Sure--I was just pointing out (perhaps for those that aren't aware) that the performance offered by GPU encoders comes with a potentially significant trade-off in quality. What I'm not sure of, however, is if that's due to a real technology limitation (e.g., using FP instead of integer like x264), or if it's an implementation detail. Your point, if I understood correctly, is that current GPU-accelerated software seems to be tailored for mobile playback. I agree--and if I'm encoding for my smartphone or a slate, I probably just want it done right now quality be damned. Different story if it's going to be played on my living room HDTV though. :)
Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 12:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] upgrades > > Yes. I was agreeing with you before. :) Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Greg Sevart" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:41:22 > To: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] upgrades > > 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 > > >>> >
