What is current status for hardware H.265 encoding.

[RanmaCanada]

Originally Posted by perrinpages

Why are you so pressed? I asked a question and you replied with a useless macrumors forum that I've already read. In my first post I asked if someone had done real comparisons. Anyone who claims 2.5 Mb/s using x265 is an acceptable bitrate for HD content cannot be trusted to make quality assessments.

Because over the almost decade that this thread has been alive, no one has mentioned Mac's at all. Common sense would dictate that obviously no one here cares for them (they aren't mentioned in any threads that I remember), or sees them as viable. You also did not mention that you had read the forums that I posted. I guess that means you've also watched this video? and his subsequent video on it.

Sorry for trying to give you some information about a subject no one here cares about.

[Ritsuka]

That video has got nothing to do with the hardware encoder, and like 99% of YouTube videos is probably a bunch of half-truth and comparing apples to oranges.

Anyway, like I said there should not be any difference between HandBrake a Compressor. There is some data on https://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic...193484#p193484 , I don't know any more recent and decent data on this topic.

[Mister XY]

Here are my settings for HB. I use ist for UHD sources. But it's look not bad with FHD sources. Not Perfekt, but not bad for this time.

[Yups]

Originally Posted by BuccoBruce

Would I be mistaken in assuming this would be the easiest sample to provide AMD VCE results for, for comparison's sake? Once I figure out a way to streamline running multiple encodes and then testing those metrics, and have enough time to play with settings.

I flipped through a few pages and didn't see any AMD results - or any single test clip with as broad a range of encodes/settings (thank you Yups). I have older Polaris Radeon/Radeon Pro WX cards with VCE 3.4 (technically Lexa, Ellesmere, and "Polaris 20" - they should differ only in encode speed, I'll double check VCEEnc's output but will most likely use the Ellesmere card) and a Radeon RX 5700 with VCN 2.0. I was always under the impression that while AMD's HW H.264 encodes were kind of rubbish, H.265 was "OK".

I don't have AMD. Yes this sample is easy to compare.

Originally Posted by Mister XY

Here are my settings for HB. I use ist for UHD sources. But it's look not bad with FHD sources. Not Perfekt, but not bad for this time.

Unfortunately Handbrake doesn't support open gop yet which improves the bitrate efficiency a bit. It is planned though.

[BuccoBruce]

Originally Posted by Yups

I don't have AMD. Yes this sample is easy to compare.

Thank you! I was offering to add to your already extensive results. Looks like ffmpeg might be able to output simple PSNR/SSIM/VMAF scores, all of the pretty GUI tools I can find seem to be expensive, professional, or both, and that Intel one looks like it's been discontinued. The MSU one would be ideal if it wasn't limited to 720p...

I'll try and get results up in a few days or so, with added 10-bit output from the Navi card since it supports it.

[Yups]

If you upload the encoded sample I can calculate it with MSU, otherwise it's not comparable to my scores.

[BuccoBruce]

Here's a preliminary look at how AMD fares with the Intel test clip, and it doesn't look too good. CQP 22:24 is VCEEncC's default, and you need RDNA2 for B-frames, but I'm not sure they'd help. Pre-analysis isn't supported for HEVC. There's a "Pre-Encode" rate control feature, but I'm not sure it'll help either. So here's "Default" for now, with just changing the preset from balanced to either slow or fast.

The "higher end" GPU produced larger files across the board, with the same exact settings. "Balanced" and "Slow" seem to produce identical output on both cards!

Quality/GPU		VMAF		PSNR		SSIM		Speed		Bitrate		Size
Bal/WX2100		95.3114		42.5086		0.9782		147.43 fps	7096.70 kbps	412.70 MB
Bal/WX5100		96.1465		42.9197		0.9785		121.80 fps	7963.64 kbps	463.12 MB
Fast/WX2100		95.2958		42.5546		0.9783		152.93 fps	7158.12 kbps	416.28 MB
Fast/WX5100		96.2284		43.1607		0.9798		122.83 fps	7890.48 kbps	458.86 MB
Slow/WX2100		95.3114		42.5086		0.9782		148.30 fps	7096.70 kbps	412.70 MB
Slow/WX5100		96.1465		42.9197		0.9785		121.26 fps	7963.64 kbps	463.12 MB

