VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker or buy PlayOn and record Netflix! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Thread
  1. Hi Guys - i am Confused with this CPU or GPU , i tested it by my Intel HD Graphic but the final quality was not like x264 and i dont have Nvidia or AMD GPUs and i cant test with these GPUs and i cant buy just for testing ... please help me with this - i found some videos on this forum that was encoded with NVEnc but in 3kbps it was sh.t andi couldnt find the source . if you guys can test it and put them here with the source please do it if you can not but you tested before please tell me which is better (x264-NVEnc-QSVEnc-or GPU - CPU)

    thanks a lot
    Quote Quote  
  2. x264 is cpu/software based encoding and quality wise better than gpu based encoders from Intel (QSV), NVIDIA (NVEnc) and AMD (VCE).
    If I had to rank all of them quality wise I would probably rank them like this:
    x264 > QSV > NVEnc > VCE, where the difference between QSV and NVEnc is not that much, but AMD usually is way worse.

    Only reason I see to use GPU encoding is when your machine isn't fast enough for you liking and/or your cpu is already occupied or not up for the task.
    users currently on my ignore list: deadrats, Stears555
    Quote Quote  
  3. CPU encoding is focused on quality where GPU encoding is focused on speed - if you can accept lower quality or higher final bitrate then GPU encoder will be faster, if your goal is highest possible quality at lowest possible bitrate then CPU based encoder will be closer to your goal at a cost of encoding time.
    Last edited by pandy; 10th Feb 2018 at 04:43.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member Bernix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Europe
    Search Comp PM
    Hi,
    yes as mentioned before, Nvenc is very good for capturing video for example in OBS studio. Or if you have 4 hours long video in 720p with several GB and you can get similar quality with smaller bitrate with Nvenc Hevc at lightning speed. But better is to use CPU based encoding (x265) but it will last several times longer. So if Nvenc Hevc last for 4 hours video about 30 min or less, with x265 it can last several hours (depending on your computer specs and encoder settings).
    Upload some video and I can encode it in avidemux with both Nvenc (but in avidemux is setting for both nvenc (h264, h265) very limited. Just quality, average bitrate and max bitrate. Nvenc has many more option over 30 I guess.

    Bernix
    Quote Quote  
  5. Thank You Guys for Helping me
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    CPU encoding is focused on quality where GPU encoding is focused on speed - if you can accept lower quality or higher final bitrate then GPU encoder will be faster, if your goal is highest possible quality at lowest possible bitrate then CPU based encoder will be closer to your goal at a cost of encoding time.
    Question: is GPU encoding same as hardware acceleration and/or CUDO?
    Quote Quote  
  7. Explorer Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pasja View Post
    Question: is GPU encoding same as hardware acceleration and/or CUDO?
    Yes, mostly. Hardware acceleration can be anything other than the main CPU, but it often refers to the on-board GPU. CUDA is a brand-specific way of using the Nvidia cards to offloads tasks (not just video encoding).
    Quote Quote  
  8. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    where the difference between QSV and NVEnc is not that much, but AMD usually is way worse.
    Depends on the VCE used with AMD GPUs. VCE 2.0 supports H.264 B-frames, but VCE 1.0 and VCE 3.0 do not.
    Last edited by KarMa; 11th Feb 2018 at 03:34.
    Quote Quote  
  9. To add to what's already been said, there are no comprehensive quality tests of Intel's Quick Sync nor AMD's AMF encoders. There was some anecdotal evidence of relatively poor quality from users on various forums, but a closer inspection of the complaints shows that they barely knew how to use the encoders in question and were using sources of questionable value, i.e. already previously heavily compressed sources they had downloaded from some torrent site.

    The only comprehensive test involving Intel's Quick Sync was done by MSU when they used a Sky Lake based system and in that test Intel's QS HEVC encoder beat out both x265 and x264. There was some questions surrounding those tests, such as whether the $5000 QS software used produced superior quality compared to open source solutions based on FFMPEG.

    I think any discussion involving hardware encoders based on hardware found on discrete GPUs is effectively a moot point thanks to the price of add in video cards skyrocketting due to the crypto mining craze that is unlikely to subside anytime soon.

    However, I do think encoding solutions based on integrated graphics, such as those found on Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, AMD's soon to be released Zen based APU's and Intel's Intel cpu AMD gpu frankenchip may actually be viable.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by pasja View Post
    Question: is GPU encoding same as hardware acceleration and/or CUDO?
    This is more complex - nowadays GPU are equipped with dedicated block to HW decode and encode videos - and general assumption is that HW encode use this dedicated block however you can imagine using GPU general computational capabilities. CUDA is this kind of API where GPU can be used for GPGPU i.e. as CPU replacement, alternative API's to CUDA exist, for example OpenCl which is not HW agnostic ( CUDA works only on NVidia HW).
    You can use CPU, you can use dedicated HW video encoder/decoder or you can use GPU as CPU - all those methods have own limitations and CPU seem to be most flexible approach where HW encoder/decoder seem to offer lowest flexibility - GPGPU seem to be somewhere in between.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Bernix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Europe
    Search Comp PM
    Hi,
    Nvenc 265 for example is priceless when you have some weaker CPU. I have i5-6500 which isn't weakest but also not stronger. 720x480 video, 2 parallel, you can get with HQ (which i believe is pseudo 2-pass encoding) with average and max bitrate, reference frame set to max 16 (P-frames), with 1050ti you get around 500fps. And because 2 videos in parallel it is 1000fps total. Which means 40seconds/second in 25fps case. It means bit more than 2 mins for standard movie duration. Also priceless when you need just hardcode subtitles for someone who's TV doesn't support text subtitles and have not PC (older relatives). Or for less important content, that you have stored somewhere in high quality to keep it on HDD for occasionally watch it (TV series, video clips, short cartoon series, anime and anything) and don't spend too much space. I'm watching some TV series when working. So not much pay attention on quality. And space saved is enormous. With AAC-HEv2 at 48kbps you get even smaller files. Nero is for this purpose and cheap sound speakers enough. But encoding time is "almost" same as video encoding.
    For example one series containing 41 episodes bit over 20min each, from 1969, it was question of few minutes (about 3/4 of hour), size at half, and quality much better than 50%.

