|
|
The key are the build in en and decoders of the GTX 960.
With the 960 I can render 4K 264 and 265 at about 2x real time. In the case of 265 a 30x improvement over rendering with the CPU and at outstanding quality. And it has HDMI 2.0 output allowing 4K 60 FPS on a 4K TV and a 24" monitor
The 960 kept me from getting a new computer! Yes, in my setup it IS a miracle! It is future proof for some time to come. Any better GPU cards, and there are none at this time, will really only bring incremental improvement.
Eugene
|
|
|
TonyL Thanks, found the data.
My driver is 353.62.
CPU speed 2.67 GHZ
I am surprised that PepsiMan has such a high CPU use number even with the 960.
Thanks for compiling that.
Eugene
|
|
|
SoNic67
What specifically do you mean by "editing", working on the time line?
Or do you refer to transitions, titles etc that are part of the video while rendering?
Jeff's test has convinced me that my computer will handle the production of UHD BR 4K HEVC material adequately, and that upgrading to a new PC would not significantly speed up that process.
That 960 is just amazing!
Eugene
|
|
|
PepsiMan
I cannot find any data. What is the location?
Eugene
|
|
|
Thank you Jeff!
So you are getting a 99% VE load because your CPU is faster if I understand this correctly.
If that is so then I will leave things alone and spend the money on a new camcorder. Just kidding. Not bad for a 5 year old PC and a $200.00 upgrade, the GTX960.
From my perspective reasonable close is anything less than 5 minutes or even 10, considering that in my setup it would take 90 min with CPU only in the 4K HEVC HIPQ mode.
Eugene
|
|
|
The original post was to evaluate the performance of desktops versus laptops for 4k 264 and 265 video editing
This was posted by JL_JL on a different thread and is the heart of the subject::
TonyL/others, the simple little test was suggested to Eugene as he was questioning the idea, how his CPU could be limiting the capability of his GTX960 GPU considering his CPU was only operating in the ~30% range during encoding. I simply suggested a 4K profile as that’s Eugene’s typical interest and it does present a significant challenge of elapsed wall time to encode.
Maybe this set of instructions will suffice:
1) Put 10 of the PD default media “Kite Surfing.wmv” into the timeline. If you don’t load PD default media modify your PD pref to load. Pref > Project.
2) In the PD “Produce” tab, set “Profile name” as H.265, MKV and default preset profile, HEVC 4K 4096 x 2160/30p (37Mbps)
3) In the PD “Produce” tab, set “Fast video rendering technology:” to enable “Hardware video encoder”
4) Start the Produce operation
5) Monitor GPU load of the GTX960 with free utility TechPowerUp GPU-Z, under sensor tab, the “Video Engine Load” ( https://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/SysInfo/GPU-Z/ )
6) Monitor CPU and RAM usage during the encode processes with default windows Task Manager
7) Items 5 and 6 are usually rather stable throughout the encoding process for this simple test provided if you don’t have significant “other” stuff running
![]() When produce operation is complete, the “Time elapsed:” and “Produced” files size from the PD window.
Repeate above steps with item 2) of: H.264, MP4, MPEG-4 4K 4096 x 2160/30p (50Mbps)
Sample pic of results attached. From my experience what one will see is a reasonable separation of GTX960 capability, probably on the order of 50% difference or so for the exact same task on different computers.
Jeff
[Thumb - GTX960_performance.png]
Filename GTX960_performance.png [Disk] Download
Description
Filesize 23 Kbytes
Downloaded: 7 time(s)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This too is from an other thread and contains my test results:
The encoding time test is a GREAT idea Jeff!! No guess work here and everybody can do the same exact test.
Using 10 ea kite surfing as suggested ,total length 1.42
Encoding 4K MKV 265 HEVC, 37 Mb, 30FPS. Encoding time 2.02 min, GPU video engine 80%, CPU 35% 6.3 GB memory used.Video 460MB
Play back MPC64, GPU 26%, CPU 6%.
-------------
Encoding to 4K 264 MP4, 49Mb, 30FPS encoding time 2.02 min, GPU video engine 43%, CPU 39%,4.6 GB memory, Video 626MB.
Play back MPC64, GPU 29%, CPU 6%
I was surprised to see the 960 GPU video engine running at 80% during HEVC encoding, not much room left there.
Encoding is almost in real time, video only no transitions etc.
My jaws are still on the floor when I look at these numbers in regard to HEVC. W/O the 960 it would have taken at least 1Hour 30 minutes to encode the same 1.42 min in PD14 HPQ mode.
Encoded video looks as good as the original.
Looking forward to see other forum members numbers. ESPECIALLY from LAPTOP owners
Eugene
PepsiMan posted very interesting results but spread over mant pages, could you please combine the results on one page?
TonyL
I noticed that your computer is the same as mine with the exception of the GPU. Could you please run Jeff's test and post the results? You have everything neded for that. Took me less than 1/2 hr to do.
