4 ms·
> GPU progress is astonishing, at least when compared with CPU progress. I have a dual xeon rig with sixteen cores that I used to use for video transcoding. It
by johnvanommen 8y ago
> GPU progress is astonishing, at least when compared with CPU progress.
I have a dual xeon rig with sixteen cores that I used to use for video transcoding. It could transcode a movie in about 12 hours.
I read that a cheap Nvidia GPU could do the job in less than 30 minutes. It seemed way too good to be true, but I figured I'd spend $120 to find out.
It turned out the hype was wrong; it didn't take 30 minutes to do what sixteen Xeons spent 12 hours doing, it took fifteen minutes.
Unreal.
- namibj 8y agoEhm, if your server runs a reasonable modern x264, you should get significantly lower bandwidth at "transparent" quality compared to what the GPU's hardware encoders is even capable of reaching. The reason there being that the hardware encoder can't use some features x264 implements sufficiently fast to make them worthwhile to use at that sort of time investment. Please don't try to measure lossy-anything-calculation by speed alone, always make sure that the required quality can even be reached, and even if, that it still exhibits the performance benefits, even after you tune these features up far enough.
- rasz 8y agoNVENC is great for streaming, or archiving at 50-100Mbit, but at reasonable bitrate quality goes out the window. Same goes for Intel encoder.