Advice choosing video card

[WorBry]

I have recently upgraded from an ancient single-core cpu (AMD) PC to a 6-core (AMD FX-6300) cpu machine. The discourse leading to this decision is chronicled in a another forum thread, and available for reading by anyone who has trouble getting off to sleep at night.

Suffice it to say that the need focused on computational power, with hyper-thread capability, for encoding and AVISynth processing, and on that level I am more than delighted with the outcome.

The set-up, as is:

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz unlocked, 14.0 MB cache
Motherboard: Asus M5A 78L-M LX-Plus
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD3000 integrated (AMD 760G chipset): VGA
RAM: 8GB DDR3 (Crucial)
Sound: RealTek HD surround 7.1
Hard drive: Maxtor SATA 3 500GB
ROM Drive: LG DVD writer
PSU: 450W
Monitor: LG Flatron 19" LCD (legacy from old system)
OS: Presently XP Pro SP2 (retail license), SP3 updated.

Now the dust has settled, I am weighing the benefits of upgrading the integrated graphics unit to a dedicated graphics card - one reason being that the video editing suite I use (Corel VideoStudio Pro x6), supports both hyper-threading and hardware accelerated encoding/decoding, which the integrated ATI Radeon HD3000 GPU does not provide. Despite the ‘computational boost’, I am finding that VS Pro x6 struggles with some HD video files, especially when utilizing lossless/near-lossless (avi-based) ‘intermediates’ for intra-frame accurate editing; maybe I’m expecting too much, but I wonder if GPU-assisted optimization might make a difference.

Despite the bewildering array of video cards out there, I find that for my set-up, given the 450W PSU, the choice basically comes down to two:

1. AMD Radeon HD6670:

Full specs: http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/amd-radeon-hd-6000/hd-6670/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6670-overview.aspx#2

….although there is this 2GB DDR3 version on (“Heeby-Jeeby Friday”) sale locally which I am considering:

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/amd-amd-radeon-hd6670-2gb-gddr3-pci-e-video-card-a6670pe32g/10191076.aspx

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/xfx-amd-radeon-hd-6670-2gb-ddr3-pci-express-2-1-graphics-card/4677014.p?id=1218505322347&skuId=4677014

or else:

2. Nvidia GeForce GT640 2GB

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt640/specifications

A tad pricier, (still sub-$100), but also available locally:

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/asus-asus-nvidia-geforce-gt-640-2gb-ddr3-pci-e-video-card-gt640-2gd3-gt640-2gd3/10216417.aspx

I'm not sure if there are others?

The VS Pro x6 User Guide only gives the following requirements for hardware acceleration, quote:

“Hardware decoder and encoder acceleration is supported only by Windows Vista and later versions of the Windows operating system software and requires at least 512 MB of VRAM” and….

“Note: For optimum performance, VGA cards must support DXVA2 VLD mode with Vertex and Pixel Shader 2.0 or later”

I was anyway planning on upgrading from XP Pro to Windows 8, or preferably Windows 7 (if I can find a better deal).

I have posted a similar inquiry on the Corel Users Forum, but with no response as yet. Since the choice of video card (and possibly Windows OS upgrade) possibly has wider implications for PC video playback and processing workflows (CUDA-assisted decoding etc) I thought to bring the matter before “ye noble gear-heads” also.

My standard PC media players at present are MPC-HC and VLC, plus QuickTime (largely because I have iTunes installed for the iPAD/iPhone).

I don’t do any gaming at all, so that’s not a consideration. It’s all video editing, processing, encoding and playback.

Would appreciate advice on the choice of video card.

Cheers.

[turbojet]

6670 is requires probably too much power for your PSU. That's an expensive 640 and it's not very powerful for the price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600298542%20600423073%20600315498&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20600%20series&Order=PRICE&Pagesize=100

Is the best I could find in canada for ~$100. I'd probably take the 7790 over GTX 650 but nvidia's cuda can be useful. http://www.hwcompare.com/14290/geforce-gtx-650-vs-radeon-hd-7790/

[WorBry]

Thanks Turbojet.