    Bernix
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    ...however you can imagine using GPU general computational capabilities. CUDA is this kind of API where GPU can be used for GPGPU i.e. as CPU replacement...
    Would this mean that x264- and x265 encoding is possible by - or accelerated by - an nVidia videocard with these so-called CUDA cores?
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by Ennio View Post
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    ...however you can imagine using GPU general computational capabilities. CUDA is this kind of API where GPU can be used for GPGPU i.e. as CPU replacement...
    Would this mean that x264- and x265 encoding is possible by - or accelerated by - an nVidia videocard with these so-called CUDA cores?
    Theoretically it is possible to port at least some part of x264 or x265 to some GPU computational API however in general GPU's architecture is different than CPU's and they may be less efficient than CPU's (GPU architecture make them perfect workhorse for very narrow class of computational problems). Side to this there are other limitations, mostly related to way how GPU is connected to CPU - theoretically APU (hybrid CPU/GPU) may be less impacted as they are more integrated with remain blocks.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Yes. x264 has an option to use the GPU (via OpenCL) but the speedup is maybe a low, single-digit percentage. I don't use it - it's off by default and you risk errors because it is less tested and depends on GPU drivers and has more energy usage. For x265 GPU encoding is not free.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by sneaker View Post
    Yes. x264 has an option to use the GPU (via OpenCL) but the speedup is maybe a low, single-digit percentage. I don't use it - it's off by default and you risk errors because it is less tested and depends on GPU drivers and has more energy usage. For x265 GPU encoding is not free.
    staxrip is free and does a great job with gpu encoded x265 when setup right
    Quote Quote  
  16. StaxRip does not offer x265 GPU encoding. x265 is the name of a specific software encoder implementation of the HEVC/H.265 standard.

    StaxRip offers HEVC/H.265 encoding via separate softwares called NVEncC, QSVEnc and VCEEnc.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member Bernix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Europe
    Search Comp PM
    Yes sneaker is right. And h265 GPU accelerated is almost in each nowadays GUIs. When you think about video encoders as transport so all encoders are transport vehicles. H264 is say motorcycles and x264 is Honda. H265 can be cars and x265 is F1-McLaren, and Nvenc Hevc is like Jeep. (Don't compare speed I was choose those more like value and quality and to let you introduce the difference).

    Bernix
    Last edited by Bernix; 12th Feb 2018 at 08:17. Reason: thing-think
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by sneaker View Post
    StaxRip does not offer x265 GPU encoding...

    StaxRip offers HEVC/H.265 encoding via separate softwares called NVEncC, QSVEnc and VCEEnc.
    Indeed, as I found out recently. Even before having the opportunity to play around with a friend's GTX 1080 Ti pc I learned that it could not be used for "hardware accelerated" x265 encoding.
    These kind of cards would have a dedicated chip for HEVC encoding using NVEnc, so I nevertheless gave it a go with HandBrake.
    The encoding speeds were crazy, but I didn't like the quality. Hereby I directly mention that assumably these criterea can be changed by adjusting quality settings so quality will increase. Not having much time, I just used some standard "quality" presets.

    x265 encoding with my current Core i7 2600K pc (beefed up to 4,4 GHz) is soooo slow. If I'm thinking of a next pc build that is "4K/UHDBD/HDR/HEVC etc." proof, I am wondering about which processor, but also, how many?
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by Ennio View Post
    The encoding speeds were crazy, but I didn't like the quality.
    Please elaborate - quality should be comparable to x264 (x265) only higher bitrate required however if you not limited by bitrate then NVEnc is not worse than other h.264(h.265) encoder IMHO.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Originally Posted by Ennio View Post
    The encoding speeds were crazy, but I didn't like the quality.
    Please elaborate - quality should be comparable to x264 (x265) only higher bitrate required however if you not limited by bitrate then NVEnc is not worse than other h.264(h.265) encoder IMHO.
    Just about any codec is better with more bitrate. But since disk space is not free, smaller for the same quality is better.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member Bernix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Europe
    Search Comp PM
    Just about any codec is better with more bitrate. But since disk space is not free, smaller for the same quality is better.
    Not only discs space are not for free, but also tv frequencies and any bandwidth, internet or mobile phone. So in feature we will have more channels in higher quality with same bandwidth. And that is why is size, quality and also decoding speed important. Can imagine format better than h265 that is better but with nowadays HW unable to play smoothly in real time not mention real time encoding.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by KarMa View Post
    Just about any codec is better with more bitrate. But since disk space is not free, smaller for the same quality is better.
    True but OP didn't specified anything above encoding speed and quality as such seem bitrate to be not so important.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads