5 ms·

The problem with those inexpensive Ryzens is that they don't have iGPUs with Intel QuickSync so they can't transcode video with high efficiency. This makes the

The problem with those inexpensive Ryzens is that they don't have iGPUs with Intel QuickSync so they can't transcode video with high efficiency. This makes them unsuitable for use for media servers, which is what a lot of people are doing with these chips these days: building home NAS/media servers that combine both functions into a single, small, low-power unit. You put a bunch of HDDs in it so you can store tens of terabytes of movies using RAID to protect against drive failures, and run Jellyfin or Plex on it. Plus you can use the box for other regular NAS tasks too, as well as many other convenient applications. Intel chips are virtually required here since AMD chips are useless for transcoding, and require external GPU cards which destroy the system's power efficiency which was one of the main points of getting one of these low-power Intel chips in the first place.

Teever 2y ago
Doesn't AMD make Ryzens that also have iGPUs that work with jellyfin/plex transcoding?
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  From what I've read, the AMD offerings here are not at all competitive with Intel's QuickSync.
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    While Intel QuickSync remains faster in CPUs of the same generation with AMD, the AMD laptop CPUs starting with Phoenix (Ryzen 7440/7540/7640/7840/7940) have made a great jump in the video encoding/decoding speed, exceeding the older Intel CPUs, and they should be suitable for any such application. There are a huge number of models of cheap small NUC-like computers with AMD Phoenix or Hawk Point (Ryzen 8000 series) CPUs.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      Good to know!
the_snooze 2y ago
I run Jellyfin on an 8-year-old Intel NUC. Works great. Don't need to worry about transcoding on the fly because I make sure all video files are in H264 going in, which can be direct-streamed to pretty much all clients. https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/clients/codec-support/#video-compatibility https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/clients/codec-support/#vid...
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Don't need to worry about transcoding on the fly because I make sure all video files are in H264 going in, which can be direct-streamed to pretty much all clients. That doesn't work if you use subtitles. With many formats, the subtitles have to be transcoded on-the-fly into the video, even if the source and destination resolution and codec are the same. Also, the Intel NUC might be fine just running Jellyfin (without transcoded subtitles) using separate file storage, but if you try to combine that with a NAS box running 4-8 drives using ZFS and perhaps a few other services as well, it's probably just not enough.
  - JamesSwift 2y ago
    Subtitles, or bitrate conversion for streaming devices.
  - riobard 2y ago
    Subtitles aren’t transcoded into any video. They’re remuxed into the media container. Totally different.
johnklos 2y ago
Transcoding using hardware acceleration is one of those things that some people insist upon, like wanting "gaming" everything and overclocking everything, but most people don't need. First, the quality of output of hardware accelerated transcoding is in most instances noticeably worse than CPU transcoding, as in most people can discern the difference watching two videos side-by-side. Second, CPU transcoding is more than enough to keep up with most streams. For instance, 1920x1080 h.264 streams can be done in real time by even a modest 4 core processor. People who want 4K h.265 can buy a fancier CPU. Third, most people are served perfectly fine by pre-transcoded files. Your comment about subtitles isn't correct - most streaming devices can accept subtitle metadata, and even if subtitles need to be burned in, they can be burned in to a static file and/or generated in real time by a CPU. What's interesting is that the same people who want Intel Quicksync claim they want to transcode to the best quality that a device can support, then say they don't want to transcode to a static file because they don't want to transcode to a lower resolution / bitrate than what their best device can support, but want to be able to view things at the highest quality wherever they want. They've been tricked, because if they really cared about quality, they'd care about the difference in quality between QuickSync and CPU encoding. That's why I tell people that if the really want highest quality real time transcoding and have sources that are ultra high quality, they'd be much happier with a Ryzen 7900 than with Intel QuickSync. Side-by-side comparisons would bear this out every time.
- JamesSwift 2y ago
  > People who want 4K h.265 can buy a fancier CPU. Or they can just get an N95
  - johnklos 2y ago
    ...and have worse quality, which makes the idea of caring about using real-time transcoding to give the best quality pretty silly.
    - JamesSwift 2y ago
      You are comparing a cpu that (... checks google ...) retails for $368 _by itself_ against one that comes in entire-system-minipcs at $149. Yes, the CPU perf is obviously better. In general HTPCs are setup as: 1) direct play or remux for all the primary usecases 2) optional transcoding The cpu doesnt generally matter for #1. For #2 you are already making tradeoffs so its a bit of a non-argument that "you are losing quality". Its not the primary usecase (either its other users, or streaming on the go).

