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 18th October 2016, 13:03   #39761  |  Link
Damien147
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 273
When I drag the mouse on the seekbar the seekbar blinks,I restored settings but nothing,any idea?


off topic:I've seen some people here using blueskyfrc.Any idea which one is smoothest?BlueskyFrc in mode 2 or svp 4 free?
Damien147 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2016, 16:25   #39762  |  Link
ashlar42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anima123 View Post
Which basic performance item of an GPU is more important for madVR: Texel Rate, Pixel Rate, Memory bandwidth or Single precision performance?

I would like to know if there's enough reason to upgrade my laptop, from my current 880M to the current generation of 1060 for laptop, the two GPU have their own pros and cons in the aforementioned 4 basic performance test items, 1060 outperforms 880M in 3 of them except for Texel Rate.
I would say performance rated in Gflops. But someone more knowledgeable than me will surely give a more precise answer soon.
ashlar42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2016, 16:30   #39763  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by robl45 View Post
Yes, I assumed everyone would know without the colon as I was typing from my phone.

I'm looking for whatever option will just stretch everything to fit my 16:9 screen. Unfortunately stretch to 16:9 stretches everything including actual 16:9 films.
if you stretch a 16/9 movie to 16/9 nothing bad happens.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2016, 21:32   #39764  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashlar42 View Post
I would say performance rated in Gflops. But someone more knowledgeable than me will surely give a more precise answer soon.
I've never seen any in depth comparison between cards besides what was posted recently vs the 1060 and 480. What's been deduced so far is this

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbeing View Post
Shader performance determines 99% of madVR performance
and this

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
If you want to know which GPU to get exactly, my advice has always been the same: Get the faster GPU you can afford and that fits your thermal requirements.
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 01:15   #39765  |  Link
Warner306
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
I've never seen any in depth comparison between cards besides what was posted recently vs the 1060 and 480. What's been deduced so far is this



and this
How is shader performance measured? What technical spec outlines this?
Warner306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 01:33   #39766  |  Link
robl45
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
if you stretch a 16/9 movie to 16/9 nothing bad happens.
You'd think it wouldn't, but the scale to 16:9 option that is in mpc-be and mpc-hc scales the 16:9 movie off the screen.
robl45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 03:00   #39767  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warner306 View Post
How is shader performance measured? What technical spec outlines this?
FLOPS, and I agree that it seems to indicate madVR performance quite accurately.
__________________
madVR options explained
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 10:59   #39768  |  Link
CarlosCaco
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Brasil, SP, São Paulo
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
FLOPS, and I agree that it seems to indicate madVR performance quite accurately.
A little offtopic but maybe you guys can help me... I'm planning to buy a new gpu
Seens the best based on price/performance here in Brasil is a GTX 1060 (I have a GTX 570)
So my questions is:

I m on a i5 2500 and really don t use for game, only for madVR, will cpu bottleneck this card using madVR?

There two versions that have a good price a standard pny version with the clocks from factory and 6gb memory and 1280 Cuda cores and msi gaming x 3gb memory with higher clocks in OC and Gaming mode but with 1152 Cuda cores
On game debate the 3gb shows 96% shader performance vs 100% of 6gb version

In yours opinions what is the best bang for madVR: msi 3gb less memory less Cuda cores but higher clocks or pny standard 6gb more Cuda cores but standar clocks only...
__________________
Desktop, i5 2500, 8GB, N570 GTX TF III PE/OC
Asus X555LF, i7-5500U, 6GB Ram, Nvidia 930m/HD 5500
Windows 8.1 Pro x64
CarlosCaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 12:22   #39769  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,641
for madVr only.

if the card with higher Gflops is still the better card for madVR like in the past than the RX 470/480 4G version with around 5-6 gflops.

if nnedi3 plays a huge rule. i can recommend anything the openCL performance is hard to judge...

for UHD i would avoid the 3g 1060 version. 4Gb should be totally fine.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 13:19   #39770  |  Link
ashlar42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
FLOPS, and I agree that it seems to indicate madVR performance quite accurately.
Ok, so my idea was correct.

If this is the case, there's a huge gap between 1050Ti and 1060.
2.1 Tflops vs 4.4.

RX480 should offer 5.8 Tflops. Is this confirmed by real testing (it being faster than GTX1060 in madVR)?

Note: the above values are calculated from specifications, according to Tech Report.

Edit: I searched for the comparison spreadsheet that was posted here, based on real testing, and no, GTX480 does not seem to confirm the theoretical advantage that it has based on specs.

Last edited by ashlar42; 19th October 2016 at 13:30.
ashlar42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 13:30   #39771  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,641
the first test show it was not the case with polaris.

i just got my RX 480 back and it can easily do nnedi3 64 neuron 24p FHD-> UHD.
but that is mostly openCL.

just wait for the new algo i'm pretty sure people with different hardware will test it.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 14:45   #39772  |  Link
Shiandow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
FLOPS, and I agree that it seems to indicate madVR performance quite accurately.
Keep in mind that FLOPS can only do so much to make things faster; running shaders always has some overhead (reading / writing memory etc.) and for modern GPUs this overhead seems to dominate the computation time for all but the most computation intensive shaders (e.g. NNEDI3).

