NVidia GPU encode performance differences

[kabelbrand]

Hi,

as I understand the encode engine is separate from the CUDA engine so the CUDA core count does not seem to be a (huge) factor.
I suspect there is no big performance difference within a GPU generation and only depends on the number of NVENC, see here.
So in theory a Quadro P5000 would be twice as fast as a P4000 and a P2000 would still be as fast as a P4000!?

I am wondering how GPU generations differ in encoding speed, e.g. K2000 vs. M2000 vs. P2000 or P4000 vs. RTX4000.
Does the number of streams per NVENC roughly translate into fractions of real time for a single stream?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thank you.

[Selur]

Don't own any card which multiple encoder (NVENC) chips, but I thought that 'the number of encoders' * 'the number of parallel encodings' would be the number of streams you can encode in parallel with that card,....
(Total # of NVENC) * (Max # of concurrent sessions) = 'number of streams that can be encoded in parallel'

Never thought that multiple chips could be used to speed up the encoding of a single stream,...

[nevcairiel]

I would be surprised if single-stream encoding performance increases on those cards with multiple NVENC engines, but since they are rather expensive, I can't really confirm or deny it officially. Single Stream encoding is already quite fast even on consumer GeForce cards though.

The generation of the card certainly matters however - even more so in quality then speed however. Turing for example made pretty big leaps in quality.

[FranceBB]

@kabelbrand... don't bother, I have an NVIDIA Quadro M4000 but I don't use it to encode 'cause the quality of the resulting encode is not suitable for production as it falls way behind CPU encoding on SSIM/PSNR tests. I use it to scroll the timeline of my NLE smoothly and sometimes with OpenCl when I have to encode in x264, that's all.
For everything else, there's CPU only encoding.

[kabelbrand]

Thank you guys.

Yes, it would not make sense if encoding a single stream uses more than one NVENC. When testing with large Quicktime and MXF files I noticed the limiting factor was not the GPU but I/O and audio encoding so a single NVENC will be sufficient.

In terms of quality I guess using the latest generation is the way to go. And even if I don't aim for quality in my current scenario it doesn't hurt if it's the best possible quality at a given bitrate.

A few years back I did some tests with a Kepler card and wasn't very impressed with the encode quality but the Pascal card I recently used performed much better in terms of quality.

So the Quadro P2000 seems to be the obvious budget choice here and the RTX4000 the encode quality pick. I guess NVidia will also introduce entry level Turing Quadro cards later on.

[Asmodian]

Unfortunately a recently released low end Turing, the 1650, has the older Volta generation NVENC with quality more similar to Pascal's. You have to be pretty careful when buying a GPU for its NVENC generation.

Edit: Why do you only discuss Quadros for encoding? Wouldn't a 1660 Ti be the budget choice? Do you need lots of concurrent sessions? That seems to be the only difference for single NVENC chip Quadros, with Geforce limited to 2 sessions while Quadros can run as many at once as you want. Curiously none of the RTX cards have multiple NVENC chips.

[nevcairiel]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

Unfortunately a recently released low end Turing, the 1650, has the older Volta generation NVENC with quality more similar to Pascal's. You have to be pretty careful when buying a GPU for its NVENC generation.

Wow, wonder what sort of recycling is going on there. Good that I was impatient and got a 1660 a few weeks ago instead of waiting for the 1650.

Regarding concurrent sessions, that is purely a driver limitation. The implication being that if one is crafty enough, it can be lifted....

[kabelbrand]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

Why do you only discuss Quadros for encoding? Wouldn't a 1660 Ti be the budget choice?

The GTX 1660 is a good choice indeed but my interest in single session performance is more out of curiousity and a 2 session limit would heavily restrict use cases.
Messing around with drivers or firmware is not an option either. Also I'd prefer a single slot card since this is supposed to go into a 1U 19" enclosure.

[kabelbrand]

https://docs.nvidia.com/video-techno...nc-performance

[Asmodian]

It is really interesting that Ampere and Turing dropped interlaced H.264 encoding. The only "N" in that column.

I am happy to see the disappearance of interlaced video but I am surprised that it was worth removing from the new chip.

[Sharc]

Originally Posted by Asmodian

It is really interesting that Ampere and Turing dropped interlaced H.264 encoding. The only "N" in that column.

I am happy to see the disappearance of interlaced video but I am surprised that it was worth removing from the new chip.

Why happy? Blu-ray compliance requires 'interlaced' for 25 and 29.97fps.
Fake-interlaced is not possible in all cases.

[Asmodian]

I took Nvidia dropping support for interlaced video as a sign that interlacing was on its way out, and I was happy about that. No new video created today should be interlaced. Like chroma subsampling, interlaced video is a bad hack to reduce the bandwidth required. We should have stopped using it long before we did.

There is always some pain when dropping an old standard but interlaced video is bad enough that it would take a lot more pain than worry about fake interlaced for bluray compatibility not being possible in some cases for me to think supporting interlaced video is still important.

In the worst case software encoding for interlaced H.264 is pretty fast.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

I would be surprised if single-stream encoding performance increases on those cards with multiple NVENC engines, but since they are rather expensive, I can't really confirm or deny it officially.

