Quote It is kind of strange, that I cannot select Hardware acceleration while producing a clip. I tried different formats because I remember from previous versions, that it did work but for a particular video formats.

Now with PD 365 it is different. I cannot select hardware acceleration on the produce tab BUT when I look at GPU-Z sensors, they show a significant GPU load.

PowerDirector 365
Nvidia GeForce GTX555
Intel Xeon W3670

There is not a big deal, rendering time is good enough but I wonder if selecting hardware acceleration might shorten it?

Am I doing something wrong?

Too old of GPU with current drivers for PD18 to have hardware encoding. The load is probably decoding load. Turn decoding off in pref > Hardware Acceleration and then restart PD and play a clip from the timeline and see if GPU load subsides some.

Jeff

Quote

Too old of GPU with current drivers for PD18 to have hardware encoding. The load is probably decoding load. Turn decoding off in pref > Hardware Acceleration and then restart PD and play a clip from the timeline and see if GPU load subsides some.

Jeff

You are right Jeff. Without decoding selected, GPU load is much lower. So what is required to utilize hardware acceleration?

Quote You are right Jeff. Without decoding selected, GPU load is much lower. So what is required to utilize hardware acceleration?

Depends what your needs are, https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-decode-gpu-support-matrix shows capability of various GPU's for NVENC encoding utilized in PD18.

If you want H.265 encoding which is kind of the niche for GPU encoding speed compared to CPU encoding one needs at least a 10 series for Nvidia. There still are periodically some encode anomalies with PD so it's not all roses.

Jeff

Great. Thank you Jeff

Jeff,

I do not need high-end hardware though it would be nice to have shorter producing time with my occasional work. At the moment, with my hardware config, I gain around 0.7/1 rendering time (7 min. of producing for 10 min. clip).

My PC is Dell Precission, CPU W3670 @ 3.19 GHz (12 threads), 12GB RAM, GTX 555

I consider buying NVENC compatible card and my options are GTX 1050 or GTX 1060.

My concern is - is it worth buying cheaper GTX 1050 which is on the edge of the support matrix or GTX 1060 which is slightly further in the matrix? I don't want to spend more money. Does it really matter at all or is it only performance difference?

Can one assume, that as long as NVENC is supported by PD365, GTX 1050 is going to support hardware encoding? _______________________________
regards, Tom
(PD365, Win10 Pro x64, Dell Precision T3500, Xeon W3670, 12GB, SSD)

Quote Jeff,

I do not need high-end hardware though it would be nice to have shorter producing time with my occasional work. At the moment, with my hardware config, I gain around 0.7/1 rendering time (7 min. of producing for 10 min. clip).

My PC is Dell Precission, CPU W3670 @ 3.19 GHz (12 threads), 12GB RAM, GTX 555

I consider buying NVENC compatible card and my options are GTX 1050 or GTX 1060.

My concern is - is it worth buying cheaper GTX 1050 which is on the edge of the support matrix or GTX 1060 which is slightly further in the matrix? I don't want to spend more money. Does it really matter at all or is it only performance difference?

Can one assume, that as long as NVENC is supported by PD365, GTX 1050 is going to support hardware encoding?

Not sure what you mean by "slightly further in the matrix". Basically with PD18, there will be little difference between a 1050, 1060 or 1070 concerning NVENC as they all support the fourth generation Pascal NVENC implements. PD18 does not take advantage of the multiple NVENC chips as concurrent sessions are not permitted.

I constructed a very basic test years ago to get a feel of just encoding speed via simply transcoding. It was highlighted here:
https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/46135.page#post_box_238745 and there is a GTX1060 data point so you can compare to your W3670 for a simply transcode to a default H.264 and H.265 profile to give you a feel if it's worth it.

Just keep in mind that encoding with GPU is not really an extension of the CPU, it is a different encoder vs the CPU encoder and will have different results.

Jeff

Quote
Not sure what you mean by "slightly further in the matrix". Basically with PD18, there will be little difference between a 1050, 1060 or 1070 concerning NVENC as they all support the fourth generation Pascal NVENC implements. PD18 does not take advantage of the multiple NVENC chips as concurrent sessions are not permitted.

Clear enough.

Quote
I constructed a very basic test years ago to get a feel of just encoding speed via simply transcoding. It was highlighted here:
https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/46135.page#post_box_238745 and there is a GTX1060 data point so you can compare to your W3670 for a simply transcode to a default H.264 and H.265 profile to give you a feel if it's worth it.

My test with 10x “Kite Surfing.wmv” 1920x1080/24p H.264 (no hardware encoding) shows produce time 55sec. compared to average 1min.40sec. in that table, so it looks like I do not have any reason to complain right? Or should I test higher resolution (it is not stated in the test instruction config)?

Quote
Just keep in mind that encoding with GPU is not really an extension of the CPU, it is a different encoder vs the CPU encoder and will have different results.

This does not help me at all... _______________________________
regards, Tom
(PD365, Win10 Pro x64, Dell Precision T3500, Xeon W3670, 12GB, SSD)

Quote
My test with 10x “Kite Surfing.wmv” 1920x1080/24p H.264 (no hardware encoding) shows produce time 55sec. compared to average 1min.40sec. in that table, so it looks like I do not have any reason to complain right? Or should I test higher resolution (it is not stated in the test instruction config)?

Nothing in the test or data comparison was 24p.

As mentioned prior in this thread, the niche for GPU encoding is really H.265. Perform that test and see how your CPU encoding compares.

Jeff

EDIT: profiles are highlighted in the spreadsheet that the user created
H.264, 4096x2160/30p 50Mbps MP4
H.265, 4096x2160/30p 37Mbps MKV

Quote

Nothing in the test or data comparison was 24p.

As mentioned prior in this thread, the niche for GPU encoding is really H.265. Perform that test and see how your CPU encoding compares.

Jeff

Wow, I've found testing settings and my time is over 11 sec!!! compared to average 1m40s in the spreadsheet.

Do you think, installing GTX 1050 could really decrease my producing time 10 times?! _______________________________
regards, Tom
(PD365, Win10 Pro x64, Dell Precision T3500, Xeon W3670, 12GB, SSD)