![]() However, this doesn't mean that you can boost video decoding and encoding speed only if your computer CPU has Intel Quick Sync embedded. QSV) technology is able to adopt hardware to execute concurrent computing on decoding, preprocessing and encoding, instead of CPU-based software computing. This is because Intel Quick Sync Video (aka. With Intel Quick Sync incorporated, video transcoding speed is several times as fast as it was. Quick Sync is a dedicated hardware core on the die of Intel processors, initially integrated into Sandy Bridge CPU microarchitecture. Some people may don't really get the point of Intel Quick Sync. So, is there a video converter supporting video decode with Intel Quick Sync? I guess it should make the transcoding faster and reduce CPU usage greatly." "My Intel i7-4700HQ in my laptop has the Intel Quick Sync. But again, Nvidia's CUDA seems to have much more potential than QSV.Intel Quick Sync Decoder - Fast Decode Videos with Intel Quick Sync Video Technology Learn how to utilize Intel Quick Sync to boost video decoding speed while delivering high-quality content and optimal file size. I've found there are a few programs (HandBrake is one) that support both. So you may want to check the software you like to use to find out which they support. I didn't know that Intel added QSV to some processors until very recently, it's not as well publicized. There have also been some statements by the developer of Avidemux that he's thinking of enabling one hardware acceleration, and it will probably be Nvidia, as there are more people that use Nvidia, or at least know about Nvidia. So far as I know, there are no filters that use QSV. And there is another deciding factor there are a number of filters what will use cuda / nvenc / whatever the name is today to do things like de-interlacing and resizing using hardware acceleration. h264_nvenc has many more options and 'tweaks' you can use, if you so desire. That may take a few tries, but I find I can still get the quality I want, and it still takes a lot less time when hardware acceleration is used.īetween the two methods: x264_qsv has only a limited set of options for controlling how it encodes. In those cases I have to specify the quality factor (-q:v for QSV, -qp for Nvidia). However: sometimes the quality of the output is poor. And, as stated, it takes a lot less time to get the results: I see up to 20x improvement. It will also often be more compressed than what I was choosing when manually specifying quality factors doing CPU encoding (usually with Avidemux). Sometimes the default encoding setting (I use "veryslow" for CPU and QSV, and "HQ" for Nvidia) will pick a good set of parameters, and will give good video quality. This includes videos on a 40 inch TV at 1080p. With one or both enabled I can do more 'other stuff" on the system while also processing video.Īs for quality I've found that both QV and CUDA can produce videos that are as good a quality, and sometimes better, than just the CPU. I've been experimenting with the two.įirst, I've found that both will greatly speed up encoding: I'm not sure if decoding is faster, but it certainly does reduce the load on the CPU. I have two systems that have Quick View: one of them, which I just acquired, also has a CUDA capable Nvidia card. I'm just interested to know whether a better GPU for encoding would produce results comparable to CPU, while also being much faster. Some videos I process are very long, and CPU encoding is very inconvenient, given how slow it is, but encoding with Intel Quicksync doesn't give as good quality. Are there other things I'd have to factor in as well? (such as using a hdd or ssd, does that affect the speed?) ![]() Now I'll get to my question - Is encoding with a fairly new nvidia gpu going to give a better quality per bitrate than when encoding with Intel Graphics? Or is all GPU processing just not very good in general (in terms of quality)? And would it compare to the quality produced by CPU encoding? I imagine it would be a lot faster. This is a HUGE difference in speed, but, of course, I'm sacrificing some of the visual quality (in this case, the difference was not very noticeable). Comparatively, my GPU (just an Intel UHD graphics 620) encoded the video at around 15x. My CPU (a core i7 8th gen) encoded the video at about 2x speed. To highlight the difference, I re-encoded the same video in ffmpeg (it was about an hour long with 1080p res) using the CPU first, then the GPU. However, if keeping the original quality isn't a big deal for me, I most often choose to encode with Quicksync, because of how much faster it is. Sometimes, I just opt to use the good old CPU encoding and decoding, because of how effectively it preserves the original video quality, but this can be really inconvenient sometimes because of how slowly it encodes. I'm just asking this out of pure curiosity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |