimum CPU utilization.
The same goes for HTML5, too.