L-SMASH Source

[poisondeathray]

Originally Posted by videoh

Oy, OK, I never wanted lsmash or any of that on my PC but I'll see what I can do for you. BTW, I have only a lowly 7700K @4.2GHz.

haha, not even to check out the emerging "competition" ?

What if you have some non supported video format by Nvidia/CUVID ?

Thanks

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by videoh

First test with your stream to x64:

DGSource + 2080 Ti: 4:30

That is to be compared to your 13:21 for SW.

Looks like a fine boost to me.

Facepalm.jpg . You can't even do proper testing like i did.

[DJATOM]

Originally Posted by MeteorRain

Actually this is the first time I noticed that's a q8200, which was launched 11 years ago.

This brings me the question. What kind of hardware spec range should we expect in daily benchmarks.
Shall we even care about how the performance is to encode x265 1080p on an 11 years old CPU?
Shall we focus on some more "modern" hardware?

IMHO, even E5v1 and SNB desktop series are considered a bit outdated now.

I have Sandy Bridge based notebook and it feels much slower in browsing or doing stuff in programs (in comparison to R9 3900X). Not to mention it's slow af for heavy encoding or filtering.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by DJATOM

I have Sandy Bridge based notebook and it feels much slower in browsing or doing stuff in programs (in comparison to R9 3900X). Not to mention it's slow af for heavy encoding or filtering.

I have Sandy bridge xeon e5-2690 and IT is as good as ryzen 1700. Comparing low clocked CPU in notebook with desktop 105w CPU is just silly.

[DJATOM]

Indeed it's just i7-2670QM with 2.2-3.1 (boost) GHz, but user experience differs even if I will set saving plan on Ryzen. 2.2 GHz at 3900X feels much faster in browser (that's my most common usage for notebook). Since both devices using SSD, I think it differs due to RAM frequency.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by DJATOM

Indeed it's just i7-2670QM with 2.2-3.1 (boost) GHz, but user experience differs even if I will set saving plan on Ryzen. 2.2 GHz at 3900X feels much faster in browser (that's my most common usage for notebook). Since both devices using SSD, I think it differs due to RAM frequency.

Im also sure that you disabled those extra cores/threats...

[videoh]

Second test:

DGSource() 2080 Ti + x264 7700K: 4:28
LWLibavVideoSource() + x264 7700K: 4:57
Preset medium

That's about an 11% improvement on GPU versus doing everything on my fairly strong CPU.

I have always pointed out that the gain you can get will depend on how strong your processor is. And I have also pointed out that DG tools bring other things to the table, such as robust random access, GPU resizing, some CUDA filters, DGIndexNV as a useful analysis tool in its own right, etc. With over 15000 paid users, I'm not worried about justifying the existence of DG tools.

I'll do another test with UHD. It will be interesting to see how things scale with frame size.

[Atak_Snajpera]

I have always pointed out that the gain you can get will depend on how strong your processor is.

Not really. On my weak PC delta is ~9% in default medium x264 preset.


On your much more powerful CPU (7700k@4.2Ghz) and GPU (RTX 2080TI) delta is ~11%. Your ultra expensive ~$1200 GPU with 4xfaster hardware decoding than ancient GT 710 kepler for $40 gives you only +2 percent points extra in video encoding. That's just pathetic.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by videoh

710 is garbage so your results are pointless. So sorry you're too poor to buy decent hardware.

Oh finally you said it! That's what I wanted to hear from you! Old good Neuron2 (aka banned doom9 moderator) is back!

PS. HA! got ya! I was faster this time and I managed to quote your deleted comment! Not this time amigo!

[videoh]

I don't care what you quote, and your childish behavior doesn't move me at all. Grow up.

To be fair, I would encode on my snazzy 2080 Ti also. And the 2080 Ti is bringing me other things that are quite useful for me, such as tensor cores, massive number of CUDA cores for my physics simulations, etc. No matter how you blow smoke, I get an 11% improvement for your use case. It would be brain-dead for me not to choose DGSource() over LWLibavVideoSource().

You sound bitter because you can't afford decent hardware, although your post above suggests simple DG derangement syndrome.

[DJATOM]

Actually GT 710 is almost deprecated card. You will lose driver updates soon (from April 2020). Not to mention it's only ok for decoding 8 bit AVC, while RTX cards (or GTX 1660/1660Ti cards) has bleeding edge decoder, which significantly faster and supports more formats (HEVC 8/10/12 bit, VP9 8 and 10 bit).

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by DJATOM

Actually GT 710 is almost deprecated card. You will lose driver updates soon (from April 2020). Not to mention it's only ok for decoding 8 bit AVC, while RTX cards (or GTX 1660/1660Ti cards) has bleeding edge decoder, which significantly faster and supports more formats (HEVC 8/10/12 bit, VP9 8 and 10 bit).

