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.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 19th July 2014, 21:18   #1  |  Link
cr0n=0sTT88
Registered User
 
cr0n=0sTT88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 57
Quick Sync, CUDA, OpenCL or only normal CPU? What is the best?

I need change my computer and I have that to select the hardware. I don't know what is the best option for get good quality when I use media video encoding tools.

Quick Sync, CUDA, OpenCL or only normal CPU?

1) What is the best for get the faster speed?
2) What is the best for get the best quality?
3) What is the best application for transcode video using hardware?
4) nero recode 2014? handbrake? MVCenc? any other application?

this 4 questions are only for hardware ENCODING. Not for hardware decoding.

Thank you everyone!

Last edited by cr0n=0sTT88; 20th July 2014 at 17:21.
cr0n=0sTT88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2014, 22:07   #2  |  Link
Mangix
Audiophile
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 353
CPU is probably best. Software decoders tend to fare better with corrupted streams.
Mangix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2014, 00:44   #3  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,272
*Note Rule 12*

1) Software decoding speed depends on your CPU but other than software I believe:
Quick Sync > CUDA > OpenCL. Of course the different versions of each are different speeds, new CUDA is faster than old Quick Sync. Quick Sync and CUDA both use dedicated hardware to do the decoding while OpenCL is using the GPU sort of like a CPU to do the decoding. This means that Quick Sync and CUDA use less power and generate less heat than OpenCL. With a modern CPU software decoding can be fairly low power as well.

2) Quality: they should all be the same baring corrupted streams or other issues. Software decoding (CPU) is generally the most robust. The need to deinterlace can complicate this issue (hardware deinterlacing can be different qualities; both better or worse than software deinterlacing).

3) No idea; there is a quality hit so I haven't paid much attention to hardware encoding.

4) I have heard good things about Handbrake for simple H.264 encoding via x264. Personally I use x264.exe.
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2014, 15:55   #4  |  Link
Bloax
The speed of stupid
 
Bloax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
encoding tools
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangix
Software decoders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian
(mostly talking about decoding)
Guys, I'm pretty sure that in #1, #2 and #4 he's asking about encoding - and not decoding.
Bloax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2014, 16:50   #5  |  Link
cr0n=0sTT88
Registered User
 
cr0n=0sTT88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloax View Post
Guys, I'm pretty sure that in #1, #2 and #4 he's asking about encoding - and not decoding.
exactly. I'm asking about encondig. I'm not asking for decoding. Sorry for my poor english

but thanks for all answers!

Last edited by cr0n=0sTT88; 20th July 2014 at 17:22.
cr0n=0sTT88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2014, 19:15   #6  |  Link
Bloax
The speed of stupid
 
Bloax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 319
CPU encoders (notably x264/handbrake) provide the superior quality/bitrate, due to it being very tricky to do the things required for encoding the video on a GPU.
The fastest one depends on the situation, if you're playing a game (and thus it's likely that both your CPU and GPU are in use) then QuickSync (if you have an Intel CPU with the proper hardware on it) is likely the fastest choice - as it won't be using either of those. Otherwise the GPU encoders (OpenCL/CUDA) are likely faster than the CPU ones, if you're willing to pay the quality/bitrate price. (Although this last one doesn't matter at very high bitrates.)
Bloax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2014, 19:54   #7  |  Link
cr0n=0sTT88
Registered User
 
cr0n=0sTT88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloax View Post
CPU encoders (notably x264/handbrake) provide the superior quality/bitrate, due to it being very tricky to do the things required for encoding the video on a GPU.
The fastest one depends on the situation, if you're playing a game (and thus it's likely that both your CPU and GPU are in use) then QuickSync (if you have an Intel CPU with the proper hardware on it) is likely the fastest choice - as it won't be using either of those. Otherwise the GPU encoders (OpenCL/CUDA) are likely faster than the CPU ones, if you're willing to pay the quality/bitrate price. (Although this last one doesn't matter at very high bitrates.)
I know that If I use only CPU I will get the best quality/bitrate with the x264/handbrake encoders.