Case in point, a while back I upgraded my GTX 560Ti to a GTX 960, and while the GTX 960 is definitely faster the difference in FLOPS is far greater than the difference in render times.
Shiandow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 17:47   #39773  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiandow View Post
Keep in mind that FLOPS can only do so much to make things faster; running shaders always has some overhead (reading / writing memory etc.) and for modern GPUs this overhead seems to dominate the computation time for all but the most computation intensive shaders (e.g. NNEDI3).

Case in point, a while back I upgraded my GTX 560Ti to a GTX 960, and while the GTX 960 is definitely faster the difference in FLOPS is far greater than the difference in render times.
I have noticed this too. All the easy shader passes take 0.49ms on my Titan X and this is independent of clock speed and resolution. This means an easy six pass shader, like thin edges, is the same 3 ms on my Titan X as it was on my 980Ti while NNEDI3 256 is much faster on my Titan X.

More FLOPS = Faster in madVR, it isn't 1 to 1 but other aspects don't do much to help madVR at all.
__________________
madVR options explained
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 20:13   #39774  |  Link
Shiandow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
I have noticed this too. All the easy shader passes take 0.49ms on my Titan X and this is independent of clock speed and resolution. This means an easy six pass shader, like thin edges, is the same 3 ms on my Titan X as it was on my 980Ti while NNEDI3 256 is much faster on my Titan X.
Interesting... the 0.5ms per shader pass seems to be pretty universal, I've had similar results on my GTX 560Ti and GTX 960. Not sure what's causing it, it doesn't seem to be just memory bandwidth as reading in more pixels doesn't slow things down much (in a rather extreme case I've had a shader read 1920 pixels per output pixel, that definitely slowed things down but it still worked). I think the number of output pixels has a bigger effect but I haven't checked it thoroughly.

At any rate if it's 0.5ms for every GPU then there's indeed no point in trying to make it faster, so FLOPS are pretty much the only benchmark that will have some effect. Although 2x more FLOPS won't necessarily mean 2x faster rendering.
Shiandow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 23:36   #39775  |  Link
AngelGraves13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 239
VRAM plays a role too when upscaling. My 1080 GTX is a huge upgrade over my 980 GTX.

NNEDI3 at 256 for Chroma still isn't possible, but maybe one day...
AngelGraves13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2016, 23:43   #39776  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelGraves13 View Post
VRAM plays a role too when upscaling. My 1080 GTX is a huge upgrade over my 980 GTX.

NNEDI3 at 256 for Chroma still isn't possible, but maybe one day...
Do you mean VRAM speed or amount? I haven't noticed a change in performance due to VRAM speed myself, and I never need more than 3GB of VRAM even with 4K and large buffer sizes.

Are you sure the improvement isn't simply due to the large increase in FLOPS (4981 v.s. 8873)?

edit: Why would you want NNEDI3 256 for chroma? I can do it but I do not.
__________________
madVR options explained

Last edited by Asmodian; 19th October 2016 at 23:46.
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2016, 00:09   #39777  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,641
with a GPU buffer of 16 i get more than 3Gb VRAM usages.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2016, 00:26   #39778  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhn View Post
with a GPU buffer of 16 i get more than 3Gb VRAM usages.
Relatively larger buffers then, or maybe simply not small buffers, the default of 8 stays under 3GB.

The 980 has 4GB of VRAM anyway, I don't see how the extra 4GB of VRAM on the 1080 helps.
__________________
madVR options explained
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2016, 05:44   #39779  |  Link
AngelGraves13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
Do you mean VRAM speed or amount? I haven't noticed a change in performance due to VRAM speed myself, and I never need more than 3GB of VRAM even with 4K and large buffer sizes.

Are you sure the improvement isn't simply due to the large increase in FLOPS (4981 v.s. 8873)?

edit: Why would you want NNEDI3 256 for chroma? I can do it but I do not.
I'd say VRAM usage. Doubt speed matters much, if at all. It's just better to have more buffer, especially for 4K video, though it will be a few years until we can play back 4K Ultra HD on PC, assuming the copy protection will ever be cracked

I have 128 for CPU, 24 for GPU and 16 for Present.

NNEDI3 128 I can do, but 256 isn't possible on a 1080 GTX. I use Jinc w/ SuperRes 4 for Chroma and Upscaling.
AngelGraves13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2016, 07:50   #39780  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
Relatively larger buffers then, or maybe simply not small buffers, the default of 8 stays under 3GB.

The 980 has 4GB of VRAM anyway, I don't see how the extra 4GB of VRAM on the 1080 helps.
even with GPU buffer of 8 you get close to 3 GB Vram usage.
of cause 8 GB doesn't help but 3 GB is still very limited for UHD. with larger buffer size you simply have no chance with 3GB.
huhn 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 01:36.


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