You do realize that ancient GT 710 is just for showing desktop right? It was not bought for games or 4k HEVC movies. Instead of changing topic we should focus on facts. 4xfaster video engine gives you in real life encoding scenarios only +2 extra percent points versus something what costs $40.

Ps. And yes If you want you can also call me poor like videoh aka Neuron2 did in his post. I'm too old for this childish talking.

[videoh]

That's "neuron2", pal. Get it right!

[poisondeathray]

Thanks for the testing results,

@videoh -
How about LWLibavVideoSource(decoder="h264_cuvid") on the same hardware? I'd expect similar speeds as DGSource

[DJATOM]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

You do realize that ancient GT 710 is just for showing desktop right? It was not bought for games or 4k HEVC movies. Instead of changing topic we should focus on facts. 4xfaster video engine gives you in real life encoding scenarios only +2 extra percent points versus something what costs $40.

While your ancient card only good for showing desktop, RTX card (for example, mine RTX 2070) can do OpenCL/CUDA computations, offloading a lot of work (for example, NNEDI3CL or EEDI3CL) from CPU. I've tried GTX750, 760, 1050, 2060 and 2070 cards with those filters: with decent CPU GTX 750, 760 and 1050 was a bottleneck for my filtering chain (thus slowing down encoder).
If you don't have to use heavy filtering, there is not much benefit from better card or GPU decoding at all (with slower presets), but when you have to do a lot of encodes, it definitely wins some time for you. Even your tests shows a benefit from using GPU decoder.

[MeteorRain]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

On your much more powerful CPU (7700k@4.2Ghz) and GPU (RTX 2080TI) delta is ~11%. Your ultra expensive ~$1200 GPU with 4xfaster hardware decoding than ancient GT 710 kepler for $40 gives you only +2 percent points extra in video encoding. That's just pathetic.

People buy a house not because they want to have a slightly bigger closet in their room than your condo. People buy a RTX 2080Ti not because they want to show how 1% of its processing power improves 2% of the portion.

Your $1200 GPU argument makes no sense because its just a card he has. I have a $60 worth of GTX 950 and I can get exactly the same decoding speed that he got, and thus the same result. Saying people are pathetic buying a 1 million dollar house by comparing how big the closet is, is IMHO so funny that I literally laughed out load when I saw your words.

If you really want to see how big the difference that graphics card can do, decode and scale down some UHD to 1080P or 720P and check how big of the portion those card can take over. Even worse, I've got a 8K 60fps HEVC 10bit TV broadcasting stream that my freshly bought Ryzen 3600 can barely playback at 5 fps full CPU load. You want to see how $1200 GPU works compared to your $40 card? Try those. It can decode, downscale, process the image and then output to AviSynth at > 60 fps, comparing to, let's say, 3 fps on a 6 core CPU sold this year.

[videoh]

Originally Posted by poisondeathray

How about LWLibavVideoSource(decoder="h264_cuvid") on the same hardware? I'd expect similar speeds as DGSource

Yes, indeed:

4:30

So maybe need to retract my point about being brain-dead not to choose DGSource() here, but the main point still applies, I'd be brain-dead not to choose GPU decoding.

To answer your earlier question...I haven't run into any files that DGSource() cannot open and that I needed to do anything with. Surely, if such files became important for me or my users I would first want to add support in DGDecNV but failing that, of course would revert to an appropriate SW decoder.

[DJATOM]

Originally Posted by poisondeathray

Thanks for the testing results,

@videoh -
How about LWLibavVideoSource(decoder="h264_cuvid") on the same hardware? I'd expect similar speeds as DGSource

I've measured some fps for certain sources (with vsedit's benchmark).

8bit AVC (.m2ts from BD)

Time elapsed: 1:05.696 - 547.85574001840120672568 FPS # DGSource
Time elapsed: 1:04.261 - 560.09428731059801975789 FPS # LWLibAvSource

10bit HEVC (.hevc ES)

Time elapsed: 1:17.304 - 465.58912373251257577067 FPS # DGNV
Time elapsed: 1:24.014 - 428.40612414457933709855 FPS # LWLibAvSource

[Atak_Snajpera]

Saying people are pathetic buying a 1 million dollar house by comparing how big the closet is, is IMHO so funny that I literally laughed out load when I saw your words.

Where did I write that?! Show me! You are now just spreading fake news. Not cool bro!

[MeteorRain]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

Where did I write that?! Show me! You are now just spreading fake news. Not cool bro!

You are so funny.