I understand that If I use OpenCL/CUDA (GPU) much of the quality is lost. Now I'm using nero recode 2014 with phenom x4 with nVidia GTX9800+ and I can see it with the results when I enable CUDA.

But I don't know what's happens when I use Quick Sync of intel. I don't know if Quick Sync of intel is similar to CPU process or GPU process (CUDA/OpenCL).

What do yo think about this? sorry for my basic english.

Thank you another time.

Last edited by cr0n=0sTT88; 20th July 2014 at 19:59.
cr0n=0sTT88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2014, 20:49   #8  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,272
Quicksync is very like CUDA but even more of it is fixed function hardware so it has very low CPU and GPU usage while running. The newest Quick Sync (Haswell) is better quality encoding than older versions. Quick Sync is a bit better quality than OpenCL/CUDA but it is not as good as x264. I don't know what Nero is using for software H.264 encoding.
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2014, 23:51   #9  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 12,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
I need change my computer and I have that to select the hardware. I don't know what is the best option for get good quality when I use media video encoding tools.

Quick Sync, CUDA, OpenCL or only normal CPU?

1) What is the best for get the faster speed?
2) What is the best for get the best quality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
I understand that If I use OpenCL/CUDA (GPU) much of the quality is lost. [...] But I don't know what's happens when I use Quick Sync of intel.
You are mixing up a few things here:

First of all, CUDA and OpenCL are not video encoders, but programming interfaces. So with CUDA/OpenCL one can write programs to run on the GPU - which might be a video encoder or something completely different. Consequently, it makes no sense to discuss the speed or quality of CUDA/OpenCL! It might make sense to discuss the speed/quality of a video encoder written (at least partly) in CUDA/OpenCL, yes. But then you need to specify which one you are talking about, because there can be zillion of different encoders of this kind! There is not the "one and only" CUDA or OpenCL encoder. For example, x264, probably the best (software) H.264 encoder out there, also can "offload" certain calculations to the GPU using OpenCL.

On the other hand there are dedicated "hardware" video encoders. QuickSync and NVENC fall into this category. Those are running neither on the CPU nor on the GPU! Instead they use a dedicated piece of silicon - though it might be integrated in the same chip as the CPU or GPU. Also, these dedicated hardware encoders are "black boxes": You feed them with input frames and what you get back is the encoded bitstream. You don't even need to write your own code, as opposed to CUDA/OpenCL. Consequently, here it makes absolutely no difference which program you use for encoding! That's because the actual encoding will always be performed solely by the same fixed function hardware unit. Last but not least, the available dedicated "hardware" video encoders seem to be tuned more for maximum throughput (speed) rather than quality. And there's not much you can do about this - it's a fixed function hardware unit after all (and not that many options are exposed).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
Quicksync is very like CUDA
Not quite. QuickSync is a fixed function hardware video encoder, as you said, But CUDA is not at all. It's a programming interface for writing GPGPU programs. And those CUDA programs ("kernels") run on the actual GPU.

You were probably thinking of NVENC instead of CUDA here...
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.



Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 21st July 2014 at 00:49.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2014, 07:33   #10  |  Link
trumpet205
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 23
I find that QuickSync to be about as fast as x264 on ultra fast preset on Handbrake.

x264 will generally have better quality than hardware accelerated encoder (QuickSync and encoders using CUDA/OpenCL).
trumpet205 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2014, 07:45   #11  |  Link
kalehrl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 285
Quote:
I find that QuickSync to be about as fast as x264 on ultra fast preset on Handbrake.
Are you sure you configured handbrake correctly to use QuickSync?
I get around 480fps encoding with QuickSync whereas using software h264 encoder, I get around 30fps using slow profile.
I don't think I would get more than 60fps using ultrafast preset.
My processor is one of the cheapest Haswsell Celerons (g1820).
kalehrl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2014, 07:52   #12  |  Link
trumpet205
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalehrl View Post
Are you sure you configured handbrake correctly to use QuickSync?
I get around 480fps encoding with QuickSync whereas using software h264 encoder, I get around 30fps using slow profile.
I don't think I would get more than 60fps using ultrafast preset.
My processor is one of the cheapest Haswsell Celerons (g1820).
I'm using Ivy Bridge i7-3770K. So CPU side I have an edge over G1820.

