Taking advantage of CUDA

[Danneauxsvh]

Not sure what info I need to post or if this is the correct form since this is part software an hardware.

Basically, I've heard that having a video card with CUDA can speed up video conversion. I'm probably not saying something right but...

A $100-200 card is out of the question now but I guess what I'm trying to figure out is do I need a high end card to get faster conversion or a lower end card for say $30-50? I don't even know what to ask about the specs of the card.

For a quick example a fast search of Tiger Direct comes up with this:
Galaxy GeForce 210 1GB DDR2 PCIe DVI, HDMI & VGA
Interface Type: PCI Express 2.0
Interface Speed: x16
Connector(s): DVI HDMI VGA
Chipset: NVIDIA GeForce
GPU Series: NVIDIA GeForce 200
Lifestyle: Mainstream
GPU/VPU: NVIDIA GeForce 210
Memory Type: DDR2
Memory Interface: 64-bit
Video Memory: 1GB
Stream Processors: 16
Core Clock: 475 MHz
Memory Clock: 700 MHz
Shader Clock: 1400 MHz
Overclocked: No
APIs: DirectX 10.1 NVIDIA CUDA
1080p Support: Yes
Video Output: DVI HDMI VGA
Low Profile: No
Cooling Type: Fan

This was at the top of the list so since I don't even know what to look for I just picked this one. Obviously, a more expensive and higher tech card is better but will this knock down encoding times? I use handbrake and DVDFab to encode.

Am I asking too much for so little $$. If not what specific specs should I pay the most attention to? Faster core clock vs video memory etc.

Again I'm not even sure what to ask or how to ask it.

Thanks for any advice in advance

Found some specs:
Motherboard is A740GM-M (1.0/1.0A, DVI) (http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail.aspx?DetailID=864&CategoryID=1...uID=20&LanID=0)
CPU: AMD Phenom 8400 3 core 2.1 GHz 2GB RAM running XP SP3.

TIA
Danneauxs

[aedipuss]

so are you buying a new computer? any add-in video card will be better than almost all built-in cards(if the computer is from a reputable source). i'd be more concerned about getting an up to date cpu, plenty of ram and win7 sp1.

a lowly nvidia 210 is not going to lower your encode times much if at all.

unless you are encoding tons of h264 video i wouldn't worry about cuda encoding.

[jagabo]

Be aware that CUDA and all the other GPU encoders deliver lower quality. If you have a half decent CPU you can get similar performance and better quality from x264 (handbrake uses x264 but you have to specify the parameters manually).

http://www.behardware.com/articles/828-27/h-264-encoding-cpu-vs-gpu-nvidia-cuda-amd-st...-and-x264.html

What these solutions bring most of all is frustration. Whether NVIDIA, AMD or Intel solutions, rapidity has been accentuated to the detriment of quality...

It's also extremely annoying to note that in the case of GeForce and Radeon encoding, there’s no difference in speed between graphics cards costing 100, 170 or 330 euros. Quality is strictly identical from one card to another – except in the case of bugs – and encoding times are no different from one card to another either.

x264 settings and link to usage in handbrake:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/339510-Best-Software-For-DVD-to-H264-MKV?p=2112212&...=1#post2112212

[edDV]

My opinion. GPU acceleration is in the early phases without much benefit to the typical user.

First effort seems to serve two video markets.

1. Fast low quality encode for mobile devices.

2. Hardware processes to speed NLE preview (e.g. hardware deinterlace or low quality timeline preview).

I see no reason to pay extra for these features yet. Use the $$$ to buy a higher performance CPU.

[smitbret]

From what I understand, you won't gain much increase in performance if you buy anything better than a GT240. I've found that CUDA is excellent to use when ripping/encoding BR videos for my home media server on movies that I don't consider to be cinematic masterpieces. It works well when taking a BR down to 3 or 4 GB (down res to 720p) or a DVD to 1.5 GB. Why would anyone pixel peep while watching Bridesmaids or A Christmas Story? Although, I have been reasonably pleased with some of the encodes I've done where I've shrunk the BR 50%. For my "Classics", I stick with normal CPU encoding, if I re encode them at all. I don't think that I'd really consider re encoding an action-happy film like Transformers with it.

Don't be fooled, either.CUDA is definitely faster than a CPU encode, even with the "right" settings. But real world time savings for me have been nowhere near the manufacturers' claims. It typically cuts the encode time in half or close to it. I've seen claims of 10x faster, but that's just not going to happen with any card.

I like it and will continure to use it to put well 4GB movies on my media server.

[yoda313]

Where's deadrats? Isn't he the worlds biggest cuda supporter? I'm sure he'll be able to give the best run down on it.

