AMD, Intel and Nvidia driver issues and last recommended version

[garson]

No you don‘t need that for 720p. As Asmodian mentioned, let madVR do the upscaling for best results, but for first tests in terms of motion, simply add the resolution and refresh rate combos in madVR and test. Then you know what you like better, soap opera effect or native refresh rates.
Right, just these 1080p profiles and madvr will upscale 720p. :)
In madvr I set upscaling using Lanczos 3 taps.


For the usage of native refresh rates, be sure to turn off Motion interpolation in your TV to get true results. If it is enabled the TV will do the same as smooth motion in madVR but will create some stutters when scenes change, the built in motion interpolation on TVs is limited.
I just took a look in Samsung menu, I see Motion Plus submenu, and Judder reduction inside, set to 0. So should be turned off. :)

:thanks:

[Asmodian]

Asmodian is one of the guys who do like smooth motion ;)

It's true. ;)

If it is enabled the TV will do the same as smooth motion in madVR but will create some stutters when scenes change, the built in motion interpolation on TVs is limited.

Smooth motion in madVR is VERY different from the motion interpolation in TVs. I do not like or use any of the motion interpolation methods I have tested, on a TV, or via SVP, etc.

Smooth motion is a simple method of displaying one frame rate on a different refresh rate without motion judder, it is not doing any kind of motion interpolation.

[garson]

@Asmodian and Klaus1189
I just watched ~2h movie, 1080p and 23.976fps, with madvr doing display mode change.
It was really good, natural and fluent, no judder at all. :) Hope it will stay that way. When doing pause/resume, I can see 8-10 repeated frames, no big deal, other than that there were ~5 repeated frames during those 2 hours, 0 dropped frames. Which is very good, I would say.
Also, I noticed rendering times are 5-6ms lower, which is also good, and comes from smooth motion being off, I guess?
I'm gonna stick with this, and see how it goes, but first movie went really good.

[SamuriHL]

That's awesome news! Yea, I'm one of those that run at the native refresh rate of the video I'm watching, as well. Sometimes it takes some messing around to get the timings just right. I've not done custom timing for my RTX yet. Now that we have a long weekend I may get around to it and see what I can do. But it sounds like you ended up in a good place!

[ashlar42]

When doing pause/resume, I can see 8-10 repeated framesThat's completely normal and unavoidable, as far as I know. It's also unnoticeable.

[garson]

That's awesome news! Yea, I'm one of those that run at the native refresh rate of the video I'm watching, as well. Sometimes it takes some messing around to get the timings just right. I've not done custom timing for my RTX yet. Now that we have a long weekend I may get around to it and see what I can do. But it sounds like you ended up in a good place!
Yeah.
I'm gonna try with some image enhancements, since I am on default values at the moment. I think I have some more power in this GPU, since rendering times are around 22ms. :)
Probably will try with sharpen edges and AdaptiveSharpen.

[SamuriHL]

See, now you're getting to the fun stuff! Enjoy!!

[garson]

See, now you're getting to the fun stuff! Enjoy!!
Not sure I'm gonna enjoy it actually. :D
I am just reading Asmodian's topic, and I see in his both settings, Max and Low, he is not using using processing at all (artifact removal and image enhacements). :confused:
I already had Reduce banding artifacts set to medium/medium and reduce compression artifacts enabled.
Is this hurting image quality actually?

[SamuriHL]

We may want to move this discussion to the madr or madvr general thread since it's getting wildly off topic here. However, those options are all going to be a matter of personal preference and what YOU like or dislike in the image quality you get by using, or not using, them. I don't have any post image processing enhancements enabled myself. The only image enhancements I really do are in HDR processing I tend to favor strong highlight recovery. But that's to correct things that are lost while tone mapping so it's a very different kind of beast. But you will have to determine for yourself with your own eyes what looks best to you. That's why I said you're getting to the fun stuff because it's a matter of turning something on or off and comparing it and seeing what you prefer. Then once you get what you think is dialed in, watch a whole movie and see if you enjoy the experience. If not, tweak it a bit more until you find your preferences. Yes, it takes time. Yes, it's completely worth it. Once you have it dialed in, I've not seen anything that compares to madvr in terms of picture quality.