Yeah, I did force a second monitor duplication to enable iGPU. You can also use Lucid Virtu to enable iGPU/Quick Sync if you have dedicated GPU, but I never liked Virtu.

Most of my encoding work is 10-bit, so x264 is the only way to go.

Last edited by trumpet205; 21st July 2014 at 07:55.
trumpet205 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2014, 08:48   #13  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
You were probably thinking of NVENC instead of CUDA here...
Yes I was. I seem to keep using CUDA to mean CUDA, CUVID, or NVENC to mean "Nvidia's way of doing that". It is a bad habit.
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2014, 00:12   #14  |  Link
cr0n=0sTT88
Registered User
 
cr0n=0sTT88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
Quicksync is very like CUDA but even more of it is fixed function hardware so it has very low CPU and GPU usage while running. The newest Quick Sync (Haswell) is better quality encoding than older versions. Quick Sync is a bit better quality than OpenCL/CUDA but it is not as good as x264. I don't know what Nero is using for software H.264 encoding.
Thank you for the information Asmodian.

Yes, nero recode 2014 use GPU/"CPU-Quick sync" encondig:

Quote:
Convert videos fast with hardware-accelerated encoding, batch job support and more

Take advantage of all your computing power to get results fast. With support for hardware-accelerated AMD App Acceleration, Intel® Quick Sync Video or NVIDIA CUDA™ GPGPU graphics cards, you can finish video converting jobs up to 4x faster. Create a batch job with multiple videos and move onto something else while Nero Recode does the heavy lifting. You can even set Nero Recode to shut down your PC automatically when the converting is complete.
http://www.nero.com/enu/products/ner...ero-recode.php

Thank you LoRd_MuldeR for the excellent information!!!

Now I understand that when I use CUDA/OpenCL the quality and the velocity depends of the each video encoder. Each video encoder have a diferent quality and velocity. This question it's clear now.

When I talk about of generic CUDA/OpenCL/Quick_sync encoders you consinder only the encoder Nero recode 2014.

I don't know if nero use the hardware encondig for do all operations of encoding or if nero only use gpu or quicksync for do partly the work and for the rest use normal CPU. Anyone can say me if the convertion to h.264 of nero it's good normally when I use hardware encoding? I just recently that I use this program. What hardware is better for get the best quality? with CUDA encode? or with QuickSync encode? or with CUDA+QuickSync encode? I don't know! I suppose that the better quality is with only QuickSync, without CUDA and OpenCL, is it?

One more basic questions:

1) CUDA is of Nvidia. What graphic cards?
2) NVENC is of Nvidia. What graphic cards?
3) OpenCL is of who? AMD graphic cards? What graphic cards?
4) QuickSync is of Intel. What processors of intel?
5) AMD processors have any techology similar to QuickSync? what CPU/APU?

You say that QuickSync (and I supose that NVENC also) not use CPU neither GPU. I've understood that this element is in the silicon substrate like a independent element. But I've read that if I use a processor i7 with a discrete graphic card, the GPU of the i7 are disabled and QuickSync don't works. It is?

The velocity of QuickSync depends only the generation of the processor? or QuickSync depends of the clock of the GPUi? with overclocking of the processor can I get more speed with QuickSync? for QuickSync it's the same one i7 4790k than 4770k? is it the same for this task? I've read that for the 4770K and 4790K the graphics are the same: Processor Graphics: Intel® HD Graphics 4600, Graphics Base Frequency: 350 MHz, Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency: 1.25 GHz. I need know this for buy my new computer! :P

You say that QuickSync (and I supose that NVENC also) have the same result in the encoding results with ALL programs of encoding (Nero Recode 2014, MediaConverter 8 and others) because the ALL encoding process is do it only for hardware and the software don't intervene. I hope that I've understood well for buy the programs after :P

Evereone in this forum say that X.264 is the best. X264 only use CPU? Is it possible get the same quality with X264 encoder with the same speed of QuickSync? What is the profile of the X264?
What do you recommend me for the price/quality/speed? Intel Core i7-4930K with X264 or Intel Core i7-4790K with quicksync? the speed I suppose that is better for quicksync processors.

The speed for me is very important.

Thank you!!

Last edited by cr0n=0sTT88; 22nd July 2014 at 00:22.
cr0n=0sTT88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2014, 01:04   #15  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 12,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
1) CUDA is of Nvidia. What graphic cards?
CUDA is NVidia only. It's supported at least since the GeForce 8 series. But newer generations added additional features to CUDA. So some "CUDA enabled" programs may only work on newer cards.

Also keep in mind that CUDA programs ("kernels") use the actual GPU cores, so the performance greatly depends on what GPU model (number of "compute cores", clock speed, memory bandwidth, etc) you have.

At the same time, the NVENC engine is probably the same on all models (within one generation), so a "cheap" model will work just as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
2) NVENC is of Nvidia. What graphic cards?
NVENC was added with the "Kepler" generation, so GeForce 600 and later, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
3) OpenCL is of who? AMD graphic cards? What graphic cards?
OpenCL is vendor agnostic, just like OpenGL for 3D rendering.

Also, OpenCL doesn't necceserily need to run on a GPU. It can use CPU's and other types co-processors as well. And it is supported by AMD, NVidia, Intel and others nowadays.

BTW: I think AMD has given up their own "Stream" technology in favor of OpenCL, but NVidia is still pushing CUDA alongside to OpenCL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
4) QuickSync is of Intel. What processors of intel?
It was first supported in the "Sandy Bridge" generation. But I think later generations added more features.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
5) AMD processors have any techology similar to QuickSync? what CPU/APU?
Yes. NVidia has NVENC. And AMD has VCE (Video Coding Engine). The latter was first introduced in the HD 7000 series, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
You say that QuickSync (and I supose that NVENC also) not use CPU neither GPU. I've understood that this element is in the silicon substrate like a independent element. But I've read that if I use a processor i7 with a discrete graphic card, the GPU of the i7 are disabled and QuickSync don't works. It is?
Yes, AFAIK know, QuickSync is no longer available if you disable the CPU graphics. It's probably closely attached to the GPU cores.

But I think there are ways to use a separate graphics card and keep the CPU graphics enabled, so that you can still make use of QuickSync:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=169712

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
Evereone in this forum say that X.264 is the best. X264 only use CPU? Is it possible get the same quality with X264 encoder with the same speed of QuickSync? What is the profile of the X264?
It's x264, not X.264

As mentioned before, x264 can offload certain calculations to the GPU via OpenCL. But this is optional and (usually) doesn't give that much benefit. Essentially x264 is a pure CPU (software) encoder!

Also, x264 can be tuned for maximum speed or for maximum quality. It can be blazing fast, if you use one of the faster presets! And it can be slow like hell, if you use the "placebo" preset

Anyway, while slower presets give the best compression, even the faster presets can still give great quality - you only may need to increase the bitrate a little.

But of course the performance of x264 also greatly depends on what CPU you have! So If you want to encode with x264, you should get the fastest CPU you can afford. The more CPU cores the better

(Not sure what you mean with "What is the profile of the X264?", but x264 supports the High profile of H.264. Actually even High 10 and High 4:4:4. Lower profiles can be enforced, if needed)
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.



Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 22nd July 2014 at 01:52.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2014, 06:45   #16  |  Link
trumpet205
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
You say that QuickSync (and I supose that NVENC also) not use CPU neither GPU. I've understood that this element is in the silicon substrate like a independent element. But I've read that if I use a processor i7 with a discrete graphic card, the GPU of the i7 are disabled and QuickSync don't works. It is?
Yes but there are ways to enable it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
The velocity of QuickSync depends only the generation of the processor? or QuickSync depends of the clock of the GPUi? with overclocking of the processor can I get more speed with QuickSync? for QuickSync it's the same one i7 4790k than 4770k? is it the same for this task? I've read that for the 4770K and 4790K the graphics are the same: Processor Graphics: Intel® HD Graphics 4600, Graphics Base Frequency: 350 MHz, Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency: 1.25 GHz. I need know this for buy my new computer! :P
Quick Sync performance depends on generation, not how fast CPU and GPU is.

One thing though, if you overclock CPU chances are you will have to disable iGPU to increase your overclocking headroom. You can't use Quick Sync with iGPU disabled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
You say that QuickSync (and I supose that NVENC also) have the same result in the encoding results with ALL programs of encoding (Nero Recode 2014, MediaConverter 8 and others) because the ALL encoding process is do it only for hardware and the software don't intervene. I hope that I've understood well for buy the programs after :P
The actual encoding process is hardware only. So the only way to have different quality across different software is if you use different settings or software applies different filters prior feeding them to Quick Sync.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
Evereone in this forum say that X.264 is the best. X264 only use CPU? Is it possible get the same quality with X264 encoder with the same speed of QuickSync? What is the profile of the X264?
Depends on your eyes but generally x264 will win over Quick Sync at comparable settings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
What do you recommend me for the price/quality/speed? Intel Core i7-4930K with X264 or Intel Core i7-4790K with quicksync? the speed I suppose that is better for quicksync processors. The speed for me is very important.
x264 is very flexible. It can encode various profile of H.264. For example I use i7-3770K and 99% of my encoded project is Hi10P, which is not doable with Quick Sync or any other hardware accelerated H.264 encoder.

Quick Sync on the other hand is limited to 8-bit Level 4.1 or below H.264. Pretty much Blu-ray compliant format.

Honestly, Quick Sync is not worth it if you are going for an i7 processor. At ultra fast and super fast preset x264 on i7 will be just as fast as Quick Sync.

Last edited by trumpet205; 22nd July 2014 at 06:48.
trumpet205 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2014, 13:38   #17  |  Link
cr0n=0sTT88
Registered User
 
cr0n=0sTT88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 57
Thank you LoRd_MuldeR and trumpet205 for the excellent information! you have helped me very very much!
LoRd_MuldeR, sorry, when I before I've said "profile" and I wanted to say "preset" (configuration of the encoder).

Any more questions for finishing...

1) VCE is only available for graphic cards? Have APU's of AMD the encoder VCE? What APU's? I suppose that FX series not have VCE.

2) Is QuickSync available in any graphic card? or is only available in CPU's with GPU-i?

3) If we put all encoding systems in a quality scale, how to put in order since more quality to poor quality? Is it ok?

X264 (ultra fast/super fast preset) > quicksync > NVENC > VCE > CUDA (badaboom soft) > OpenCL (generic :P)

4) If I use QuickSync and I want get good quality of image what is the bitrate appropriated? I can put an example. If I have one video in WMV (WMV8, wmv9 or VC1) in 1080p with 10Mps. What is the right bitrate appropriated for don't lost quality since the original wmv file if I use QuickSync? And What is the bitrate appropriated for don't lost quality if I use X264? I'm very very interested in the answer of this question. If I put a birtate of 15MBps in Quicksync I will get the same quality of the ogirinal? If I put ALWAYS (for all WMV) one bitrate 10-15% more (of the original wmv bitrate) I will get, at least, the same quality of the original video??

5) X264 is a command aplication? is there any intuitive and easy graphical interface for X264? handbrake is a graphical interface of X264? handbrake is the best graphical interface for X264? with handbrake is it possible also use QuickSync, VCE, NVENC, CUDA or OpenCL? any aplication with all options of encoding and good quality? any aplication at least with X264 and QuickSync?

6) is there something PCI-express card with only enconder? Not a graphic card. A card only for encode to H.264 very fast and hight quality. is it very expensive? Is it similar to X264 results (with good preset)?

7) I've looked this review about x264 encoding with differnt systems:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_6.html#sect0

This review say that with X264 I get with i7 4770k 29.91fps for encode and with fx-8350 I get 26.53fps. Only 3 frames of diference. The 4770K it is very expensive (275€) but the fx-8350 is very cheap (150€). What do you think abount this? better fx or i7?

Thank you!!!!
cr0n=0sTT88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2014, 18:57   #18  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
3) If we put all encoding systems in a quality scale, how to put in order since more quality to poor quality? Is it ok?
For file-to-file encoding, x264 is the highest quality option available. And it's pretty fast. I wouldn't use hardware unless I had some serious speed requirements.

Quote:
X264 (ultra fast/super fast preset) > quicksync > NVENC > VCE > CUDA (badaboom soft) > OpenCL (generic :P)
Plausible. But what are you doing that would require you to encode so quickly? Do you know that the encoder itself is the bottleneck, or could source decode or preprocessing be a bigger factor? Don't use a faster preset than you have to.

Quote:
4) If I use QuickSync and I want get good quality of image what is the bitrate appropriated? I can put an example. If I have one video in WMV (WMV8, wmv9 or VC1) in 1080p with 10Mps. What is the right bitrate appropriated for don't lost quality since the original wmv file if I use QuickSync? And What is the bitrate appropriated for don't lost quality if I use X264? I'm very very interested in the answer of this question. If I put a birtate of 15MBps in Quicksync I will get the same quality of the ogirinal? If I put ALWAYS (for all WMV) one bitrate 10-15% more (of the original wmv bitrate) I will get, at least, the same quality of the original video??
Very source dependent. How good the WMV looks matters, and there is a lot of variance in the quality of their real-world encoding. If the WMV has a visible artifacts, you can force postprocessing on via reg keys or "WMV PowerToy" which can help a lot. Sometimes QuickSync may need more bitrate than the WMV, other times it could use a lot less.

Quote:
5) X264 is a command aplication? is there any intuitive and easy graphical interface for X264? handbrake is a graphical interface of X264? handbrake is the best graphical interface for X264? with handbrake is it possible also use QuickSync, VCE, NVENC, CUDA or OpenCL? any aplication with all options of encoding and good quality? any aplication at least with X264 and QuickSync?
Tons of different options for x264. MeGUI is reasonably approachable while still offering advanced controls, although performance can be gated by AVISynth.

Quote:
6) is there something PCI-express card with only enconder? Not a graphic card. A card only for encode to H.264 very fast and hight quality. is it very expensive? Is it similar to X264 results (with good preset)?
Back in the day accelerator cards were used for MPEG-2 and VC-1/WMV. I'm not aware of any solutions that make sense today. Better to just buy more, faster cores.

Quote:
7) I've looked this review about x264 encoding with differnt systems:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_6.html#sect0

This review say that with X264 I get with i7 4770k 29.91fps for encode and with fx-8350 I get 26.53fps. Only 3 frames of diference. The 4770K it is very expensive (275€) but the fx-8350 is very cheap (150€). What do you think abount this? better fx or i7?
There aren't enough details about that test to extrapolate. Speed/quality can really depend on source decode and preprocessing as well as encoding, and is very scenario dependent. If you're doing 1080iProRes with an expensive deinterlace step to SD H.264, you might only be able to saturate a few threads. But 1080p from a 1080p y4m file on a fast RAID can almost saturate 16 threads. So some workflows are bound more by per-core performance, and some are more like clock speed * cores.

The fastest machine today would be a 20+core dual socket Ivy Bridge I think. Haswell is a lot better per core and per clock, but you can't get than many Haswell cores in one system yet.

