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 > High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 1st June 2016, 04:51   #21  |  Link
hyongmin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2
Sorry, I didn't see the 2x number in this blog.
Would you please point it out for me? Thanks


Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak View Post
There is this:

https://communities.intel.com/commun...akes-its-debut


which is close to 2x realtime for UHD at decent quality apparently. Ittiam has ready solution which works with it.
hyongmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2016, 20:50   #22  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
??

I know people who have access to it.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2016, 00:48   #23  |  Link
FancyMouse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLai View Post
So, what is Low Delay B-frames (LDB) or Generalized P/B (GPB) ???
I have seen somewhere that the term low-delay B-frames means B frame referencing only previous frames (i.e. IPPB where B refers to P1P2, but not traditional IPBPI hierarchy). This is low-latency because such B frames only rely on already-output frames which don't increase latency.
Not sure it's the same thing in your context, though.
FancyMouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th July 2016, 04:57   #24  |  Link
bajarwas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1
has anyone tested the encoding capabilities of the new graphics cars from Nvidia and AMD ?

GTX 10s series (1070/1080)
RX480
bajarwas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2016, 10:55   #25  |  Link
pandy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by bajarwas View Post
has anyone tested the encoding capabilities of the new graphics cars from Nvidia and AMD ?

GTX 10s series (1070/1080)
RX480
Nope... but AMD seem to be out of area of my interests (checked VCE specification and all information's available and it looks like no match to even current available consumer solutions i.e. Intel and NVidia - this is sad as nowadays even FPGA receive H.265 encoder as a part of SoC e.g. Xilinx Zynq) - i will try to buy 1060 (all i need is HW encoding) - currently use 980 and IMHO NVenc functionality is better than QSV - Intel is somehow less stable and more vague also less fps produced - my comment is not about quality but easy to use and how stable it is - big plus for NVidia on this (my goal is to create real time video services for testing - this don't need to be hq video and as i have almost 40Mbps available then it will be hq video).

IMHO 1060 (or 1070) should be first consumer HW encoder capable to provide 60 fps on H.265 (HEVC) - i observe in my setup that 980 is not capable to provide more than 30 fps on H.265 - QSV is slower than NVidia.
pandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2016, 21:21   #26  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy View Post
Nope... but AMD seem to be out of area of my interests (checked VCE specification and all information's available and it looks like no match to even current available consumer solutions i.e. Intel and NVidia - this is sad as nowadays even FPGA receive H.265 encoder as a part of SoC e.g. Xilinx Zynq)
Polaris 10 (RX 480 & 470) and Polaris 11 (RX 460) offer 4K60fps HEVC HW encoding and 4K120fps HEVC HW decodong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy View Post
i will try to buy 1060 (all i need is HW encoding) - currently use 980 and IMHO NVenc functionality is better than QSV - Intel is somehow less stable and more vague also less fps produced - my comment is not about quality but easy to use and how stable it is - big plus for NVidia on this (my goal is to create real time video services for testing - this don't need to be hq video and as i have almost 40Mbps available then it will be hq video).
Skylake's HW HEVC encoder and Haswell and onwards HW H.264 encoder are far more flexible and with more encoding options than Nvidia or AMD.

Better quality and better speed using smaller files.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy View Post
IMHO 1060 (or 1070) should be first consumer HW encoder capable to provide 60 fps on H.265 (HEVC) - i observe in my setup that 980 is not capable to provide more than 30 fps on H.265 - QSV is slower than NVidia.
Do you have a skylake to compare HW H.265 encoding with Nvidia HW H.265 encoding ?

Which app do you use ?

You should try QSVEncC in order to find out that Skylake has faster and better quality HW H.265 encoding than Nvidia.

Also as I wrote on my first post Polaris 10 and 11 have already brought us 4K60 fps HW H.265 encoding.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2016, 22:14   #27  |  Link
easyfab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
Polaris 10 (RX 480 & 470) and Polaris 11 (RX 460)



Skylake's HW HEVC encoder and Haswell and onwards HW H.264 encoder are far more flexible and with more encoding options than Nvidia or AMD.

