Hardware acceleration and the age of the graphics adapter it runs on

Davidk101

Senior Member Location: Brisbane Australia Joined: Jun 24, 2020 02:38 Messages: 172 Offline

Solved by

Mar 12, 2021 21:12

Some time ago, I had a rendering issue using PD18 with FVRT. Further analysis indicated that this
was a hardware acceleration problem. Specifically, any rendering with hardware acceleration selected (FVRT=ON) failed, whereas rendering with hardware acceleration de-selected (FVRT=OFF) worked. Using another editor (Video Studio) on the same m/b hardware: core-i3-4170 processor and on-board intel HD4400 graphics chipset, rendering
under win7 acceleration worked - or at least, presented no error messages when rendering. In detecting this bug, I have upgraded the computer hardware to win10 and installed PD18, updated to the latest 3801 status, and hardware acceleration fails when rendering. I had the same result with the Video Studio video editor on the same platform.

The options for a cause seemed to be one of the following:
- a hardware failure of the on-chip video cpu Intel states is present on every processor made since 2011; just use the software driver to use this on-chip device.
- a bug in the HD4400 graphics driver when using the video cpu
- a bug in the application software when using the driver for the video cpu (hardware acceleration is ON) for rendering.

I initiated and had an extensive technical support dialogue with Intel about the options. Initially I asked for their stand alone test program for the on-chip video cpu: prove that the video cpu worked to manufacturer's specs before going after the applications etc. However, either Intel doesn't have such a unit, or are not willing to release it. They did however undertake to laboratory test the processor and graphics unit with the two editor programs ( CVS 2021 and PD18 ) that failed when using acceleration and worked when that option was not selected.

Over several weeks, there was considerable discussion between myself and Intel about driver versions etc, but the final advice
I received from Intel was:
quote
Based on our research and replication of the issue process, we need to inform you that that regrettably, the driver development on the HD Graphics 4400 has slowed down considerably in favor of new products and thus it is unlikely this issue is going to receive further attention from Intel at this point. We recommend checking with both software developers to see if there is any workaround or software update that may improve compatibility with older graphics controllers such as HD Graphics 4400.
unquote

The terminology used indicates that Intel did discover an issue with the graphics driver for the old chipset when used with more up-to-date software, but because the graphics chipset is old (released in 2013 and superseded) albeit functional, Intel will not fix the driver.

It seems clear that a necessary consideration - not hitherto evident - for functional hardware acceleration in the PD18 editor is the progressively growing difference between older computer hardware and the newer versions of software (OS and applications) that run on it. If the vendor of the application wants it to run (with acceleration) on working hardware, it will have to either incorporate a resolution to these age issues (users don't expect that application to have senile effects if the main computing platform it runs on is working), or life the application with respect to the graphics adapter and related driver
software.

I have communicated these results to Cyberlink citing an earlier ticket on this topic, but so far there has been no response to that update.

Desktop i3-4170 3.7ghz, 8Gb RAM, m/board Intel HD4400 graphics, 24in 1920x1080 display, internal storage 1x250Gb SSD
3x500gb HDD, external usb storage 3xHDD 7Tb, LAN 2x4Tb NAS.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Mar 12. 2021 21:14

tomasc

Senior Contributor Joined: Aug 25, 2011 12:33 Messages: 6464 Offline

Mar 12, 2021 21:34

Have you checked for the Win 10 graphics driver for the i3-4170 cpu. They are available at the Intel download center here at the top: https://downloadcenter.intel.com/product/77490/Intel-Core-i3-4170-Processor-3M-Cache-3-70-GHz- . Maybe you should add a nvidia graphics card as a workaround. This is not recommended now as these cards are selling about 3 to 4x msrp at the moment.

Davidk101

Senior Member Location: Brisbane Australia Joined: Jun 24, 2020 02:38 Messages: 172 Offline

Mar 13, 2021 05:44

The drivers are as up-to-date as they can get - that was part of the discussion with Intel. As to a new - extra - graphics card, not sure how that would help. From very preliminary review, that may cost as much as a whole new desktop. I would rather that I had to do that when the current hardware failed and I need the whole lot new, rather than just a piece of it.

In terms of using SVRT on the current platform - the obvious work-around in this situation is to not use it. As a work practice - projects that are short (10-15 minutes each??) are not likely to show advantages from acceleration. For long ones (I've seen some stated to be about 1 hour or more on various boards) - certainly.

tomasc

Senior Contributor Joined: Aug 25, 2011 12:33 Messages: 6464 Offline

Mar 13, 2021 10:18

Quote In terms of using SVRT on the current platform - the obvious work-around in this situation is to not use it. As a work practice - projects that are short (10-15 minutes each??) are not likely to show advantages from acceleration. For long ones (I've seen some stated to be about 1 hour or more on various boards) - certainly.

This is interesting that both Intel and Cyberlink support addressed your problem but can’t give you a solution. There are users of PD that used Intel integrated graphics back to 2011 to produce videos. Most also have an external video card that also worked in producing videos with PD.

Read that back then every Intel cpu die starts out as a i7-4790K with HD 4600 graphics. Those that do not pass the test have the clock timing lowered until they work properly. That is why there is the K, i7, i5, i3 designation. The GPU spec is lowered too until it works.

Wondered why the contributors here have no problem using the i7 intel QS or an external graphics card to produce videos year after year. Some users have problems being able to fix the issue by unchecking hardware decoding in preferences and not using fvrt and they are then able to produce videos properly. Could this mean that an i7 or an i5 works properly where an i3 does not as both Intel and Cyberlink addressed your issue of using hardware QS encoding.

Buying a new computer may not be the answer as a new i3 cpu may act the same. A i5 or i7 may be required to use the QS encoding successfully. You can do research on this forum to search those with the issue if they were using an i7, i5, or i3 cpu.

Hopefully some other users will chime in on which cpu they have and if QS use is successful in PD. This would save time and allow one to quickly determine whether a i5, or i7 cpu designation is really necessary to be able to use the intel QS to produce video successfully. The same goes for graphics cards.

optodata

Senior Contributor Location: California, USA Joined: Sep 16, 2011 16:04 Messages: 8630 Offline

Mar 13, 2021 15:23

I had an i7-4770K CPU system for about 5 years and never had any problem with PD being able to use QuickSync. that system had an nVidia GTX780Ti and I typically produced projects using that.

I currently have 3 Surface devices (an original Surface Pro from 2013 with an i5-3317U; a SP3 from 2015 with an i7-4650U; and a Surface Book 3 from last year with an i7-1065G7). All run PD and can produce using QuickSync, so I'm puzzled as to why you're having such persistent issues.

While it's understandable that Intel isn't going to expend resources on years-old hardware support, I don't think I've seen any other posts about Intel GPU hardware not working which implies it's something specific to your particular system.

It's possible that CL will be able to at least identify the reason for the problem and either patch PD18 or confirm that there is some kind of hardware fault with your CPU's iGPU.

Davidk101

Senior Member Location: Brisbane Australia Joined: Jun 24, 2020 02:38 Messages: 172 Offline

Mar 13, 2021 21:47

From the responses, there may be some misconceptions out there about Quick Sync, so a briefer . .

Intel processor chips have an independent (of the main x86 processor and cores) video cpu on them, since 2011. Quick Sync is the method of utilising that resource.

Quick Sync uses the chip video processor by means of the graphics driver: the video application makes an API function call with data to the driver which then uses the video cpu to perform the requested operation on the data. When the operation is completed, return to the driver with a relevant function code(s), which the driver returns to the application.

this process is supposed to be considerably faster than doing the video processing by software routines in the main cpu.

Every motherboard with Intel support (I assume AMD is similar, but here I am using Intel) has this; a cpu including the video cpu and a graphics chipset support which is the normal use unless a separate graphics adpater and driver (eg, nvidia) is installed. If a separate graphics adpater is installed, the OS supports both (feeds data etc to both - you use the one you want, assumed to be the adapter, by plugging the display/monitor into the output socket for the adapter) and uses both drivers as needed. I found this out the hard way a few years back when my GeForce adapter failed (too much dust, overheated too often, duh. And the dust acccumulated on the underside of the adpater board - just where you could not see it). Research using another PC showed just how expensive those adpaters had become - even if you are not a gamer, it seems that the whole rationale behind adapters is that users will be gamers - and quite possibly a new adapter would also require a whole power supply replacement as well. Expensive . . . as a shot in the dark, I simply transferred the display cable from the failed adpater socket, to the motherboard socket: voila, dispay has imagery again. So, I just left it that way. All this whilst using windows 7.

Comes windows 10 during 2020, including grphics drivers updates not only as part of the migration, but also later as part of the regular updates schedule and with 2 editors rendering with acceleration now fails with error messages, repeatedly.

Opto.
Given the option to use (or not) hardware acceleration, users I know don't think anything of it if it doesn't work: de-select and press on: that does work. But in this case I decided I'd like to know why . . .

