4 ms·
"AVC transcoding at 30 FPS" sounds a lot less useful than what you can get from an NVIDIA consumer or Quadro card via NVENC. Very weird, and multiple Xeons does
by darknoon 6y ago
"AVC transcoding at 30 FPS" sounds a lot less useful than what you can get from an NVIDIA consumer or Quadro card via NVENC. Very weird, and multiple Xeons doesn't sound cheap.
Am I misunderstanding the product?
I know Intel is coming out with a discrete GPU, which will probably have plenty of video encode hardware to compete with NVIDIA (esp since game streaming at 4K is quite popular).
- dogma1138 6y agoIt can do 40+ 1080p streams in real time per “card” and Intel provides the software.
- Lammy 6y agoGamers everywhere wish you wouldn't consider 30FPS "real time" :)
- celeritascelery 6y agoThis wasn’t for gaming
- cosmotic 6y agoRegardless, calling 30 FPS real-time is still pretty misleading.
- kn0where 6y ago“Real-time” has nothing to do with frame rate and everything to do with latency and simultaneous throughput.
- dogma1138 6y agoIt’s not it can transcode upto 44 streams of 1080p@30fps in real time as in there is effectively no delay which makes it suitable for broadcasting live video. Real time means that there is no delay between frames going in and going out.
- Lammy 6y ago> Real time means that there is no delay between frames going in and going out. As long as you don't put in a >30FPS source. This mindset seems prevalent throughout the modern broadcast industry, as evidenced by most modern "web" releases of old TV shows being in 30FPS progressive with the misunderstanding that it's somehow equivalent to 60i despite throwing away half the motion information found in the interlaced fields. Take an old Simpsons (or whatever) DVD, run an episode through QTGMC to get 60 progressive frames, and compare it to the same episode on a streaming service. You'll see what I mean.
- dogma1138 6y agoThat has nothing to do with anything discussed here there is no hard frame limit you can do 240fps if you want you just cut your number of maximum streams.
- cosmotic 6y agoEach card has 3 E3-1585L CPUs, each with 4 cores (8 threads). Intel's white paper (https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/cloud-computing-quicksync-video-ffmpeg-white-paper.pdf https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents...) says up to 12 per CPU. The card uses 235W. A consumer security DVR can record 16 channels at for $100. I found a TI chip from 2011 that could encode 6 streams at 1080p30, about 10W for $100. The biggest advantage I see, as you pointed out, is the fact intel did all the software work and it's practically drop in.
- dogma1138 6y agoQuality is a big factor especially for broadcast bitrates, QuickSync has superb quality even at low bitrates better than even Turing NVENC which is top notch and much much better than Pascal. I doubt the Texas Instruments chip you found can do transcoding, it probably can only encode/decode. 44 streams of 1080p30 for h264 to h264, ofc you can select any resolution and frame rate you like. https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/product-briefs/vca-2-visual-compute-accelerator-product-brief.pdf https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents...
- wmf 6y agoThis card is old (maybe Quick Sync was better than NVENC in those days) and Intel will always recommend their own chips over a competitor.