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 19th July 2017, 07:31   #1941  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwdevel View Post
Hmm. It looks like the latest Nvidia drivers are far better than the previous ones- I've edited again my my 29th June 2017, 18:52 forum entry with new benchmarks for the 384.76 drivers.

I think that is the only change to the June29 setup.

The new benchmarks seem 50% faster. I think everyone with a Pascal benchmark should re-do them with 384.76 to ensure there is not something strange in my setup
Now that the driver is tuned enough and your results look close to 1050/1050 Ti, I suggest you to download everything from here:
ftp://helpedia.com/pub/multimedia/te...ecoders_clips/

and test them with latest LAV x64 filters and DXVA Checker in both decode and playback mode of 1280x720 scaling in order to put your results here in the table:
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.p...99#post1799099
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2017, 12:31   #1942  |  Link
clsid
*****
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,642
What is the current state of decoding on AMD GPUs with recent drivers? Does HEVC work properly now? Have the interlaced video problems been fixed?
clsid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2017, 12:45   #1943  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
You can take a look at my links regarding performance of HW decoding on both H.264 & H.265.

It is more than fast enough for anything meaningful e.g Blu-ray UHD (not corner cases like 8K)

HEVC never had a problem using Polaris card, although it was a little bit on the edge regarding performance.

But not anymore, new drivers solved that "problem".

Now, regarding H.264 interlaced content, my last test using latest drivers for AMD, Nvidia, Intel and latest LAV x64 filters gave me a little surprise.

AMD has now exactly the same behavior like Nvidia and Intel.

So, H.264 interlaced is definitely fixed too.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2017, 13:07   #1944  |  Link
clsid
*****
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,642
Good news. Thanks. Since which driver version has the performance increased? 17.4 or later?
clsid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2017, 13:10   #1945  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
Yes, around there 17.4.x
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2017, 21:49   #1946  |  Link
edwdevel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: New York City
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
HEVC and VP9 are in a similar efficiency range, you won't get any significant savings from using HEVC over VP9 - if any at all.
Please understand I am not interested at all in proving HEVC is better than VP9 or vice versa. I was under the impression, from basic scientific consensus, that in encoding efficiency HEVC produces about half the bit rate of VP9 for videos at the 4k level. Just google "HEVC vs VP9 efficiency" for many papers that show this. Here is one:

http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/...3_preprint.pdf

But, as I've been shown a 4k video that is encoded under both HEVC and VP9, I will undertake to look at both and report back
edwdevel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2017, 21:58   #1947  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
it's from 2013 and the used encoder plays a major if not the most important role for compression.

what so ever in term of compression potential VP9 and HEVC are not far apart.
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2017, 23:05   #1948  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 10,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwdevel View Post
Please understand I am not interested at all in proving HEVC is better than VP9 or vice versa. I was under the impression, from basic scientific consensus, that in encoding efficiency HEVC produces about half the bit rate of VP9 for videos at the 4k level. Just google "HEVC vs VP9 efficiency" for many papers that show this. Here is one:

http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/...3_preprint.pdf
That paper uses PSNR to measure video. That might be "scientific", but its not any way to actually measure video quality accurately (which in itself is not something thats really "solved", but PSNR is one of the worse things to use). Early HEVC encoders achieved good PSNR by creating blury video, which was very obvious to any human viewer, but rated quite well in PSNR tests.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders
nevcairiel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2017, 04:59   #1949  |  Link
littleD
Registered User
 
littleD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 343
dxva output with newest intel drivers
Attached Images
 
littleD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2017, 11:12   #1950  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
Regarding VP9 hybrid & pure acceleration support of browsers using Youtube

Well, it seems that I managed to come up to some conclusions regarding VP9 acceleration (hybrid or pure fixed-function) of the three well known browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge) using Youtube on different hardware.

First of all VP9 acceleration is supported by all three nowadays and it definitely works on recent hardware supporting fixed-function VP9 acceleration like Kabylake for Intel and 950/960 for Nvidia, along with all Nvidia Pascal cards of course.

Some browsers could have problems with 8K VP9 acceleration though, but that's a very new and extremely high resolution option of Youtube streams, added lately.

The other fact is that for Chrome and Chromium based browsers you need a very recent Win OS, which is Windows 10 RS1 (Anniversary Update with a release on August 2016) or later according to this:

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium...ws/qSePjavyJsU

The first official stable Chrome version supporting VP9 acceleration is v54, released after Anniversary Update on November 2016.

Now, Edge as we know is a Windows 10-only browser so obviously you need a Windows 10 OS and Edge enabled VP9 acceleration in Windows Insider builds before Anniversary Update, but the first stable Edge version supporting VP9 acceleration is inside Windows 10 RS1 (Anniversary Update) according to this:

https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/...SA3aIvOpy38.97

I don't know when exactly Firefox enabled in stable releases the VP9 acceleration and what are its Win OS requirements, but it seems that using Windows 10 and latest versions like v55, it works.

VP9 hybrid acceleration was firstly supported by Intel iGPUs like Broadwell and Skylake and AMD added that functionality officially on December 2016 inside Crimson 16.12.1 drivers only for Chrome:
Quote:
VP9 Decode Acceleration: 4K 60Hz GPU-Accelerated Video Streaming enabled on supported Google™ Chrome web browsers.

Requires supported Chrome™ web browser versions with Hardware Acceleration enabled.
Compatible with AMD Radeon™ GCN and Radeon RX 400 series enabled products on Windows® 7/8.1/10.
It says Windows 7/8.1 but as I told you that is wrong according to my sources.