"Lexa PRO GL" in the Radeon Pro WX 2100 is a Polaris 12 or "Lexa" GPU, and isn't very different from the RX 550. "Polaris 10 PRO GL" in the WX 5100 is Polaris 10, a single slot, toned down Radeon RX 480. They're both GCN 4.0 GPUs with VCE 3.4. I didn't expect them to perform differently, unless someone at AMD thinks ~15% is within the margin of error for a non-deterministic encode. I wouldn't be surprised if Polaris 20 XL gave entirely different results too, even though it too reports as codename "Ellesmere" and also has VCE 3.4. Might try it later.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCEEnc (x64) 7.00 (r1066) by rigaya, Apr 30 2022 18:34:01 (VC 1931/Win)
GPU:           Radeon  Pro WX 5100, AMF Runtime 1.4.23 / SDK 1.4.24
Input Info:    AviSynth+ 3.7.2 r3661(yv12)->nv12 [AVX], 1920x1080, 24/1 fps
Vpp Filters    copyHtoD
Output:        H.265/HEVC  main @ Level 4 (main tier)
               1920x1080p 0:0 24.000fps (24/1fps)
Quality:       slow
CQP:           I:22, P:24
VBV Bufsize:   12000 kbps
Bframes:       0 frames
Pre Analysis:  off
Motion Est:    Q-pel
Slices:        1
GOP Len:       240 frames
VUI:              matrix:bt709,colorprim:bt709,transfer:bt709
Others:        deblock

The only change between the three runs was "Quality" which was either slow, balanced, or fast. Everything else was left at its default settings (for now). I might try another run with PE enabled, 2.5 Mbps VBR. And yes, I quadruple checked that the "Slow" and "Balanced" runs weren't mislabeled, I had log files from running the encodes. FFMetrics keeps crashing, although I did ask it to save CSV frame data if anyone cares for it. I just can't play with the plots directly within it anymore without re-running an hour's worth of tests and I doubt it's worth opening Excel for.

Doesn't seem like RDNA2 fares much better either.

[BuccoBruce]

Originally Posted by Yups

If you upload the encoded sample I can calculate it with MSU, otherwise it's not comparable to my scores.

Whoops, I just saw that while I was writing that post. Here you go! The clips are still uploading https://mega.nz/folder/SzwDlR5D#SbfBKtLuD3rOQPjTUZ0P8g

[Yups]

The quality is quite poor considering it's converted into 8 Mbit. Bframes should make a noticeably difference, although the difference appears so big they need much more improvements.

[BuccoBruce]

Originally Posted by Yups

The quality is quite poor considering it's converted into 8 Mbit. Bframes should make a noticeably difference, although the difference appears so big they need much more improvements.

Yeah, I'm fairly disappointed in how it turned out. I thought AMD VCE/VCN being rubbish was just a meme but I guess it's true. Almost tempted to dig a Sandy/Ivy Bridge CPU with QSV out and compare it to 8 Mbps AVC on that thing.

[Yups]

Originally Posted by BuccoBruce

Yeah, I'm fairly disappointed in how it turned out. I thought AMD VCE/VCN being rubbish was just a meme but I guess it's true. Almost tempted to dig a Sandy/Ivy Bridge CPU with QSV out and compare it to 8 Mbps AVC on that thing.

I have an older Kabylake CPU, I'm sure it's much better at 8 Mbps using Quicksync. Actually 8 Mbps is too high on a half decent solution for this sample, that's why I went down to 2.5 Mbps in my testing.

[PatchWorKs]

Originally Posted by Mister XY

Here are my settings for HB. I use ist for UHD sources. But it's look not bad with FHD sources. Not Perfekt, but not bad for this time.

I'm testing very low QSV encoding parameters (35-40) for FHD source and I strongly suggest to use rigaya's QSVEnc instead: mutch better results.

You can easily test it through FastFlix:

[lt8nk]

Originally Posted by RanmaCanada

Why not just upgrade your processor to a zen3 like a 5600? You will get a significant increase in encode speed without having to spend much money on a new platform.

Sorry for the late answer. I thought I will receive notifications for new posts...

In fact, I hadn't given all the info so as not to overload my post. The 1500x is on the classic PC. But I also have an old Synology NAS of almost 10 years, and a mini windows PC based on Atom x5-z8350 (which doesn't allow to encode in h265, only in reading), connected to the TV. This mini PC also hosts a Jellyfin server, a TV card (so NextPVR) and a bunch of other servers. Honestly, even if I tried to optimize everything, this little Atom surprises me. As I'm running out of space with 4TB in Raid 1, I was thinking of making a big change to replace both the mini PC and the NAS in a single device that would allow me for example to encode TV recordings in H265 automatically, and to increase space with a kind of Raid 5 with SnapRaid.

I think I will wait beginning of september before buying it. Actually, it would cost me about 240 € for the whole without the new HDD.

Now you know everything.

[RanmaCanada]

Originally Posted by lt8nk

Sorry for the late answer. I thought I will receive notifications for new posts...

In fact, I hadn't given all the info so as not to overload my post. The 1500x is on the classic PC. But I also have an old Synology NAS of almost 10 years, and a mini windows PC based on Atom x5-z8350 (which doesn't allow to encode in h265, only in reading), connected to the TV. This mini PC also hosts a Jellyfin server, a TV card (so NextPVR) and a bunch of other servers. Honestly, even if I tried to optimize everything, this little Atom surprises me. As I'm running out of space with 4TB in Raid 1, I was thinking of making a big change to replace both the mini PC and the NAS in a single device that would allow me for example to encode TV recordings in H265 automatically, and to increase space with a kind of Raid 5 with SnapRaid.

I think I will wait beginning of september before buying it. Actually, it would cost me about 240 € for the whole without the new HDD.

Now you know everything.

Ah makes sense. What I would do in your situation then is make an UNRAID server for storage and use the docker functions to host your media server. As long as you have an Intel CPU that supports quicksync, you're pretty much good to go. An i3 or even a Pentium Gold should more than do the job. I would personally pick at least 10th gen, but if you can swing it, 12th gen would be superior.

Good luck!

[lt8nk]

At the beginning I also thought about using UNRAID but I am a bit afraid of compatibility of my USB TV card and external sound card with passthrough. I am even not sure of compatibility with Windows 11... Concerning CPU, I will definetely go for 12th generation. But I still hesistate between Pentium G7400 and i3-12100T.

[butterw2]

Dual-core G7400 with UHD-710 (av1 hw-dec and h265 hw-enc) seems interesting for a low power machine running on stock cooler (46W TDP, no boost). I would like to see some quick sync testing vs 12100.

For software encoding (ex: x264) with only 4 threads, it will not be able to compete with a 12100. But from what I figure it does beat old quadcore i5s (ex: i5-6500) in terms of performance.

[Yups]

Originally Posted by BuccoBruce

Here's a preliminary look at how AMD fares with the Intel test clip, and it doesn't look too good. CQP 22:24 is VCEEncC's default, and you need RDNA2 for B-frames, but I'm not sure they'd help. Pre-analysis isn't supported for HEVC.

B-frames would help, how much no idea. There are some b-frames tests for H264 but not for h265. On Intel Iris Xe CQP is very effective with many bframes. I tried what bitrate I need to match or beat your WX5100 scores with a bitrate of almost 8 Mbit. I need around 4.5 Mbit.





Settings

--avhw --codec hevc --quality best --profile main --ctu 64 --bframes 14 --gop-len 240 --b-pyramid --open-gop --no-tskip --sao none --cqp 19:22:24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jp3...ew?usp=sharing

[ReinerSchweinlin]

Originally Posted by butterw2

Dual-core G7400 with UHD-710 (av1 hw-dec and h265 hw-enc) seems interesting for a low power machine running on stock cooler (46W TDP, no boost). I would like to see some quick sync testing vs 12100.

For software encoding (ex: x264) with only 4 threads, it will not be able to compete with a 12100. But from what I figure it does beat old quadcore i5s (ex: i5-6500) in terms of performance.

The G7400 looks interesting as a cheap HW-Encoding machine. Do we have any info whether the Encoder in the smaller Intel CPUs are the same as the above mentioned XE ones that did well?

I am still looking for some power efficient System that could do two things:

x265 encode with a very good power efficiency (speed is not important, efficiency is king - it can run for days)

HW-Encode with the best quality efficiency..

Notebooks or NUCs with I5-1135.. CPUs came to mind. Do you guys know of any other cheap candidates?

Intel Core i3-1210U seems very promising in terms of power efficiency, but I guess its too new, can´t find any systems with it....

[perrinpages]

Originally Posted by ReinerSchweinlin

The G7400 looks interesting as a cheap HW-Encoding machine. Do we have any info whether the Encoder in the smaller Intel CPUs are the same as the above mentioned XE ones that did well?

I am still looking for some power efficient System that could do two things:

x265 encode with a very good power efficiency (speed is not important, efficiency is king - it can run for days)

HW-Encode with the best quality efficiency..

Notebooks or NUCs with I5-1135.. CPUs came to mind. Do you guys know of any other cheap candidates?

Intel Core i3-1210U seems very promising in terms of power efficiency, but I guess its too new, can´t find any systems with it....

Framework is selling their mainboards with an i5-1240P for $449, but you need a case to house it in and the connectivity situation might not be ideal. It is much cheaper than any nuc I've seen that's actually in stock...

https://frame.work/products/mainboar...e?v=FRANGACP04

[Mister XY]

Originally Posted by Yups

B-frames would help, how much no idea. There are some b-frames tests for H264 but not for h265. On Intel Iris Xe CQP is very effective with many bframes. I tried what bitrate I need to match or beat your WX5100 scores with a bitrate of almost 8 Mbit. I need around 4.5 Mbit.





Settings

--avhw --codec hevc --quality best --profile main --ctu 64 --bframes 14 --gop-len 240 --b-pyramid --open-gop --no-tskip --sao none --cqp 19:22:24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jp3...ew?usp=sharing

You can e.g. from minute 6:10 wonderfully recognize the artifacts or the block formation.
Otherwise the picture looks very good for the size.