Announcement: Our new CyberLink Feedback Forum has arrived! Please transfer to our new forum to provide your feedback or to start a new discussion. The content on this CyberLink Community forum is now read only, but will continue to be available as a user resource. Thanks!
CyberLink Community Forum
where the experts meet
| Advanced Search >
CUDA vs.Hardware encoding vs. Quick Sync Video
[Post New]
I am going to upgrade my PC, so I would like to know is it worth to mix or choose one of them ?

As I know PD supports CUDA and Quick Sync.
Currently I use Core2duo 3Ghz with 4 GB RAM and GeForce GT9600. (Win XP 32 bit)
Is it worth to:

1. change GPT to GTX460 and leave CPU ?
2. change CPU to Corei5 2500 with Z68 (for using Quick Sync) ?
3. make both changes ?

I would like to see optimal growth of performance (now 100 minutes project takes about 6 hours of rendering)

any advices or links to interesting articles will be appreciated

Carl312
Senior Contributor Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9090 Offline
[Post New]
Quote: I am going to upgrade my PC, so I would like to know is it worth to mix or choose one of them ?

As I know PD supports CUDA and Quick Sync.
Currently I use Core2duo 3Ghz with 4 GB RAM and GeForce GT9600. (Win XP 32 bit)
Is it worth to:

1. change GPT to GTX460 and leave CPU ?
2. change CPU to Corei5 2500 with Z68 (for using Quick Sync) ?
3. make both changes ?

I would like to see optimal growth of performance (now 100 minutes project takes about 6 hours of rendering)

any advices or links to interesting articles will be appreciated

Windows 7 64 Bit
Go with a Intel i7 CPU and one to the high end video cards on this list.
Or if AMD go with AMD Phenom™ II X6 Processor 3 GHz speed.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Go as high up on the list as you can afford.

At least 8 GB of RAM.

Do not use a Solid State Drive.

Some editors had good success with SSD if large enough. But many have reported problems due to the small size of the drive. You need up to 100 GB of free space on your OS drive for all the Temporary files that Powerdirector generates.

Large hard drive, 1 TB or greater, 7200 RPM or faster.

The Computer in my Signature does very well.


Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

[Post New]
Thank you for an answer Carl.
As usual you are quickest man
Unfortunately, again I am not satisfied with your answer.

It is not a great deal to spend a lot of money for the best components on the market, the masterpiece is to find a "golden middle" between low cost and good performance (optimum).
I do not wanna render my projects 2 times faster for 10 times more expensive PC.
I want to do it 10 times faster for 2 times more expensive PC. This is my policy.

Bur first of all I did not ask about all components: I asked what is worth more from my 3 options mentioned before.
Shall I have better performation with CUDA or Quick Sync option ? How much better?

I count on you Carl

regards
Cranston
Senior Contributor Location: USA Joined: Aug 17, 2007 02:26 Messages: 1667 Offline
[Post New]
Quote: any advices or links to interesting articles will be appreciated

Hi bankroot,

Not sure if this exactly addresses your question, but you might find these results interesting.

http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/22732.page

Naturally, the results given are no guarantee that anyone else’s results will be the same, as there always seems to be so many variables involved, from one computer to another.

Click here PDtoots for a collection of PowerDirector Tutorials and Tips
[Post New]
Exactly this is addresses my questions

The result is as I expected: there is NO SENSE to buy expensive graphic card (of course if you are not 3D game player - I am not) !
The better way is to change CPU for Intel with Quick Sync technology - not only PD will have an extra boost.
Powered by JForum 2.1.8 © JForum Team