Better quality and better speed using smaller files.
And Skylake HEVC vs nvidia pascal with new NVENC SDK 7.0 ?
Which has the best quality ?
I see in Encoder Application Note -> https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-video-codec-sdk
new features for pascal cards like SAO ( with this comment : Significantly improves encoded video quality for HEVC. )
But no B-frames with HEVC

If someone can do tests It would be very interseting to see if it really give some nice quality boost. rigaya has new NVEnc 2.08 for that.
easyfab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2016, 03:59   #28  |  Link
JohnLai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by easyfab View Post
And Skylake HEVC vs nvidia pascal with new NVENC SDK 7.0 ?
Which has the best quality ?
I see in Encoder Application Note -> https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-video-codec-sdk
new features for pascal cards like SAO ( with this comment : Significantly improves encoded video quality for HEVC. )
But no B-frames with HEVC

If someone can do tests It would be very interseting to see if it really give some nice quality boost. rigaya has new NVEnc 2.08 for that.
~.~ and no 64x64 CU size too. Larger CU size is critical for 4K video.
Implemented look-ahead function is just being used to determine where to place I (HEVC and H264) and B (H264) frames optimally. Something like 'scenecut', it does its job well.....I-Frames are inserted during every scenechange from what I can check using HEVC bitstream analyser.

At least there is quality improvement from using look-ahead and Long-Term Reference pictures.

The only weird option from the SDK is ;
uint16_t targetQuality; /**< [in]: Target CQ (Constant Quality) level for VBR mode (range 0-51 with 0-automatic) */

It said, CQ for VBR, does this mean there is no need to specify vbr bitrate value anymore? How about the Initial QP value? Or QP min and Max?
Constant Quality VBR? --> Does this vary bitrate or quantizer for nvenc case? Documentation mentions Enables Constant Quality Mode where in video quality can be chosen by a quality factor.
JohnLai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2016, 17:07   #29  |  Link
pandy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
Polaris 10 (RX 480 & 470) and Polaris 11 (RX 460) offer 4K60fps HEVC HW encoding and 4K120fps HEVC HW decodong.
Source please as AMD is quite silent and only some bits where decoding is mentioned but encoding for 3840x2160@Main10 60fps is not mentioned at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
Skylake's HW HEVC encoder and Haswell and onwards HW H.264 encoder are far more flexible and with more encoding options than Nvidia or AMD.

Better quality and better speed using smaller files.
Maybe yes but it is less stable than NVenc side to this seem performance is lower.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
Do you have a skylake to compare HW H.265 encoding with Nvidia HW H.265 encoding ?
Yes, Intel Core i7-6700K
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
Which app do you use ?
ffmpeg

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
You should try QSVEncC in order to find out that Skylake has faster and better quality HW H.265 encoding than Nvidia.
I need to generate in real time transport stream and ffmpeg seem to be best for my needs - side to this i assume ffmpeg i just wrap-app around Intel plugin that need to be anyway explicitly loaded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
Also as I wrote on my first post Polaris 10 and 11 have already brought us 4K60 fps HW H.265 encoding.
And once again please provide me some reliable source for this information - for today NVidia provide best developer support, later Intel and AMD... well - silence.

Last edited by pandy; 23rd July 2016 at 17:17.
pandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2016, 08:44   #30  |  Link
Roph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6
Just thought I'd share this stuff here too since I don't see anyone else encoding H.265 on their AMD Polaris GPU yet.

Source Sample - ~15mbps H.264 1080p, bluray rip.

AMD HEVC VCE Encodes: (You will have to save these files and view them locally most likely, only Microsoft Edge seems to be able to play HEVC in-browser)

1080p: 3mbps / 2.5mbps / 2mbps [edit] 3mbps with 150 GOP / 3mbps with 300 GOP

720p: 1.5mbps / 1mbps

Example of settings:


What's also incredible is the encoding speed. Sure, GPU H265 won't match software x265, but at ~5-10fps on my CPU there is no comparison to getting 360fps on the GPU:



Encoding speed varies with resolution, over 500fps for low resolution stuff like DVD resolution. The 360fps I achieved in the screenshot was encoding 960x540. 720p yields about 220fps, 1080p about 120, 4K about ~40. However I think I'm software/CPU limited on some of these.

The Tool I'm using is called A's video converter, officially it only supports H.264 via AMD's VCE though the developer kindly provided a test build with H.265 support for polaris - they don't own a polaris GPU yet.

I assumed they used AMD's recently released Media SDK though apparently it doesn't support HEVC yet. Another developer did some poking and assumes they're querying the GPU through media foundation - which may be another encoding speed bottleneck factor.

Overall I'm very impressed with the quality. This also isn't the best quality that an AMD GPU can encode HEVC with, there is no use of the 2-Pass functionality which would greatly improve quality further.

This will probably be my only post here as the doom9 forum post requirements with these questions are ridiculous. Instead I'm happy to post more at videohelp: http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/3...coding-Samples

Last edited by Roph; 27th August 2016 at 08:46.
Roph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2016, 09:02   #31  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
Indeed AMD has recently moved from its Media SDK to AMF (Advanced Media Framework) SDK which is part of GPUOPEN and it is open source.

It's OS and Framework agnostic and provides access to decoding UVD and encoding VCE fixed-function units along with pre/post processing.

From MediaSDK v1.1 we now have AMF v1.3 with HEVC support.

The runtime is inside the drivers for easy update and maintenance.

BTW the developer of A's converter is the same of the DXVA Checker.

Doom9 I think asks questions only the first time, then you could post freely.

Thanks for your post anyway.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all

Last edited by NikosD; 27th August 2016 at 09:06.
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2016, 11:58   #32  |  Link
JohnLai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roph View Post
Just thought I'd share this stuff here too since I don't see anyone else encoding H.265 on their AMD Polaris GPU yet.
So...if you ever return here........The sample:
No B-Frame.
No SAO.
Okay....., full PU 4x4 until 32x32 for Intra PU. As for Inter PU, 64x64 LCU available. But it is not complete.
Inter Frame PU sizes:
8x8
8x16
16x8
16x16
16x32
32x16
32x32
32x64
64x32
64x64

P-Frame still refers to 1 previous frame instead of multiple preceding frames. (Nvidia Nvenc also have similar problem/bug/feature)
JohnLai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2016, 19:37   #33  |  Link
Yups
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy View Post
IMHO 1060 (or 1070) should be first consumer HW encoder capable to provide 60 fps on H.265 (HEVC) - i observe in my setup that 980 is not capable to provide more than 30 fps on H.265 - QSV is slower than NVidia.

QSV HEVC with TU7 is easily faster than NVENC comparing 6700k and GTX 970. With Pascal may be Nvidia is the faster one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by easyfab View Post
And Skylake HEVC vs nvidia pascal with new NVENC SDK 7.0 ?
Which has the best quality ?
Pascal has better quality because even Maxwell has with the newest SDK. Intel needs Kabylake and a new Media SDK update with Lookahead support to regain the lead.
Yups is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2016, 19:48   #34  |  Link
Yups
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roph View Post

Encoding speed varies with resolution, over 500fps for low resolution stuff like DVD resolution. The 360fps I achieved in the screenshot was encoding 960x540. 720p yields about 220fps, 1080p about 120, 4K about ~40. However I think I'm software/CPU limited on some of these.