My first choice was to test the video chip - assuming a hardware failure. Rendering errors with hardware acceleration on that processor had not happened with windows 7, but you have to start somewhere. And a performance test program for the on-chip video cpu was the first stop. I accepted that video cpu may have failed but it seeemd more likely, and frankly was expecting, that ultimately I would find that either the driver had a bug, or that the SDK for applications calling that driver for video supprt had issues which would necessitate an application program change. Thus, my contact with Intel support. The agent assigned was extremely helpful: wanted a variety of data - some of which I could not provide (going back to windows 7, applications and drivers as of 2015), he didn't supply a test program - which in itself may indicate that the Intel production environment is lacking something - but he did undertake to do a lab test. What I didn't expect was that Intel would find an issue with the graphics driver (their choice of wording in the final response really doesn't leave a likely alternative conclusion) and then refuse to fix it.
Which does make it specific to the PC build (including software) in use.

And whilst an alternative approach already exists - don't use hardware acceleration in older PC's if the result is errors) - some dissemination of the test results seemed advisable. Thus my initial post.

The result was quite unexpected: one assumes that chipset support will be available for it's usful life - in user speak, whilst the hardware is still working. It seems obvious that the application specs need adjusting for supporting items as well as the headline functions.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Mar 13. 2021 21:51

optodata

Senior Contributor Location: California, USA Joined: Sep 16, 2011 16:04 Messages: 8630 Offline

Mar 13, 2021 23:41

I appreciate that you've put in significant time and effort into trying to understand this situation to get it resolved, and it seems that the only viable options are:

Continue working with CL support (if they are willing) and try to identify the source of the errors and possibly come up with a patch

Go back to Win7 where you were able to use the Fast video rendering technology option

Add a discrete GPU or otherwise update your system. In all honesty a new system would greatly speed up all your video work as your current CPU has a Passmark rating of just 3608. A rating of at least 10K is really the floor for video work these days and 20K is substantially better

Accept that hardware acceleration is not an option with your current system running Win10 and procede without hardware producing

Realistically, all technology has a limited operational life and even once-top-level hardware becomes obsolete at some point. Mediocre hardware simply becomes obsolete sooner.

Driver changes have a big impact, too, as when nVidia changed their API in 2018 and older versions of PD could no longer access NVENC if a newer driver than v411.70 was installed. That also froze out older PD versions from working with newer nVidia cards because the older drivers aren't compatible with them. Users had to choose between staying stuck in 2018 or moving forward.

Your issue seems to fall somewhere in between, and unfortunately I don't think there's anything that tomasc or I or any other forum member can do to help you out. I hope you can find a palatable option to follow.

Davidk101

Senior Member Location: Brisbane Australia Joined: Jun 24, 2020 02:38 Messages: 172 Offline

Mar 14, 2021 19:16

Thanks opto.
Yep, I had come to the same conclusions. The short-term most palatable one is just to not use acceleration.
As to the hardware - yes, I kow it's old, but it was super fast for it's time, and generally still is faster than the usual new desktop platform. And I rate that mostly in terms of the cpu clock rate. I know newer things like threading, faster RAM, multiple cores (if the software can use them) etc affect it, but if there is anything dominant in processor capability over the last 30 years, it's the cpu clock rate.
It's older than any previous system I've used, in fact. And I've expected it to fail and require replacement for a few years now. Nevertheless, it keeps going, and that seems to be a trend for all computing hardware that we and the vendors will have to adapt to - reliability of the components has improved out of sight, and most users would not replace a computer until it broken. And a new motherboard/cpu et al would require a whole new windows 10 install - something I had tremedous trouble with last year; mostly because a lot of the computing environment like printers, NAS attached devices etc was working but old - and standards had reached a life date. That meant a clean win10 install broke just about every attached device I have, whereas a migrated one worked fine - except for that other editor I use.

So a new motherboard upgrade would mean not only that but with a graphics adapter a new power supply, new NAS, new printer, etc - and the whole lot comes a lot more expensively than it appears at first glance. And there's the software - re-install every app i use. What a pain. So, I've elected to gradually update the environmental hardware - about half done - still especting the existing m/b to go to the cloud soon.

Meanwhile, what I've obserevd is that altho the app system specs for various functions steadil;y increase - on older platforms the application still works, but slower. Sometimes depending on function, a lot slower. With acceleration OFF, my way around that is to just do projects that are short: instead of the 60 minute epic, about 4 15 minute shorties. That way, not only the editing process is faster per pds, but the rendering time is tolerable rather than quick.