Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Hardware & Software > Software players

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 6th July 2015, 20:04   #31561  |  Link
fairchild
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by chros View Post
And 1 more interesting thing: D3D9 exclusive Old path is way-way faster (~40%) then the New path with the same settings (when you switch on several frames in advance)! Is there any advantage (quality wise) to use the New path if everything else seems to work fine with the old one?

Edit: and D3D11 exclusive is the slowest from all them.
Using the same clip, it's the opposite for me, old-path D3D9 is like 19ms rendering times vs 7ms for new-path D3D9. Probably depends on your GPU/drivers and maybe even MadVR settings. The only quality wise advantage I believe is if you plan to use the 10-bit option which requires D3D11 exclusive.

Also D3D11 8-bit is about the same as new-path D3D9 with. (around 7ms)
__________________
MPC-HC/MPC-BE, Lav Filters, MadVR
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600, Video: AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 -> TCL S405 55", Audio: Audio-Technica M50S

Last edited by fairchild; 6th July 2015 at 20:07.
fairchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2015, 20:49   #31562  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,708
When comparing render times, I think it's important to force the graphics card to run with full clocks.

Maybe this is not possible with GCN Radeons, since Powertune is aggressively lowering GPU clock when there is no full load (which is a good thing, apart from this kind of benchmarks).

I can force my GTX 980 to constantly run with full boost clock when doubling 720p60 with NNEDI3 64.
Under these conditions, the render times of D3D9 and D3D11 are almost identical.
However, I can have huge differences when the GPU isn't running with full clock due to insufficient load.

So I think it's pointless to compare rendering times if the GPU load isn't high enough.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2015, 20:49   #31563  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,788
a 24/23p source on a 60 hz display should be faster with old path and that always.

old path is doing more work when the frame rate is not the same as the display rate so it is slower but has more control of what is really happening.

fairchild please check your powerstates for these tests.


using a r9 270
i have 38 ms using spline 3 ar for 720p to 1080p scaling and the reason is lowest powerstate possible even with nnedi3 32 i get lower ms.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2015, 21:31   #31564  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,708
How big can the impacts of different presentation handling be, compared to Jinc or even Nnedi3?
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2015, 21:51   #31565  |  Link
fairchild
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
a 24/23p source on a 60 hz display should be faster with old path and that always.

fairchild please check your powerstates for these tests.
I use lav copyback and it forces high powerstates when the clip allows. But I just checked an HEVC clip which doesn't use copyback and it still had same results. 12ms with new path d3d9 and 23ms with old path d3d9.

I am using 14.12 official drivers if that makes a difference, also my settings are pretty pedestrian:

Quote:
ordered dithering with neither option checked
processing-image enhancements: FineSharp - Strength 1.0 (pre-resize manual active for HD)
chroma upscaling: lanczos3 (AR)
image doubling: super-xbr 100 (2x) (active on 960x540 or less)
image upscaling: lanczos3 (AR)
image downscaling: Catmull-Rom (AR+LL)
__________________
MPC-HC/MPC-BE, Lav Filters, MadVR
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600, Video: AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 -> TCL S405 55", Audio: Audio-Technica M50S
fairchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2015, 22:37   #31566  |  Link
chros
Registered User
 
chros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairchild View Post
I use lav copyback and it forces high powerstates when the clip allows. But I just checked an HEVC clip which doesn't use copyback and it still had same results. 12ms with new path d3d9 and 23ms with old path d3d9.

I am using 14.12 official drivers if that makes a difference, also my settings are pretty pedestrian:
Quote:
a 24/23p source on a 60 hz display should be faster with old path and that always.
I'm using 1080p/23.97 content on 1080p/24.01 display (so there's no luma resize) and the framerate is pretty identical. More then that the frame rate switcher is set to these values, and it's working great, and I got the same result with all the different contents:
1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30, 1080p60

And I wasn't talking about rendering times, but GPU load (though these 2 should depend on each other), using nvidia inspector monitor.
So maybe ATI drivers are behaving completely differently.