You'd need to share a LOT more scenario details to get usefully specific advice.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Instant Video

My Compression Book

Amazon Instant Video is hiring! PM me if you're interested.
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2014, 23:14   #19  |  Link
trumpet205
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
Any more questions for finishing...

1) VCE is only available for graphic cards? Have APU's of AMD the encoder VCE? What APU's? I suppose that FX series not have VCE.
FX is pure CPU. No VCE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
2) Is QuickSync available in any graphic card? or is only available in CPU's with GPU-i?
Quick Sync is Intel in-house dedicated hardware encoder. It is only available on Sandy Bridge and onward CPU with iGPU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
4) If I use QuickSync and I want get good quality of image what is the bitrate appropriated? I can put an example. If I have one video in WMV (WMV8, wmv9 or VC1) in 1080p with 10Mps. What is the right bitrate appropriated for don't lost quality since the original wmv file if I use QuickSync? And What is the bitrate appropriated for don't lost quality if I use X264? I'm very very interested in the answer of this question. If I put a birtate of 15MBps in Quicksync I will get the same quality of the ogirinal? If I put ALWAYS (for all WMV) one bitrate 10-15% more (of the original wmv bitrate) I will get, at least, the same quality of the original video??
How much bitrate is needed highly depends on the material and encoding parameter. There is no universal bitrate guideline. You may have a clean anime that needs less than 5 Mbps, or old grainy film that needs 30 Mbps or more just to be watchable.

Because Quick Sync does not have CRF/QP 0 option found in x264, on paper it always looses quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
5) X264 is a command aplication? is there any intuitive and easy graphical interface for X264? handbrake is a graphical interface of X264? handbrake is the best graphical interface for X264? with handbrake is it possible also use QuickSync, VCE, NVENC, CUDA or OpenCL? any aplication with all options of encoding and good quality? any aplication at least with X264 and QuickSync?
Handbrake can use either x264 (CPU only or combination of CPU and OpenCL) or Quick Sync.

MeGUI can also make use of x264. It is not rookie friendly but allows greater flexibility than Handbrake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr0n=0sTT88 View Post
7) I've looked this review about x264 encoding with differnt systems:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_6.html#sect0

This review say that with X264 I get with i7 4770k 29.91fps for encode and with fx-8350 I get 26.53fps. Only 3 frames of diference. The 4770K it is very expensive (275€) but the fx-8350 is very cheap (150€). What do you think abount this? better fx or i7?

Thank you!!!!
Another flawed benchmark on video encoding. When will there be a good one?

The problem with these benchmarks is that they don't tell you what encoding parameter the benching software is using. Is it 1 pass or 2 pass? Is it ABR or CRF? How many reference frames? Is it 8-bit or 10-bit? What video are you using? Etc... The encoding performance varies greatly depending on what parameter and video are you using. Depending on the encoding parameter, it is possible to see FX sits a lot closer to i5 than i7.

I'll give you my example of why that benchmark is meaningless. I just finished encoding Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. This is a very grainy film. With 10-bit CRF 16 on grain preset, my average fps is 6 on i7-3770K. Here if I have one less fps it will add on to couple more hours in encoding. FX would've been slower with my encoding parameter.

You also have to factor in power consumption. FX CPU consumes significantly more power than i7. For me I do 24/7 encoding so initial savings on FX is easily beaten within a year of using i7.

Last edited by trumpet205; 24th July 2014 at 23:29.
trumpet205 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2014, 15:32   #20  |  Link
cr0n=0sTT88
Registered User
 
cr0n=0sTT88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 57
Thank you benwaggoner and trumpet205 for the excellent information! you have helped me very very much another time!

Now all it's clear. I will buy Intel Core i7-4790K without graphic card!

I will begin with handbreak and after I will use MeGui. AviSynth is too much complicated for me! :P

I will return for do new questions about this software when I have my new pc!




cr0n=0sTT88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.