Also the data file is not visible.
Eugene
|
|
|
Thank you PepsiMan, must have taken all Sunday afternoon with switching cards and so on.
Our numbers are reasonably close, looks like we are ready for UHD BR.Interesting that the render times for 264 and 265 are identical too.
Would be interesting to see some numbers of a i5 or i7 laptop.
Might be a while before PD will add the ability to burn for that format. Hope we don't have to wait until PD15.
Most likely there will be a version that allows burning of UHD BR using our existing BR burners.
Eugene
|
|
|
Great Jeff, thanks.
I wonder if this is worthy of a new thread?
Since this is about the evaluation of PC performance, it would be essential to use the same format and even formats that are not normally used by the owner. Without that the numbers would be of not much value.
4K HEVC MKV comes to mind because it is the most demanding, followed by 4K 264 XAVC.
It would be great to get some numbers from PC's w/o the 960 to see how much performance increase (if any) $200 can buy versus a faster CPU.
How about it PepsiMan,TonyL, SoNoc64,JL_JL, optodata just to name a few--------------
Jeff, I see that you joined this forum in 2006, that must have been the stone age of editing compared to today.
Eugene
|
|
|
The encoding time test is a GREAT idea Jeff!! No guess work here and everybody can do the same exact test.
Using 10 ea kite surfing as suggested ,total length 1.42
Encoding 4K MKV 265 HEVC, 37 Mb, 30FPS. Encoding time 2.02 min, GPU video engine 80%, CPU 35% 6.3 GB memory used.Video 460MB
Play back MPC64, GPU 26%, CPU 6%.
-------------
Encoding to 4K 264 MP4, 49Mb, 30FPS encoding time 2.02 min, GPU video engine 43%, CPU 39%,4.6 GB memory, Video 626MB.
Play back MPC64, GPU 29%, CPU 6%
I was surprised to see the 960 GPU video engine running at 80% during HEVC encoding, not much room left there.
Encoding is almost in real time, video only no transitions etc.
My jaws are still on the floor when I look at these numbers in regard to HEVC. W/O the 960 it would have taken at least 1Hour 30 minutes to encode the same 1.42 min in PD14 HPQ mode.
Encoded video looks as good as the original.
Looking forward to see other forum members numbers.
Eugene
|
|
|
|
Double post sorry.
|
|
|
SoNic67
QUOTE:
In my experience, the CPU speed has to match the GPU one, to be able to "feed" it the required data fast enough. If the CPU is slow, the GPU will not be used at 100%, it will "wait" for the CPU data.
...................
How can that be if CPU usage is 30% ??
................
Quote:
There is some other processing going on, besides the pure video encoding, and those tasks are done by CPU, so yes a faster CPU will help if you do anything else but encoding... Transitions, effects, stuff
..................
Again under normal use, especially 4K, shadow files are used, they are SD. Again I see no pressing need, any i7 920 etc will do fine with power to spare.
When editing I am the bottleneck not the CPU.
Eugene
|
|
|
TonyL I now see that you are planning to get a fully equipped PC. There, buying the GPU and SSD might make no sense.
I typically buy a CPU specific, bare bone computer, using CPU build in GPU for example, and the biggest case I can get and then flesh it out to meet my requirements.
For example, the HDD the PC came with would then become HDD # 2 ( an abolute must for video editing) and the cloned new SSD the C drive. The 960 would then take over from the internal CPU GPU, etc. etc
My last computer, bought in Jan 2010 from Costco nicely fit that mold.
Sonice
The most CPU intensive part when video editing has typically been the rendering process. Now, with the advent of the GTX 960 (of whose existense I learned from you) that rendering process is taken over by the GPU with the CPU only playing a supporting role.
My i7920 used to render at 100% now around 30% or less depending on the format used. 4K HEVC, the most demanding, saw a speed improvement of over 30 times with same or better PQ.
How can one possibly expect an improvement, for video related work, of the same scale as the increased performance of the new CPU?
Thus, if true, why pay for a 8 core if a 6 core will do etc etc ?
My PC has 12GB of memory, when rendering 4K the usage is at times over 11GB, so more memory here would clearly be in order
This would apply to PD14 only.
Eugene
|
|
|
SD in those days had about 330 000 pixels, most camcorders had less. I already had a flat screen HD TV, so to coin a cliche, the video was stunning.
The HC1 had about 1.5 000 000 pixels in theory, in practice most likely less. Bit rate 25Mb on a DV tape cassette.
Transferring to the computer was an ordeal, suffered in real time!
The camera was known for its poor dynamic range and replaced a year later with the HC3, that one was cheaper and had better video.
The list price of the HC1 was $1999.00 same as the AX100 when first available.
I think sticking with XAVC is a good choice, then you can use SVRT to maintain picture quality until YouTube murders it.
SVRT and shadow files were the reasons for me to change to Cyberlink PD. Although rarely use SVRT, because one in perhaps 30 scenes typically gets butchered for some reason.