[edDV]

I've seen claims of 10x faster, but that's just not going to happen with any card.

Only 10x faster for that part of the process.

[jagabo]

Don't be fooled, either.CUDA is definitely faster than a CPU encode, even with the "right" settings.

Not for me. My quad core with the x264 settings I gave earlier is faster than CUDA on a GTX 460 with Mediacoder. And x264 still gives better quality at those settings. If you have a dual core or single core CPU CUDA will be faster.

[edDV]

I should have been more politically correct; hardware processes to access faster timeline preview for CPU challenged computers. Is this better?

[deadrats]

the sad truth is that CUDA, and gpgpu coding in general, requires significant amounts of coding experience to fully exploit, even if you major in comp sci, gpgpu courses and CUDA specific courses aren't available until the graduate level (i.e. for those seeking post bachelor's degrees) and even then you can count on 2 hands how many universities actually offer such courses.

as such, CUDA, OCL and DX Compute don't come close to showing what a graphics card is capable of. the comparison jagabo linked to, while definitely the most exhaustive software vs hardware encoding test i have ever seen, is flawed because it doesn't bother testing professional gpu powered solutions, such as Sony's AVC gpu encoder, Adobe's mercury engine or main concept's OCL and CUDA encoders. it also stuck with consumer grade gaming cards, rather than test workstation class cards, that while based on the same fundamental designs as their gaming counter parts, have different drivers and microcode that favors work loads over gaming.

so where does that leave you?

you say that spending $100-$200 on a graphics card is out of the question, you have an older motherboard that is currently close to maxed out with regards to the speed of the cpu it supports, so you really don't have much room for upgrading.

i would say start using media coder (the fastest encoding i have ever seen) with x264 set to the "ultra fast" setting, use 2 pass to maintain as much quality and save up your dough until you can get yourself a significantly faster system.

on the bright side, if programmers start coding proper implementations of intel's quick sync encoder, people will be able to get extremely fast encodes at very reasonably prices; but as the case with CUDA et al, every implementation so far borders on being coded by retarded chimps.

[jman98]

It works well when taking a BR down to 3 or 4 GB (down res to 720p) or a DVD to 1.5 GB. Why would anyone pixel peep while watching Bridesmaids or A Christmas Story?

I rarely insert myself in questions of taste, but if you don't get that A Christmas Story is a bona fide classic then there is something wrong with you.

[jagabo]

the comparison jagabo linked to, while definitely the most exhaustive software vs hardware encoding test i have ever seen, is flawed because it doesn't bother testing professional gpu powered solutions

I don't see that as a flaw. It's just limited to the solutions available to non professionals -- probably everyone in their audience.

i would say start using media coder (the fastest encoding i have ever seen) with x264 set to the "ultra fast" setting

I find ultrafast requires too much bitrate. Veryfast is slower (but still pretty fast -- at least compared to medium, slow, slower...) and requries 30 percent less bitrate. That's a better compromise for me.

[jagabo]

Oops, duplicate post.

[deadrats]

I find ultrafast requires too much bitrate. Veryfast is slower (but still pretty fast -- at least compared to medium, slow, slower...) and requries 30 percent less bitrate. That's a better compromise for me.

absolutely, hell if it didn't require encoding times measured with an hourglass, i would choose "hadamard exhaustive", a search range of 64, subpixel ME 10, optimal b frames, high, 5.1, 10 bit encoding and 2 pass but not even the fastest currently available cpu can manage anywhere near real time even with SD sources using those settings (if you get the chance, could you do a test encode using the above settings, just curious what a 2500k can achieve).

i figured with rather low end tri core ultra fast with 2 pass would be his only choice so that he could finish his encodes sometime this century.

[smitbret]

It works well when taking a BR down to 3 or 4 GB (down res to 720p) or a DVD to 1.5 GB. Why would anyone pixel peep while watching Bridesmaids or A Christmas Story?

I rarely insert myself in questions of taste, but if you don't get that A Christmas Story is a bona fide classic then there is something wrong with you.

Couldn't agree more! The best Christmas movie.... Period! Just won't benefit much by having a 25mbps transfer vs. A 6mbps stream.

[Danneauxsvh]

Well the gist I get is that no; I should wait.

Not sure what all the hub bub is about my hardware. I encode x264/h264, slow, 2 pass, high profile, blah blah. Most movies encode close to or within their running time. Been collecting and encoding DVD's for years, back when DIVX was the thing, so was just looking to throw something new into the mix. The computer I mentioned simply rips, encodes, and serves so having it busy for hours at a time while I'm at work or sleeping isn't an issue. I was just curious I guess.

I think I'll spend my money on a 3 TB drive as backup instead.

As always this forum has been a big help.