That's validated here. Interesting that some GPUs have multiple NVENC modules: https://docs.nvidia.com/video-techno...nc-performance

While Kepler and first-generation Maxwell GPUs had one NVENC engine per chip, certain variants of the second-generation Maxwell, Pascal and Volta GPUs have two/three NVENC engines per chip. This increases the aggregate encoder performance of the GPU. NVIDIA driver takes care of load balancing among multiple NVENC engines on the chip, so that applications don’t require any special code to take advantage of multiple encoders and automatically benefit from higher encoder capacity on higher-end GPU hardware. The encode performance listed in Table 3 is given per NVENC engine. Thus, if the GPU has 2 NVENCs (e.g. GP104, GM204), multiply the corresponding number in Table 3 by the number of NVENCs per chip to get aggregate maximum performance (applicable only when running multiple simultaneous encode sessions). Note that performance with single encoding session cannot exceed performance per NVENC, regardless of the number of NVENCs present on the GPU.

I imagine the scenario is for things like recording game activity and webcam simultaneously, or perhaps encoding multiple bitrates at once for adaptive streaming.

[Blue_MiSfit]

I took Nvidia dropping support for interlaced video as a sign that interlacing was on its way out

Not in broadcast, it's not. The vast majority of linear HDTV networks are 1080i, and that's not changing any time soon. Heck, there's still TONS of SDTV networks.

Many facilities have large production switchers and baseband routers that are 1.5 Gbps HD-SDI, so even going to 1080p is totally unthinkable without rebuilding the whole facility.

Only newer facilities have 3G-SDI or faster for their baseband.

Interlacing is here to stay

[Emulgator]

I am happy to see the disappearance of interlaced video

Why happy? Blu-ray compliance requires 'interlaced' for 25 and 29.97fps.

And not only that.
A codec/encoder which can not accommodate yesterday's formats would be unfit for archival.
This would affect millions of hours of recorded material, BTW.

Not being able to read cuneiform: No entrance to library ;-)

rantilein start
Why authorities back the in D1 times had opted to save an interlaced picture as one frame, not as two consecutive fields will always look like a sore thumb to me.
DCT HF coefficients wasted, motion analysis complicated and with the advent of 4:2:0 chroma destroyed. What a sabotage.
HEVC starts to simply treat interlaced just the abovementioned way and demands that reinterlacing be done after decoding fields at rendering. Oh well.
rantilein end

[nevcairiel]

If you do long-term quality archiving with a GPU encoder, you are doing it very wrong anyway. The only category in which they win is speed, most suitably for real-time processing, not archival.

[zub35]

nevcairiel or fast-lossless where the final size is not so critical.

[Asmodian]

Why are you re-encoding this interlaced video archive though? I assume any interlaced video you are planning to feed a NVENC chip is already encoded as something. If fast and dirty interlaced encoding is OK why not save some time and keep the original video? For the vast majority of customers interlaced video encoding in the hardware is a waste of transistors and dev time.

I do VHS archival and I still capture new tapes but I capture to MagicYUV. For archival I keep it as interlaced H.264, using very slow software encoding. I don't think hardware should worry about archival video, its use case is real time video encoding. As improved as hardware encoding is I still cannot countenance its use for archival.

[excellentswordfight]

Best use case I can think of is doing hw-encodes of broadcast DI formats, e.g. AVC-I/XAVC 1080i which is still rather popular. We also still have distribution and contribution encoding that use interlaced AVC that needs to be encoded in realtime, were nvenc could be used as a platform.

Originally Posted by Asmodian

Why are you re-encoding this interlaced video archive though? I assume any interlaced video you are planning to feed a NVENC chip is already encoded as something.

Realtime ingest is a thing though, and there are AVC-based DI/mezzanine formats that are in fact very much in use. But I dont think i've seen any nvenc based encoder that produce those formats, but cards like Matrox M264 does exist for a reason.

But I think that the biggest market for nvenc is realtime live streaming (with customers like AWS/Elemental), and game streaming, and thats pretty much exclusively progressive, so I guess thats why they are dropping it.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by excellentswordfight

But I think that the biggest market for nvenc is realtime live streaming (with customers like AWS/Elemental), and game streaming, and thats pretty much exclusively progressive, so I guess thats why they are dropping it.

Yeah, the real limitation is the lack of interlaced support in decoders. Generations of mobile devices shipped with progressive-only decode, so interlaced encodes are largely only delivered as broadcast to set top boxes and TV tuners.

And in my Gen X generation of streaming video engineers, interlaced has been a huge pain point for us for decades, so we tend to avoid using it at all costs. Interlaced was always a Boomer legacy thing, like Drop Frame timecode.

Interlaced almost got dropped back in ATSC 1.0, and that would have been a much better timeline to live in. At least there's no interlaced UHD. And H.264 was the last codec mainstream codec to have interlaced be treated as a first-class citizen with a well-tuned MBAFF.

A good 1080i30->1080p60 conversion can look great, is much more compatible, isn't reliant on client-side deinterlacer implementation. and takes maybe 20% more bits max in HEVC last I tested. Heck, in most cases the total experience is probably better in 1080p60 than 1080i30 at the same bitrate. Some more encoding artifacts can be better than deinterlacing artifacts.