Should get my new memory cards from B+H today or tomorrow, from then on it will be 100Mb.
Eugene
|
|
|
Gs Kid
I am guessing on this, but it may be not just file size, YouTube has to decode the video it gets and I would not be surprised that the 265 just might take longer than 264. Also the video has to be encoded by UT.
My guess is that YT records the uploaded videos, then uses that recording to produce the various formats.
A better measure than file size might be the time it takes until YouTube has all formats ready for watching.
I have uploaded some 4K videos that could be watched in 320 resolution a few hours after upload but took an other 18hrs to view the 4K version.
I too produce a video first and upload that rather than using the feature in PD14. With PD YouTube you have no idea what quality you have.
My Verizon speed is 50/50
Since you like trains as I do, here is a video of a special photo excursion on the Durango to Silverton RR taken in 2008.
Camera was the first available HD camera that came out in 2005 Sony HC1. It took 9 more years for Sony to have a 4K camcorder. Then the HC1 cost was about the same.
If you are looking for great RR shoots, Durango has it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7bEpbyLqBo
Eugene
|
|
|
GS kid,
Unfortunately you are seeing first hand that 4K 265 is extremely demanding, before I installed the GTX960 card I was just barely able to play those files, CPU near 100%.
Now the CPU is at 10% or less and it looks like I am playing SD.
On my PC encoding to 4K 265 takes no longer than 264, app twice the playing time. The PQ is surprisingly good at only 35Mb.
Any artifacts generated would really only show in a A/B tests.
In a few month we may see some UHD BR players on the market, so I am content that my pc can handle that format.
It is the combination of PD14 and the GTX960 that makes the smooth and fast en/decoding of 265 possible.
One of the many PD14 bugs is the inability to create Shadow Files when inputting 4K 265 material. It will most likely be fixed in the next download.
This may be of interest if you have NOT read it.
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5890/2/test-the-geforce-gtx-960-is-the-best-htpc-gpu-of-this-moment-h265-on-the-gtx-960-innpractice
Eugene
BTW I love trains too, we have a garden train in the back. How can we see some of your videos?
|
|
|
Mistake, Sorry
Eugene
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Yes I did seriously consider doing just that, Eugene, having seen your post. But I'm now considering a custom built new machine.
The i7-920 is a v good CPU but it's now showing its age and lagging behind the newer models. It can still get the job done but pairing it with the 960 and SSD would be like an old man getting a young wife. He wouldn't be able to keep (it) up and it takes longer to get the job done anyway.
Tony
Tony,
My point is that you have to buy those two items anyway so all you loose is the time it takes to install them.
I am shure that some forum members would be very interested in the results.
As mentioned for me, editing in 4K including 265, the results were dramatic. A faster CPU for me, for my particular editing, would be a waste of money.
Before installing the 960 the CPU used to do the encoding decoding while rendering, that is now done by the GPU. As mentioned, after installing the 960, CPU usage dropped from 100% when rendering to around an average of 30% with GPU Video Engine Load at 20 to 50% depending on the format used.
So give it a try and let the forum know.
Eugene
|
|
|
TonyL
Why not do the 960 and the SSD first and see what happens. You can always do the CPU and MOBO later.
Good luck
Eugene
|
|
|
I found this to be worthwhile reading:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5890/2/test-the-geforce-gtx-960-is-the-best-htpc-gpu-of-this-moment-h265-on-the-gtx-960-innpractice
Eugene
I was not too impressed with VLC handling 4K especially HEVC. And no HA for those formats (at least on the 2 month old version I have).
|
|
|
GS KID
There are better players, free, than the one you use.
Most on this forum consider the Media player classic 64 to be the best followed by Daumplayer and Gom Player.
They can make use of HA if you have the proper GPU card. All three will play 4K HEVC, at least on this computer. CPU usage during 4K HEVC pb is usually less than 10% on some players as low as 3%.
Measuring bit rate, 5% accuracy is about it, Mediainfo has been around for some time and had numerous updates so I think they have found their bugs by now.
As an aside, I ordered faster SD cards for the AX100 so that from now on I will do 100Mb. That desaster in Juno Harbor is still fresh on my mind. The interesting point is that I have done that exact same shot, shooting a plane take off from water, many times in HD and SD over the years. Never seen such dramatic deteriation of the video. But then the AX100 is doing 4K, 4 times the resolution of HD, at only about 2 times the bit rate of HD.
Eugene
|
|
|
Gs Kid
I think the biggest asset in my setup of PD14, is its ability to fully make use of the GTX960 abilities.
Still amazing to see it encode HEVC 4K in an hour what used to take days.
There is free software called MEDIAINFO it will give you data of a video file, better than WP
Tony, that would be similar to my "harbor shot". As mentioned I was rather shocked as to how bad it was, primarely because that had never happened before.
I will start using custom settings too from now on to maintain the 60Mb that the camera puts out rather than go down to 50.
Eugene
|
|
|