[garson]

We may want to move this discussion to the madr or madvr general thread since it's getting wildly off topic here. However, those options are all going to be a matter of personal preference and what YOU like or dislike in the image quality you get by using, or not using, them. I don't have any post image processing enhancements enabled myself. The only image enhancements I really do are in HDR processing I tend to favor strong highlight recovery. But that's to correct things that are lost while tone mapping so it's a very different kind of beast. But you will have to determine for yourself with your own eyes what looks best to you. That's why I said you're getting to the fun stuff because it's a matter of turning something on or off and comparing it and seeing what you prefer. Then once you get what you think is dialed in, watch a whole movie and see if you enjoy the experience. If not, tweak it a bit more until you find your preferences. Yes, it takes time. Yes, it's completely worth it. Once you have it dialed in, I've not seen anything that compares to madvr in terms of picture quality.
You are right, this is offtopic.
I already got a lot of help here, regarding native mode vs. 60Hz.
:thanks:

[Klaus1189]

You‘re welcome ;)

[garson]

Guys, sorry, maybe a small offtopic again :o, but kinda related to nVidia.
Currently, what is prefered HW decoder? I am finding opposite opinions, CUVID vs DXVA2 copy back. I am using CUVID for years now.

[SamuriHL]

D3d11.

[garson]

D3d11.
:thanks:

[Asmodian]

For Native it is D3D11, for copyback D3D11 and DXVA2 are equally good.

[webbo]

Hello everyone
Despite wanting the best for HDR Passthrough, I'm also a casual gamer and in need of the latest drivers (usually...)

Can someone point of HDR passthrough for these versions, please?
436.15 - 2019-08-27
436.02 - 2019-08-20

Is it accurate or bogus metadata is sent?
I honestly can't tell myself
Thanks a lot :)

[nevcairiel]

I honestly can't tell myself


If you can't tell the difference, does it then actually matter?

[Calvi]

For HW decoder (LAV) I find only CUVID deinterlaces my DTV recordings properly (with vector adaptive set)

Render times are all about the same and quality of CUVID seems as good as D3D11 for progressive sources.

[garson]

For me, CUVID gives about 1.5-2ms better render times (on GT1030), cpu usage is about same, video mem usage is ~50MB bigger with CUVID, compared to D3D11. For now I stick to CUVID.

[el Filou]

For HW decoder (LAV) I find only CUVID deinterlaces my DTV recordings properly (with vector adaptive set)What GPU? CUVID and DXVA use the exact same hardware deinterlacing. Something somewhere must be wrong with your software config.

[Calvi]

That’s what I thought too.
GPU is RTX 2070, I get different results with CUVID vs DXVA. Will try again when I get some more time to experiment.

[Klaus1189]

New Studio Driver 431.86

[ryrynz]

For me, CUVID gives about 1.5-2ms better render times

Render times don't tell you much without you knowing the current clock speeds.

[clsid]

CUVID makes the GPU run at highest clock speed. Even when unnecessary.

DXVA2/CUVID/D3D11 all use the exact same hardware decoder on the GPU. The only difference is the "wrapper" around it.

[ryrynz]

Garson, as a result of the above you are actually LESS efficient using this and since that was your attraction to using it, you should actually stop using it.

[garson]

Render times don't tell you much without you knowing the current clock speeds.
They are the same, max boost clock speed of GT1030, something above 1500Mhz.
I run GPU-Z to see gpu temp, usage etc.
Garson, as a result of the above you are actually LESS efficient using this and since that was your attraction to using it, you should actually stop using it.
What result?

[webbo]

If you can't tell the difference, does it then actually matter?

Well, yes, since to an untrained eye, it "could" look good, but it doesn't
After seeing the first post on this thread, i'm actually aware that new drivers can have a faulty API and transit bogus metadata.

Sticking with 430.39 for the moment :)

[ryrynz]

What result?

Read the above post hence "the above"

[garson]

Read the above post hence "the above"
I saw that post from clsid.
But as I said result on my computer is different.
I did try with D3D11 mostly to lower GPU usage and thermal dissipation (as my GT1030 is passively cooled) but nothing changed. :confused:

[ryrynz]

The result isn't different because you haven't looked at your clock speeds at all. What do you meant by nothing changed? You're just looking at render times yeah? Trust me, you have zero reason to use CUVID.

[NikosD]

CUVID works always at maximum 3D clocks, all the time and it feels like a tad faster than any other decoder.

Also, CUVID exposes more codecs than D3D11 or DXVA2 like MPEG4 ASP (divx) and others, although not very common nowadays.

[el Filou]

The result isn't different because you haven't looked at your clock speeds at all. What do you meant by nothing changed? You're just looking at render times yeah? Trust me, you have zero reason to use CUVID.garson looked at the clocked speeds and said they were the same, so presumably it's a situation where rendering itself maxes out the GPU even with DXVA. With such a low power card, maybe it's possible the API could make a small difference even if it's a edge case?