6670 is requires probably too much power for your PSU.

It shouldn't be as it's the 6670 that the outfit I bought the PC from put in as their 'standard' upgrade (the 'Special Diablo') from the combo I have:

http://sgxtech.com/computer-best-price-mtl.pdf

I did call them the other day for advice on this. In the brief stilted conversation that ensued (with constant distraction from in-shop clientele/other phone-ins) all I managed to glean was:

AMD HD6670 better......for gaming. For video editing?...that's up to you. GeForce GT640 OK (but not 650..emphatic about that)...would have to order....end of conversation

That's an expensive 640 and it's not very powerful for the price.

From what I read in gaming circles, both would be considered 'entry level' cards. Some reckoned they were on par performance-wise, others said it depended on the games. Couldn't find much relating to video editing, other than one comment that GPU-assisted processing probably wouldn't make much of a difference anyway. I dunno, is that a valid point?


http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600298542%20600423073%20600315498&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20600%20series&Order=PRICE&Pagesize=100

Is the best I could find in canada for ~$100. I'd probably take the 7790 over GTX 650 but nvidia's cuda can be useful. http://www.hwcompare.com/14290/geforce-gtx-650-vs-radeon-hd-7790/

Problem is, in addition to PSU limitation, that ASUS motherboard only takes PCIe 2.0 x16 graphics cards, not PCIe 3.0. So I don't really have a luxury of choice.

[turbojet]

Do you mean they said 650 is not good for video editing? Depending on what's used 650 (VP5) can be much faster than 640 (OEM/VP4). Roughly twice the max fps.

The PSU must handle most of the wattage specified. FME most generic ones don't, I've had 500W that can't handle 300W. With the 6670 you might up around 450W at full cpu/gpu load.

Don't worry about PCIE 3.0 GPU in a 2.0 slot there isn't a single gpu that can saturate 2.0 afaik and even if you were running any of the gpu's talked about in SLI it still wouldn't saturate 2.0, GTX 680 3 way sli doesn't. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/18/pci_express_20_vs_30_gpu_gaming_performance_review/4

[raffriff42]

I am finding that VS Pro x6 struggles with some HD video files, especially when utilizing lossless/near-lossless (avi-based) ‘intermediates’ for intra-frame accurate editing; maybe I’m expecting too much, but I wonder if GPU-assisted optimization might make a difference... Your problem is probably Lack of storage bandwidth. I would go for a large HDD for intermediates. It really helps to read from one drive and write to another (ping-pong). HDDs don't do both at the same time very well.

In addition, it helps (assuming money is not an object here) to get another HDD or SSD dedicated to "scratch files" (as Premiere calls them) - all the temporary "preview" files generated by the editor software.

I would go for 16 GB RAM in a future upgrade. It would also be nice to have your operating system on an SSD.

This advice is based on what people advise for Premiere (https://www.google.com/search?q=adobe+premiere+performance)...

...I don't see comparable posts out there (https://www.google.com/search?q=Corel+VideoStudio+performance) for Corel VideoStudio, but I believe this advice still applies. I do see something about 'smart proxy' (editing with low-resolution 'proxy' files) which should help a lot - and doesn't cost anything.

[WorBry]

Oh boy, this is, once again, an education for me. The priority when looking at PC options under a tight budget was CPU clout for encoding/AVISynth processing. Wish I'd gone more into the video editing implications.

Do you mean they said 650 is not good for video editing? Depending on what's used 650 (VP5) can be much faster than 640 (OEM/VP4). Roughly twice the max fps.

Like I said, the phone conversation with the shop that built the PC was very difficult - constantly being put-on hold. All the guy (the boss I think) replied when I asked what about an NVidia GT640 or 650, was "640 OK, but not 650".

I'll maybe pass by the shop to speak to the assistant/tech who was there where I bought the PC, to find out more....PSU limitations, PCIe 3.0 cards included. Don't want to put a card in that could risk voiding the warranty if, for any reason, it came to it....even if the card worked OK.

[WorBry]

Your problem is probably Lack of storage bandwidth. I would go for a large HDD for intermediates. It really helps to read from one drive and write to another (ping-pong). HDDs don't do both at the same time very well.

Thanks, yes, that is a consideration; I'll maybe put a second drive in at some point.

In addition, it helps (assuming money is not an object here) to get another HDD or SSD dedicated to "scratch files" (as Premiere calls them) - all the temporary "preview" files generated by the editor software.

I would go for 16 GB RAM in a future upgrade. It would also be nice to have your operating system on an SSD.
.
That would be nice also, but I’m afraid budgetary constraints do come to play, as they did when choosing a new PC.

…..I don't see comparable posts out there[/url] for Corel VideoStudio, but I believe this advice still applies. I do see something about 'smart proxy' (editing with low-resolution 'proxy' files) which should help a lot - and doesn't cost anything.

Yes, I had a measure of success using proxy-files with Corel VS when I was tinkering with HD sources on my old single-core PC. Corel VS can be set to auto-generate proxy files and there is complete flexibility in the choice of codec and resolution (as long as it appears in the vfw codecs library), but I don’t really want to resort to that.

Plus I’m certain I’ve found the root of my problems. My long favored lossless ‘intermediate’ format is HuffYuv-YV12 (the FFDShow libavcodec version). With decoder options (auto) set to 6 decoding threads in both the main and vfw version, I had assumed it was providing full 6-core encode/decode support for HuffYuv. In Task Manager, however, I see now that it’s only using one core; which would easily explain the laboring/crashes in VS Pro x6. I hadn’t noticed that before when running Avisynth scripts in MT mode because the single-core decode/encode activity was masked by the MT AVISynth process activity across all 6-cores. Indeed looking at the change-log for the last official FFDShow (Tryouts) update (1.3.4500, 2013-01-06) I see that that multi-threaded decoding is only available for H.264, MPEG-1/2, FFV1, and DV video.

So, that does put a different perspective on things. Are there other FFDShow custom builds that provide full MT support, including HuffYuv?

I could look again at FFV1 as a lossless YV12 alternative; on my old single-core PC, it was just too slow.

I had also considered native editing of HD video (HDV in my case), but VS Pro x6 is limited to key-frame editing only. I looked at a trial version of TMPEGenc’s MPEG Smart Renderer 4 which claims frame-accurate smart rendering with 'minimal quality loss'. The results were quite impressive (as far as one could tell through the trial stamped watermark) and the program appeared to function OK without hardware-acceleration support. However, I can’t quite come to terms with the logic of re-encoding, what amounts to significant segments of unedited original video back to a highly compressed lossy MPEG-2 format.

A further option, I was anyway warming to, is using the ‘visually lossless’ Cineform HD (now GoPro) format as an intermediate for editing. From my own tests with HD and SD sources, I’ve been very impressed with the image quality (supported by comparative metrics), the ability to sustain that level of quality over multiple recompression cycles (at least 5) and the fast encode/decode speeds with considerably less CPU/RAM demand than any of the lossless and other ‘visually lossless’ codecs I’ve tried. More importantly for me, it edits (with smart rendering) without any issues at all in VS Pro x6 on my new PC – and that’s using up to the second-highest (Film Scan 1) Cineform encode quality level and with video resolutions up to 4K (4096 x 2160) - tested with some converted raw Hero 3+ cam 4K footage. Pretty impressive, and that’s without any GPU acceleration support. Perhaps not surprising considering that Cineform was developed primarily as a professional HD edit format when multi-core and hardware-accelerated processing was not yet mainstream.

So a workable solution with my PC set-up, as it is would be to edit with Cineform and then convert to a lossless (HuffYuv or FFV1, if the MT support makes a difference) for AVISynth processing in YV12 (Cineform is a YUY2 4:2:2 format). Which leaves me wondering, if the limited choices available for upgrading to a dedicated video card would not provide that much of boost, do I really need it?

Edit: Nah, despite the MT support, FFV1 (at it's fastest setting) is still slower encode/decode than single-core HuffYuv on my PC.

