madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[Damien147]

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?

[ashlar42]

Originally Posted by Anima123

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.

[huhn]

Originally Posted by robl45

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.

[ryrynz]

Originally Posted by ashlar42

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

Originally Posted by cyberbeing

Shader performance determines 99% of madVR performance

and this

Originally Posted by madshi

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.

[Warner306]

Originally Posted by ryrynz

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?

[robl45]

Originally Posted by huhn

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.

[Asmodian]

Originally Posted by Warner306

How is shader performance measured? What technical spec outlines this?

FLOPS, and I agree that it seems to indicate madVR performance quite accurately.

[CarlosCaco]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

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...

[huhn]

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.

[ashlar42]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

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.

[huhn]

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.

[Shiandow]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

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.

[Asmodian]

Originally Posted by Shiandow

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.

[Shiandow]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

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.

[AngelGraves13]

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...

[Asmodian]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

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.

[huhn]

with a GPU buffer of 16 i get more than 3Gb VRAM usages.

[Asmodian]

Originally Posted by huhn

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.

[AngelGraves13]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

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.

[huhn]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

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.