[garson]

garson looked at the clocked speeds and said they were the same, so presumably it's a situation where rendering itself maxes out the GPU even with DXVA. With such a low power card, maybe it's possible the API could make a small difference even if it's a edge case?
Correct.
I run GPU-Z for 30 minutes and logged results into log file. Then I compared log files, everything looked pretty much same, except for video memory usage (with D3D11 it was ~850MB and with CUVID ~900MB).

[littleD]

But in dx11 mode, do you use dx11 native or dx11 cb (by choosing card specifically)? Because second way is more memory heavy and thus might choke slower cards with low membus.

[clsid]

For a proper test you would need to force the GPU to use a fixed clock speed. NVIDIA Inspector tool allow you to do that.

[Calvi]

I have tried every possible combination I can of CUVID vs DXVA CB & DXVA Native with LAV Filter and Zoomplayer and...

EVR, MadVR, MadVR Deinterlacing ON/Off, Video Forced, Film, Centre or All, Exclusive, Windowed, DX11 Presentation On/Off and...

I cannot get DXVA to deinterlace the same as Cuvid.

Only DXVA Copyback with Software Deinterlacing (Westin or Yadif) looks similar on my Australian DTV broadcasts but this uses more CPU.

Windows also reports ~40% GPU useage for most of these tests (Much lower for EVR of course as MADVR is not scaling etc). I understand the GPU clocks might still be higher for CUVID but its also worth noting my RTX fans do not spin up for any of the tests, CUVID or not.

I can upload a test video if anyone is interested. Perhaps our broadcasts have strange mixed mode but the combing is quite pronounced if not using CUVID or Software Deinterlacing.

Maybe there is something in my setup that does not turn the VA HW deinterlacing on in the renderer?

MADVR shows deinterlacing as on (which looks the same as when its off).

[huhn]

and you are sure you are not using film mode deinterlacing?

[Calvi]

Not sure of anything at the moment.

I tried force film and force video and neither makes any difference to the combing during motion.

I also did a bunch of tests with GPU-Z tonight and found that CUVID does not set the clock to max. It does set it higher than the other modes but it still scales with workload.

If I run with Zoomplayer as a small window the clock runs at about 1400, at full screen it goes to 1900.
Also the power used is only ~50w with a small window and goes up to 175w at full screen (3840x2160).

The extra load I would mainly expect to be MadVR scaling workload. (Checking with evr will confirm this next time I have a play around)

So comparing CUVID with dxva2 (and d3d11 for that matter) all ended up around 70% gpu load, all about 160-175watts and all setting the clocks to near max to achieve the MadVR settings I have.

The only difference I am left with is CUVID is not giving me any deinterlacing artifacts.

[Calvi]

The test clip I am using is a TV show which then has the lotto numbers rolling across the bottom of the screen. These numbers break apart into combed half frames if not using CUVID.

It’s possible that the lotto overlay is a different cadence to the main show. I will need to dissect the clip some more to see what’s actually there. But CUVID definitely handles it correctly whatever it is.

Software deinterlacers also work fine on it.

[littleD]

Can you upload a sample?

The best way to test HW DXVA deinterlacing us using EVR renderer, or EVR custom if you need some statistics.

[Calvi]

Here is a sample (~110mb), at the 27sec mark the lotto numbers roll in which show combing artifacts with all but CUVID or software deinterlacing for me.

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AhrKCcZdae3QgY8Ea9KL8f0CmCHmEA?e=X1c4HK

Note: My setting were:
Splitters : I tried TSREADER from Media Portal & LAV Splitter
Decoders: LAV video decoder DXVA2 CB, DXVA2 Native, D3D11 Native, CUVID
Renderers: EVR, MadVR

Player: zoomplayer.

[littleD]

Here is a sample (~110mb), at the 27sec mark the lotto numbers roll in which show combing artifacts with all but CUVID or software deinterlacing for me.

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AhrKCcZdae3QgY8Ea9KL8f0CmCHmEA?e=X1c4HK

Note: My setting were:
Splitters : I tried TSREADER from Media Portal & LAV Splitter
Decoders: LAV video decoder DXVA2 CB, DXVA2 Native, D3D11 Native, CUVID
Renderers: EVR, MadVR

Player: zoomplayer.I think its indeed mixed mode interlacing (mbaff). Using lavf (cb mode) and madvr on default do deinterlace correctly on intel. It turns on deinterlacing in madvr statistics. Even if you choose cb mode in lav, also choose specific gpu to decode. That makes you sure to use cb mode.