[raffriff42]

Try the UT Video codec (http://www.videohelp.com/tools/Ut-Video-Codec-Suite), it's similar to Huffyuv but multithreaded (discussion) (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=143624)

[WorBry]

Thanks yes, I did have a look at UT-Video as an alternative lossless intermediate (for SD sources) a while back on my old single-core, and found it slower (encode and decode) than FFDShow-Huff-YV12.

I ran a few tests again last night with some HD (HDV 25p) source clips on the new 6-core PC, to re-examine it’s potential as an intermediate for multi-stage AVISynth processing in YV12 and as an editable format in Corel Video Studio Pro x6.

With a (DGIndex) DGDecode_mpeg2source feed and UT-Video set to YV12 Rec.709, Predict Left (for decode speed priority) and Frame Divide Count 6 (i.e. full 6 core MT), the encode rate (mean 37 fps) was a good deal slower than Huff-YV12 (mean 64 fps).

Decoded through AVISynth (as an AVISource) to playback in VDub, UT-Video was on the button (25 fps), whereas Huff-YV12 dragged a little at 22.5 fps. When opened directly in VDub, the UT-Video played bang-on real-time (25 fps) and Huff-YV12 trailed down at 13.5 fps.

So, it’s ‘swings and roundabouts’ really. Huff-YV12 encoded faster, which is advantageous when running complex/cpu-demanding AVISynth scripts, but UT-Video encodes (with the MT support) playback real-time (in VDub) which makes for easier reviewing. That said, there appears to be an issue with UT-Video encodes throwing an error and crashing VDub at playback completion - is this a known bug?

On balance, of the two, I still prefer Huff-YV12 as an intermediate for AVISynth processing – if only it had (at least decode) MT support? Oh, I should perhaps mention that the tests were done with the MT version of AVISynth, so there might have been some global benefit from that.

As for its potential as an editable intra-frame format: I tested several UT-Video encodes (at source HDV 1440x1080 resolution) in Video Studio Pro x6 (with the project/timeline codec configuration set accordingly). Straight (unedited) playback in the preview and cutting screens was, for the most part, smooth and real-time, but occasionally stalling on longer segments. Throwing a variety of transitions, titles and a few color corrections into the mix, the final (smart) render completed OK, albeit slower than Cineform - but at least it did not crash, as Huff-YV12 invariably would !

So, yes, I think UT-Video could have some potential there. Just wondering if that’s where some GPU acceleration boost might make a difference?

Cheers.

[WorBry]

With a (DGIndex) DGDecode_mpeg2source feed and UT-Video set to YV12 Rec.709, Predict Left (for decode speed priority) and Frame Divide Count 6 (i.e. full 6 core MT), the encode rate (mean 37 fps) was a good deal slower than Huff-YV12 (mean 64 fps).

Decoded through AVISynth (as an AVISource) to playback in VDub, UT-Video was on the button (25 fps), whereas Huff-YV12 dragged a little at 22.5 fps. When opened directly in VDub, the UT-Video played bang-on real-time (25 fps) and Huff-YV12 trailed down at 13.5 fps.


Sorry, in those tests Huff-YV12 was set with 'Median' prediction. Changing to 'Left' prediction the encode rate was the same, but the decode rates were faster:

Playback via AVISynth: 25fps (so real-time)
Playback directly in VDub: 15.9 fps.

So, even less of a reason to change from Huff-YV12 to UT-Video for AVISynth processing.

Needless to say, the Huff-YV12 (Left prediction) encodes still crashed in Corel Video Studio Pro X6. Since VS operates (with vfw codecs) in RGB color-space (like VDub), seems likely it's that 'slow' decode rate (15.9 fps) that's the underlying problem...buffer under-runs, timeouts or whatever. And from what I've read about the GPU-assisted technologies offered by the two cards I was considering, I can't see they could offer anything more to resolve that issue, other than maybe alleviating the CPU burden in rendering some of the more graphically intensive edit effects, should I want to apply them. I'll see how it goes with Cineform and UT-Video as I do more editing.

