Is transcoding using the graphics card better than the cpu?

[jones24]

I understand that ati has designed a program that uses the gpu to transcode video files and it's faster than the cpu method but is the video quality better, worse or the same as cpu transcoding?


Is there any extensive comparison for this?



I feel that this is a good step as it saves time which has always been a factor in video encoding.


Not all of us own quad cores or i7s and overclock our cpus hence using another method might prove time saving.

[guns1inger]

To date, none of the GPU encoders have really impressed. They have all produced video that is at best of average quality, and the speed improvements have not been impressive (and in many cases, barely register). The quality issue is related to a number of things. One is the profiles and capabilities built into the encoders, and the second (and this is just my reading) is that the anticipated speed increases weren't being seen in the higher quality encodes so they restricted the quality to try to squeeze more out of the numbers (unsuccessfully).

I think GPU encoding is still early days. Decoding certainly brings benefits, but the encoding products have yet to really prove worthwhile. That isn't to say that they wont, but that we are still waiting.

The one advantage they they do provide, if you are happy with lower quality encodes for portable devices, is that they free up the CPU to do other things while the GPU is encoding. However if you are after quality, they do not compete, or do not give you any real speed benefit.

[jagabo]

guns1inger's summation is very good. I would just add: If you have a slow CPU and a graphics card that supports GPU encoding, and you are willing to accept the lower quality, GPU encoding will be significantly faster. Even if you have to buy a new graphics card, even a ~$100 card will get you significant improvements in encoding speed.