Pretty slow compared to Intel, i7-6700k @HD530 gets over 250 fps with TU7 there. GTX 970 over 160 fps. I didn't check quality.
Yups is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2016, 20:30   #35  |  Link
pandy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yups View Post
QSV HEVC with TU7 is easily faster than NVENC comparing 6700k and GTX 970. With Pascal may be Nvidia is the faster one.
As i struggle still on HW encoding (still some options are not work as described or work completely opposite) perhaps you can share command line (ffmpeg) to compare NVenc vs QSV - for today my observations are rather solid that QSV is somehow slightl slower than NVEnc and also QSV seem to be less robust (NVEnc work like a charm - just start and almost imeediately encoding session started, Intel is somehow slow in starting and need some time between starting session - i assume to close previous session - not sure how this is related to ffmpeg itself).
pandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2016, 20:34   #36  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
We never use ffmpeg for HW encoding.

Only rigaya's CLI tools usually via a nice GUI like StaxRip.

Rigaya and StaxRip provide the interface for the best HW encoding in terms of quality, speed and robustness for all platforms - AMD, Intel, Nvidia
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2016, 00:57   #37  |  Link
ilovejedd
insane college undergrad
 
ilovejedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLai View Post
Well, for some, it is all speed and quality regardless of file size (how much does 4TB HDD cost anyway?)
In which case, probably best to stick to original source. I've yet to make a transparent encode at fast speed that wasn't the same size or even larger than the original file (1080p Blu-ray source).

I'm currently testing StaxRip/QSVEncC (ICQ at default settings) on my new Skylake laptop (i7-6500U). I'm using ICQ 20 and comparing frame by frame, there's noticeable smoothing on the encode. Of course, it's not really something I actually notice when watching the film.

It's not what I'd consider fast either. It encodes at ~1.5-2x real-time, sure, but I've been spoiled by the ~200FPS I get with Handbrake/Intel QSV H.264 (High@L4.0, Balanced CQ 20). On the upside, ICQ 20 on H.265 QSV seems closer in quality to ICQ 18 on H.264 QSV at just ~70% file size so that's definitely good.

Mind, my only reason for encoding is playback on mobile devices so speed and small file size at OK quality is my primary objective.
ilovejedd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2016, 09:20   #38  |  Link
Roph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLai View Post
So...if you ever return here........The sample:
No B-Frame.
No SAO.
Okay....., full PU 4x4 until 32x32 for Intra PU. As for Inter PU, 64x64 LCU available. But it is not complete.
Inter Frame PU sizes:
8x8
8x16
16x8
16x16
16x32
32x16
32x32
32x64
64x32
64x64

P-Frame still refers to 1 previous frame instead of multiple preceding frames. (Nvidia Nvenc also have similar problem/bug/feature)
How were you able to anaylze the file? Mediainfo / streameye don't show such info, I'd like to poke around some more.

Quote:
Pretty slow compared to Intel, i7-6700k @HD530 gets over 250 fps with TU7 there. GTX 970 over 160 fps. I didn't check quality.
The author is making the GPU encode HEVC somewhat of a hack job via the outdated Media Foundation interface which predates polaris/H.265. True HEVC support will come soon in AMD's recently released media SDK, which I assume would run at the full performance. Media foundation has performance issues even with H264, which is why the built-in VCE support of OBS Studio is derided due to its poor performance.

In some cases, I'm also CPUlimited rather than GPU limited. FX-8320

(Still the ridiculous post question limit, come on - this isn't 1998 :/ )

Last edited by Roph; 30th August 2016 at 10:20.
Roph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2016, 10:21   #39  |  Link
pandy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post
We never use ffmpeg for HW encoding.

Only rigaya's CLI tools usually via a nice GUI like StaxRip.

Rigaya and StaxRip provide the interface for the best HW encoding in terms of quality, speed and robustness for all platforms - AMD, Intel, Nvidia

Ok, i use synthetic video - internal ffmpeg source as such files can't provide required functionality, also i don't need gui.
pandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2016, 10:51   #40  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,120
Have any of you guys tried comparing the best quality h265 hardware encode settings with the best quality software encoded x264 settings to see which offers the best quality and filesize? If hardware h265 looks better then i think a lot of people would want to switch as they would save a lot of time.
hajj_3 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 23:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.