[Calvi]

Thanks for taking a look littleD.

I have repeated the same observations on a totally different machine (Laptop with Nvidia 330GT).
I also have repeated the same with MPC-HD instead of Zoomplayer and again only CUVID is 100% working for me.
I also tried LAV output at 25 vs 50 frames, MadVR again as film vs video, forcing deinterlacing in LAV etc.
Results are always the same on both machines even though a huge number of other things are different.


Here are three screen caps from MPC-HC Using GT330 and Internal LAV (0.70.2.1-git)
https://mail.lewis.com.au/public/video/Cuvid-DXVA2.jpg


Note: My main system is RTX2070, driver 436.15 using LAV 0.74 and Zoomplayer 14.5 and this exhibits the same behaviour but the above tests are from my laptop with GT330, driver 341.02, MPC-HC & Internal LAV 0.70.2.1.

[littleD]

You did not metion this explicitely. Sorry thats why i ask. Did you set dxva CB AND choose nvidia adapter? Because You should not leave any automatic gpu in lav filters under "Hardware device to use"

[Calvi]

Yes, tried all combinations of that also. There is only one adapter on my HTPC. In Auto it chooses the RTX2070.
I also set it myself and the result was the same.

I repeated this with my Laptop which has 2 displays and I tried Auto (It chooses the GT330), GT330 #1 and GT330 #2. All the same results again.

Note: your adapter is intel so it may behave completely differently. I'll try my desktop when I get a chance as this has an ATI card.

[Klaus1189]

You should not leave any automatic gpu in lav filters under "Hardware device to use"

Why not? What‘s the difference? Does this also affect systems with only one dedicated graphics card or only systems that also have an onboard intel hd or amd integrated graphics?

[huhn]

you should not change from automatic to something else if you don't know what you are doing.
and it would effect system with only one card you enter copyback mode with d3d11.

[Calvi]

I have also tried my Desktop now with ATI5700 (Yes its old) and of course cannot test CUVID but DXVA2 CB deinterlaces this clip *Almost* correctly.
It fails on the first lotto ball then manages to deal with all the middle ones one and then fails on the end one. Its as if the HW deinterlacer turns on late and off early. (Probably the best the HW deinterlacer in this card can do).

Note: Again if software deinterlacing - (eg Yadif) then all frames are correctly deinterlaced (unsurprisingly as this would be independent of Video Card, and Yadif is probably better than this old cards HW deinterlacing).

Note: The above tests were with EVR.

With MadVR the results are the same except Forcing Film Mode causes all the lotto balls to not deinterlace (as expected). If correctly set to deinterlace then results are identical to EVR so the deinterlacing in the renderer is working fine here. (As best as this card can do anyway).

All of the above is what I would expect for an ATI card (and explains why littleD's sees DXVA2 working for intel) but I am still left with a discrepancy between CUVID and DXVA2 for Nvidia cards. I would love to know whether I am doing something wrong or if there is an actual difference in the HW deinterlacing here?

Has anyone else tried my sample clip with a Nvidia card?

[el Filou]

I can confirm the issue with my 1050 Ti and I also have a 'solution' for you: in NVIDIA control panel, uncheck 'Use inverse telecine', and DXVA will have the same deinterlacing behaviour as CUVID. :)
The problem isn't really the deinterlacing quality, it's that it just not activates reliably.
The programme being played is 2:2 pulldown so no need to deinterlace it, and apparently NVIDIA doesn't reliably detect the small video insert being overlaid onto it with the lotto balls, while CUVID in video mode obviously does as it treats every frame as video.
Note that I say 'solution' because doing that will disable progressive cadence detection in NVIDIA's deinterlacer, but if you only watch modern 25 fps programming I'd say it's safe. The quality of 2:2 pulldown material will be slightly diminished however (you could see shimmering or other artifacts sometimes).
On my Radeon, the GPU detects the interlaced overlay when the 2nd ball appears (which is acceptable IMO) and correctly deinterlaces the rest after that except the white ball. With cadence detection enabled, NVIDIA detects the interlacing in the middle of the second ball's travel, but then loses it again pretty much immediately, and then does the same again with the 3rd ball.

[huhn]

using inverse telecine is considered the high quality option in CUVID which doesn't work anymore since win 8 or something like that.

nev may know more this all happend some time ago.