Edit: my nvidia driver version is: 347.88 (but I had the same result with the older drivers as well)
__________________
Ryzen 5 2600,Asus Prime b450-Plus,16GB,MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 6GB(v385.28),Win10 LTSB 1607,MPC-BEx64+LAV+MadVR,Yamaha RX-A870,LG OLED65B8(2160p@23/24/25/29/30/50/59/60Hz)

Last edited by chros; 6th July 2015 at 22:39.
chros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2015, 22:55   #31567  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairchild View Post
I use lav copyback and it forces high powerstates when the clip allows. But I just checked an HEVC clip which doesn't use copyback and it still had same results. 12ms with new path d3d9 and 23ms with old path d3d9.
I can hardly believe these figures. Almost twice as fast, just because of different API?
I'd really rather assume that is somehow a counting/calculation error.
You could check this with madVR settings which almost cost twice as much, e.g. more Needi3 neurons if interop performance is sufficient.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2015, 00:40   #31568  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairchild View Post
I use lav copyback and it forces high powerstates when the clip allows. But I just checked an HEVC clip which doesn't use copyback and it still had same results. 12ms with new path d3d9 and 23ms with old path d3d9.

I am using 14.12 official drivers if that makes a difference, also my settings are pretty pedestrian:
you should check the power states. dxva has rarely a clear effect on it. on the other side cuvid forces high power state.

just check it with GPU-z
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2015, 17:57   #31569  |  Link
fairchild
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
I can hardly believe these figures. Almost twice as fast, just because of different API?
I'd really rather assume that is somehow a counting/calculation error.
You could check this with madVR settings which almost cost twice as much, e.g. more Needi3 neurons if interop performance is sufficient.
I'm just reporting my findings for my rig. Not trying to convince anybody or anything. Different hardware using different drivers using different settings will produce different results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
you should check the power states. dxva has rarely a clear effect on it. on the other side cuvid forces high power state.

just check it with GPU-z
Well what I've noticed is that when I use D3D9 old-path it maintains 450mhz/1250mhz throughout the video, where as D3D9 new-path or D3D11 with present a frame for every vsync, it fluctuates from 450mhz/1250mz to 1050mhz/1250mhz. Not sure why this causes the reported rendering times by MadVR to go down so drastically.

I'm going to try not using FSE while using D3D11 windowed mode to see if that bug that always forces me to go back to FSE is squashed. (the composition rate changes randomly and this mismatch causes the videos to be choppy. eg when the composition rate is 23.976 and I am watching a 60p video clip)