Also, as I read, it's an OpenCL based solution not only for RX 400/RX 500 series but some previous generations, too.

The first driver didn't enable the VP9 hybrid acceleration by default and the second driver 16.12.2, fixed that according to AMD.
Quote:
Fixed Issues

Chromium may fail to utilize hybrid decode for VP9 content.
The truth is that Chrome never enabled by default the VP9 hybrid acceleration for Polaris cards.

You have to force enable it using this switch:

chrome.exe --enable-accelerated-vpx-decode=2

The reason is probably low performance.

But for Intel and CPUs prior to Kabylake, things are even worse.

All of the VP9 hybrid acceleration capable CPUs, like Broadwell and Skylake, are not allowed to use VP9 hardware decoding of Chrome according to this patch:

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium...ws/BghP-1eqyhg

I have no idea regarding Edge and Firefox support of Intel's hybrid VP9 acceleration.

For Polaris cards, the actual use of that somewhat crippled VP9 hybrid decoder, lasted only 4 months between the first driver support and Windows 10 Creators Update which broke VP9 acceleration.

So, for that reason, I have opened a thread in AMD forums for anyone interested to read and contribute to the common effort of an actual fix - if possible - of VP9 hybrid acceleration.

You can read and write your comments here:
https://community.amd.com/thread/218278

I have a Core i5 2400 right now with a RX 470/8GB card and a real 50Mbps VDSL2 (FTTC) line, testing 4K60 fps clips and I think AMD should have kept its promise of offering VP9 4K60fps support using Polaris cards.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all

Last edited by NikosD; 22nd July 2017 at 11:20.
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2017, 12:17   #1951  |  Link
peca89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 7
Hello,

I'm following this forum for a month now and I didn't find definitive answer if a new GT 1030 would be adequate upgrade for my years old HTPC. It will be connected directly to 4K HDR TV using HDMI.
  • Can it upscale 1080p60 and output 2160p60 using EVR? Can it do it using madVR?
  • Can it decode AVC/HEVC/VP9 2160p60 SDR and output 2160p60 SDR? EVR or madVR?
  • Can it decode AVC/HEVC/VP9 2160p60 HDR and just pass it through to a HDR compatible TV, therefore skipping resource-hungry 4K scaling and HDR<->SDR conversion?
peca89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2017, 12:22   #1952  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
All these are good questions, but I'm afraid GT 1030 is not so popular so the one and only owner appeared here has declared that he doesn't own a 4K display.

We must find a combination of 1030 using a 4K display, which could be rare considering low GPU power of the card and only 2GB VRAM.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2017, 13:58   #1953  |  Link
jmonier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 187
Based on my limited experience with a GTX1060 3gb, I would say there's no chance. In all these cases, memory usage was well above 2 gb and seemed to be pushing the limits for both memory and performance. I'm going to a GTX1070 as a result.
jmonier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2017, 19:48   #1954  |  Link
v0lt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,959
@NikosD
2 GB is enough to play 4k video. Of course, you can specially tweak the settings, but this is not an indication that the video card is bad.
v0lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2017, 20:03   #1955  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
The problem could be the output of 4K not the decoding and then downscaling to 1080p.

I don't have a 4K display, but seems strange that Nvidia has set the requirement to >3GB for 4K Netflix playback, if 2GB could be enough.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2017, 20:04   #1956  |  Link
huhn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,903
while it is possible to playback UHD videos at UHD with 2GB Vram you are really pushing it.

i was using a 960 with 2Gb for sometime doing this just opening a web browser was pushing it over the limited for me.

cutting corners by using 8 bit buffers like mpc-BE may help in term of Vram usages but that doesn't mean everyone is unable to see the banding...
huhn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2017, 23:02   #1957  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
Good news!
It seems that latest Chrome Canary v62 (x64) works like a charm using VP9 hybrid acceleration of a Polaris card and Creators Update!

Firstly, like plain Chrome v59 (x64) it recognizes out of the box VP9 Youtube content but it doesn't enable by default the hybrid VP9 acceleration.

BUT if you force enable VP9 acceleration using the --enable-accelerated-vpx-decode=2 switch, you see no stuttering in the video decoding and it has a minimal frame dropping of just 35 frames during the whole duration of the very difficult 4K60 fps Youtube clip posted above.

The GPU load works exactly like Chrome, but without stuttering and you see the GPU and memory clocks going to the highest levels.
The CPU usage is around ~50% on average.

So, it seems that AMD's VP9 hybrid acceleration works, at least on one Chromium based browser and force enabled.

Of course Canary has some strange behavior as an experimenting browser, so we definitely need a more stable overall browser like Chrome to implement correctly the VP9 hybrid acceleration.
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2017, 01:40   #1958  |  Link
wanezhiling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,184
https://techreport.com/news/31627/am...pport-on-linux
The UVD 7.0 decoder and Video Coding Engine 4.0 encoder are reported to be included in the upcoming Vega based GPUs.
Hope AMD could catch GM206 now..
wanezhiling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2017, 04:28   #1959  |  Link
v0lt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,959
@NikosD
Netflix wrote a complete nonsense. "GTX 1050 (not Ti) with 3 GB of video memory".
v0lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2017, 05:23   #1960  |  Link
NikosD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,901
No. It was not Netflix.

I told you what Nvidia wrote in their requirements.

>3GB VRAM
__________________
Win 10 x64 (19042.572) - Core i5-2400 - Radeon RX 470 (20.10.1)
HEVC decoding benchmarks
H.264 DXVA Benchmarks for all
NikosD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 13:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.