Because while the highly parallelized GPU can indeed encode extremely quickly, it is either unable (or more likely, software makers are unwilling) to do so without sacrificing quality relative to traditional CPU-based engines--many times significantly. For encodes for mobile platforms, this probably isn't a big deal, but to quality purists like myself, GPU encoding has a long way to go.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 12:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] upgrades > > Problem is, right now software which can offload to the gpu is not what > anyone is using. Evertone uses x264 or eac3to etc as a front end. The gpu > ready apps are all designed to output mp4 for mobile use. > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 18:14:58 > To: > [email protected]<[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] upgrades > > Difficult to know the mix of the work. Crunching video right now the all four > cores of my 2500k at 100%, with corresponding CPU temps running high. If > the vidcard is doing anything it hard to tell. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joshua MacCraw <[email protected]> wrote: > > > With the video cards doing the heavy lifting on encodes there is more > > benefit from them than CPU anyway. > > On Apr 2, 2011 12:33 PM, "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> You won't see gee-whiz fast every thing since your system is more > >> than > > able to do simple things very fast. All you can really impact are > > tasks that take lots of wall time for you. If you are happy to encode > > at night, I don't see what you gain in this upgrade. Me, I like to do > > stuff while I'm awake and I want it to finish faster. When I edit, I'm > > tweaking over and over til I get what I want, so I get the benefit of > > the speed improvement. I do like having 16GB of RAM. It may affect > > your max over clock. I got the 1600 stuff, but I'm not convinced i see > > a big benefit other than on some benchmarks, but the price was good so I > don't regret getting it. > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> On Apr 2, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Winterlight <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >>> I am currently running a Quad Core 9650 at 3.45Ghz on a Asus Maximus > > Formula II with 8GB of DDR2 800 that I built in August of 08. > >>> > >>> The rest of my components are good and don't require an upgrade 85o > >>> watt Seasonic two Sapphire 5770s Intel SSD for boot and a 300GB > >>> Raptor plus a collection of data storage > > drives. > >>> > >>> All running Win7Pro SP1 > >>> > >>> It does what I need and it does it well, but with all the excitement > > about Sandy bridge it got me thinking about upgrading my motherboard, > > RAM and CPU this summer, once all the problems shake out. Right now I > > am thinking about a 2600K Sandy Bridge, with a ASUS Rampage III > > Formula and 16GB of RAM.... what speed of RAM am I looking for? > >>> > >>> I use my PC for real work, day in and day out, and if I could just > > upgrade the components without redoing everything I would be more > > inclined to upgrade sooner rather then later. I am not interested in > > just getting benchmarks. My question is will it matter... will I > > really be able to notice. I do video editing, and encoding and I am > > sure I will be able to notice there, but generally I encode over night > > so an hour here or there isn't a big deal to me. > >>> > >>> Am I looking at a noticeably gee whiz faster everything, or am I > >>> barely > > going to notice in my day to day real world use? > >>> thanks > >>> w > >>>