You were right that the dxva copy-back doesn't seem to affect the clock rates much. I think it's best for the card to stay at a single clock rate, say the 450mhz/1250mhz mid state instead of constantly fluctuating. low power state for my card is 300mhz/150mhz
__________________
MPC-HC/MPC-BE, Lav Filters, MadVR
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600, Video: AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 -> TCL S405 55", Audio: Audio-Technica M50S
fairchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2015, 18:47   #31570  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairchild View Post
I'm just reporting my findings for my rig. Not trying to convince anybody or anything. Different hardware using different drivers using different settings will produce different results.
Yeah, but it's kind of esoterism to conclude D3D11 would be magically 100% faster than D3D9 just because of the rendering times (which are not a secure method to measure performance, even according to madshi) without really benchmarking this under clean conditions.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2015, 21:12   #31571  |  Link
fairchild
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Yeah, but it's kind of esoterism to conclude D3D11 would be magically 100% faster than D3D9 just because of the rendering times (which are not a secure method to measure performance, even according to madshi) without really benchmarking this under clean conditions.
I actually said in my original post that both D3D9 new-path and D3D11 were about equal. D3D9 old-path is the one that shows the huge increase in rendering times. Anyways... Just use whatever works best for you.
__________________
MPC-HC/MPC-BE, Lav Filters, MadVR
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600, Video: AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 -> TCL S405 55", Audio: Audio-Technica M50S
fairchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2015, 21:30   #31572  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,708
Oops, sorry. I misread that.
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2015, 21:57   #31573  |  Link
SithUK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 16
I am using MPC-HC with madVR and a 3D LUT. I am using a laptop as the source. The laptop has an i5 quad core and ATI 4500 equivalent GPU. I am struggling with video playback FPS. Is there a guide that anyone can suggest that suggest how to increase performance madVR performance with a 3D LUT (or even without it)? The big win for me is running the 3D LUT to achieve an accurate Rec709 gamut.
SithUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2015, 22:56   #31574  |  Link
Warner306
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SithUK View Post
I am using MPC-HC with madVR and a 3D LUT. I am using a laptop as the source. The laptop has an i5 quad core and ATI 4500 equivalent GPU. I am struggling with video playback FPS. Is there a guide that anyone can suggest that suggest how to increase performance madVR performance with a 3D LUT (or even without it)? The big win for me is running the 3D LUT to achieve an accurate Rec709 gamut.
You need to lower your image scaling settings. I'd start by choosing a lower-quality chroma upscaler such as Bicubic because the difference can be neglible with most sources. Then I'd use image upscaling such as Lanczos3 or lower. Lastly, turn off debanding and any other extra processing. If still over the average rendering queue, start experimenting with the " Trade quality for performance" checkboxes.
Warner306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2015, 02:38   #31575  |  Link
har3inger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 139
I would actually start first with the trade quality for performance stuff. A better image upscaler or smooth motion on is more noticeable than madvr doing math in 10 bit instead of 16 bit. The setting to toggle 10 bit buffers gives quite a bit of performance for its negligible tradeoff.
har3inger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2015, 02:51   #31576  |  Link
seiyafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 161
I think ATI 4500 has a performance similar to HD 2000, if that's the case it would have a pretty hard time doing anything other than the bare minimum.
seiyafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2015, 08:53   #31577  |  Link
SithUK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by seiyafan View Post
I think ATI 4500 has a performance similar to HD 2000, if that's the case it would have a pretty hard time doing anything other than the bare minimum.
I've had a look and the Ati 540v that I have is basically a mobility hd 4550. Userbenchmark.com has it as comparable to an Intel hd2000.

Should I try selecting all the tick boxes in the trade performance for quality section? The default install has the first half of the options selected already.

The default chroma, up scaling, and down scaling options are already as suggested above. (Bicubic and lanczos)

I tried adjusting the 3d lut bit rate option on the trade performance for quality page to the lowest value of 6. I still had stuttering playback.

Is there anyway to divert the load from the gpu to the cpu?my processor is showing max 6%, and that is likely for only one of the 4 cores.

Is my hope of using a 3d lut with this laptop realistic? (Cpu is i5 m450 @ 2.4Ghz, 4Gb ram, Ati 540v gfx)

Last edited by SithUK; 8th July 2015 at 08:59.
SithUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2015, 09:06   #31578  |  Link
Ver Greeneyes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by SithUK View Post
Is there anyway to divert the load from the gpu to the cpu?my processor is showing max 6%, and that is likely for only one of the 4 cores.
Is the decoding being done on the GPU? If you're using the LAV filters (through MPC-HC or otherwise), check the Hardware Acceleration section in the video decoder settings.
Ver Greeneyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2015, 09:59   #31579  |  Link
SithUK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ver Greeneyes View Post
Is the decoding being done on the GPU? If you're using the LAV filters (through MPC-HC or otherwise), check the Hardware Acceleration section in the video decoder settings.
Mpc-hc
Lav filter video settings
Hardware acceleration is using Dxva2 (native)

Even if I set the option to none, would it transfer the madvr 3d lut related processing off my gpu?
SithUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2015, 10:15   #31580  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 9,768
CPUs are incredibly bad at video processing (or maybe more accurate, GPUs are extremely good at it), so any video processing on the CPU would be extremely inefficient.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.