When I talk about of generic CUDA/OpenCL/Quick_sync encoders you consinder only the encoder Nero recode 2014. Each video encoder have a diferent quality and velocity. Now I understand that when I use CUDA/OpenCL the quality and the velocity depends of the each video encoder. Thank you LoRd_MuldeR for the excellent information!!! You can even set Nero Recode to shut down your PC automatically when the converting is complete. Create a batch job with multiple videos and move onto something else while Nero Recode does the heavy lifting. 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. Take advantage of all your computing power to get results fast. 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).Ĭonvert videos fast with hardware-accelerated encoding, batch job support and more Last but not least, the available dedicated "hardware" video encoders seem to be tuned more for maximum throughput (speed) rather than quality. 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. You don't even need to write your own code, as opposed to CUDA/OpenCL. Also, these dedicated hardware encoders are "black boxes": You feed them with input frames and what you get back is the encoded bitstream. 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. QuickSync and NVENC fall into this category. On the other hand there are dedicated "hardware" video encoders. For example, x264, probably the best (software) H.264 encoder out there, also can "offload" certain calculations to the GPU using OpenCL. 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. 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. So with CUDA/OpenCL one can write programs to run on the GPU - which might be a video encoder or something completely different. But I don't know what's happens when I use Quick Sync of intel.įirst of all, CUDA and OpenCL are not video encoders, but programming interfaces. I understand that If I use OpenCL/CUDA (GPU) much of the quality is lost. What do yo think about this? sorry for my basic english. I don't know if Quick Sync of intel is similar to CPU process or GPU process (CUDA/OpenCL). 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.īut I don't know what's happens when I use Quick Sync of intel. I know that If I use only CPU I will get the best quality/bitrate with the x264/handbrake encoders. (Although this last one doesn't matter at very high bitrates.) Otherwise the GPU encoders (OpenCL/CUDA) are likely faster than the CPU ones, if you're willing to pay the quality/bitrate price. 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. Personally I use x264.exe.ĬPU 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 need to deinterlace can complicate this issue (hardware deinterlacing can be different qualities both better or worse than software deinterlacing).ģ) No idea there is a quality hit so I haven't paid much attention to hardware encoding.Ĥ) I have heard good things about Handbrake for simple H.264 encoding via x264. Software decoding (CPU) is generally the most robust. With a modern CPU software decoding can be fairly low power as well.Ģ) Quality: they should all be the same baring corrupted streams or other issues. This means that Quick Sync and CUDA use less power and generate less heat than OpenCL. 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. Of course the different versions of each are different speeds, new CUDA is faster than old Quick Sync. 1) Software decoding speed depends on your CPU but other than software I believe:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |