3 ms·
That makes sense, you're MBP has a pretty decent GPU to do that.
by holstvoogd 7y ago
That makes sense, you're MBP has a pretty decent GPU to do that.
- Youden 7y agoThe quality of the GPU usually has no impact on video encoding. At best, you can use a hardware encoder that happens to come with the GPU but usually you won't want that because it comes with a compression hit compared to software.
- gambiting 7y agoIt looks like you're getting downvoted and I'm not sure why - most encoding that I do is CPU-only, GPU encoding only works for a very limited set of codecs at a limited range of presets. If you need to encode anything other than those presets CPU it is.
- ttkari 7y agoDoes this compression hit you mention also apply to encoders that use for example CUDA on Nvidia GPUs? With these there definitely are significant differences in encoding speed between different GPUs.
- Youden 7y agoThere's no reason that using CUDA inherently leads to inferior compression but I'm not aware of a CUDA-accelerated encoder that's any good relative to a pure software encoder (or even NVENC, the pure hardware encoder on an NVIDIA GPU).
- FullyFunctional 7y agoWell, it's not that simple. The CUDA model has a inherent penalty for divergent thread behavior, that is, when all threads do the same, peak performance is attained. If they all follow a different path, the result can be disastrous. The relevance to media encoding is that the higher profiles do a lot of data dependent special casing. It's no accident that the earliest CUDA Video codecs only handled the base profile. This also hurts a CPU implementation but much less.