[raffriff42]

Agreed re: GPU processing - it's purely for effects and I don't know if it's a great benefit.

Re: UT Video, it's still being actively developed and maybe the encode performance will improve. Maybe some of the geniuses behind x264, which works so well with multi-cores, would help the developer out here?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=143624
http://umezawa.dyndns.info/wordpress/?cat=28

[WorBry]

Well I can't see anything happening on the FFDShow front, especially now that everyone is going LAV filters.

I've also just tested the "MT" version of HuffYuv that sparked some interest a while back - the patched (HYMT) HuffYuv v2.1.1 version that is:

http://home.h01.itscom.net/para/intro/huffyuv-mt/

But I can see no benefit over FFDShow-Huff or UT-Video there. And likewise Lagarith. I also had a brief look at 'I-Frame only' x264 (with FastDecode). Quite impressive on quality metrics, but not that practical as a process 'intermediate'. A consideration for archiving though.

I have considered Cineform as an intermediate for AVISynth processing. At the highest Filmscan2 setting, the 'quality', judged purely on SSIM scores is up at around 98.5%. Surprisingly though, despite it's smooth performance in VS Pro x6, the encode rate is actually a bit slower than UT-Video YV12. On the decode side however it does appear to receive the benefit of MT support. That said, it is a YUY2 4:2:2 format, and whilst the vfw encoder will accept both YUY2 and YV12 inputs, the decoder output is YUY2 only. So, that means having to return the stream to YV12 for AVISynth processing with YV12 filters/functions, which although relatively efficient, does introduce a little more loss at each round of processing. Cycle (FFDShow) Huff-YUY2 through rounds of ConvertToYV12 - ConverttoYUY2 and you'll see the same thing - in my tests, around 0.05% drop in SSIM score at each round.

Also looked at Matrox MPEG-2 'I-Frame only', another YUY2 4:2:2 'lossy'. Again pretty good on metrics, but very slow at the bitrates (>200 Mbps) needed to get up there. DVCProHD - forget it. Reasonable quality metrics on the first couple of passes, but after that it rapidly goes downhill.

As it stands, UT-Video would seem the best (and perhaps only) hope for a non-proprietary vfw lossless codec that still has active development. I suspect all spare hands in the x264 team are up on the x265 HEVC deck though ;) Let's look forward to that !

As for the dedicated graphics cards, I'll hold off for now. Not much point in putting one in if it's not to meet a particular need. Maybe if I was using Vegas, which by all accounts is rather GPU intensive, it would be a different story.

[turbojet]

There's still some lossless video codecs (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1226160#post1226160) to try if you want.

I tested some of these and posted results (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1230081#post1230081) 5 years ago. Things have probably changed a lot since then but amv2/3 might be worth looking into.

[WorBry]

Yes, I remember Amv2 now. Someone suggested it again recently on DVInfoNet, I think it was. Yep, I'll give it a whirl, nothing to lose. What's the saying 'the good man brings out of his treasure the old and the new'. ;)
Edit: Appears they did update in 2012. Well I tried it. The package included both amv2 (YUY2,RGB) and amv3 (YV12) versions - amv2, which was supposed to be a trial version with a water-mark on the video, appeared to encode, but then the file wouldn't open in VDub. For amv3, they want the $20 license fee up front. Maybe not.

[Guest]

Getting off topic for this thread, guys. It's risky. :)

[WorBry]

You're right. My fault for going off on the 'lossless' codec tangent. Sorry about that.:o

One final comment (on topic):

@Turbojet,

Finally got to speak to the tech at the shop where I bought the PC. He reckons I'd be OK with a Radeon HD7770 (1GB, DDR5) card as long as I don't overload with peripherals. No problem with it being a PCIe 3.0 card on a 2.0 slot.

So, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Cheers.

[WorBry]

BTW- Just noticed this:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=169766

Now that's something that could influence choice of card - I do a fair amount of NNEDI3 based stuff. See how that develops.

[Guest]

Posts discussing sound HW have been removed. I already asked people to stay on topic once. Please do so. Thank you for your cooperation.