Teever 2y ago

Doesn't AMD make Ryzens that also have iGPUs that work with jellyfin/plex transcoding?

shiroiushi 2y ago
From what I've read, the AMD offerings here are not at all competitive with Intel's QuickSync.
- adrian_b 2y ago
  While Intel QuickSync remains faster in CPUs of the same generation with AMD, the AMD laptop CPUs starting with Phoenix (Ryzen 7440/7540/7640/7840/7940) have made a great jump in the video encoding/decoding speed, exceeding the older Intel CPUs, and they should be suitable for any such application. There are a huge number of models of cheap small NUC-like computers with AMD Phoenix or Hawk Point (Ryzen 8000 series) CPUs.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Good to know!

the_snooze 2y ago

I run Jellyfin on an 8-year-old Intel NUC. Works great. Don't need to worry about transcoding on the fly because I make sure all video files are in H264 going in, which can be direct-streamed to pretty much all clients. https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/clients/codec-support/#video-compatibility https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/clients/codec-support/#vid...

shiroiushi 2y ago
>Don't need to worry about transcoding on the fly because I make sure all video files are in H264 going in, which can be direct-streamed to pretty much all clients. That doesn't work if you use subtitles. With many formats, the subtitles have to be transcoded on-the-fly into the video, even if the source and destination resolution and codec are the same. Also, the Intel NUC might be fine just running Jellyfin (without transcoded subtitles) using separate file storage, but if you try to combine that with a NAS box running 4-8 drives using ZFS and perhaps a few other services as well, it's probably just not enough.
- JamesSwift 2y ago
  Subtitles, or bitrate conversion for streaming devices.
- riobard 2y ago
  Subtitles aren’t transcoded into any video. They’re remuxed into the media container. Totally different.

johnklos 2y ago

Transcoding using hardware acceleration is one of those things that some people insist upon, like wanting "gaming" everything and overclocking everything, but most people don't need. First, the quality of output of hardware accelerated transcoding is in most instances noticeably worse than CPU transcoding, as in most people can discern the difference watching two videos side-by-side. Second, CPU transcoding is more than enough to keep up with most streams. For instance, 1920x1080 h.264 streams can be done in real time by even a modest 4 core processor. People who want 4K h.265 can buy a fancier CPU. Third, most people are served perfectly fine by pre-transcoded files. Your comment about subtitles isn't correct - most streaming devices can accept subtitle metadata, and even if subtitles need to be burned in, they can be burned in to a static file and/or generated in real time by a CPU. What's interesting is that the same people who want Intel Quicksync claim they want to transcode to the best quality that a device can support, then say they don't want to transcode to a static file because they don't want to transcode to a lower resolution / bitrate than what their best device can support, but want to be able to view things at the highest quality wherever they want. They've been tricked, because if they really cared about quality, they'd care about the difference in quality between QuickSync and CPU encoding. That's why I tell people that if the really want highest quality real time transcoding and have sources that are ultra high quality, they'd be much happier with a Ryzen 7900 than with Intel QuickSync. Side-by-side comparisons would bear this out every time.

JamesSwift 2y ago
> People who want 4K h.265 can buy a fancier CPU. Or they can just get an N95
- johnklos 2y ago
  ...and have worse quality, which makes the idea of caring about using real-time transcoding to give the best quality pretty silly.
  - JamesSwift 2y ago
    You are comparing a cpu that (... checks google ...) retails for $368 _by itself_ against one that comes in entire-system-minipcs at $149. Yes, the CPU perf is obviously better. In general HTPCs are setup as: 1) direct play or remux for all the primary usecases 2) optional transcoding The cpu doesnt generally matter for #1. For #2 you are already making tradeoffs so its a bit of a non-argument that "you are losing quality". Its not the primary usecase (either its other users, or streaming on the go).