Neat Video rendering times

[Zorro]

Anyone here who has tested different graphics cards with Neat Video?

Thank you for all infos in advance.

[Bluetongue]

Wow that is a real question
From what I have seen, nvidea GTX works better than a AMD card, but that was a little while ago
Here are a couple of results that surprised me
Both my main system and lap top have the "same" GPU GTX970, the laptop has an "M" version

Project setting 1080 50p
Main system uses 8 cores plus GPU for 4.52 fps
Laptop uses 7 cores plus GPU for 11.8fps

Project setting 1080 50i
Main system uses 9 cores plus GPU for 9.5fps
Laptop uses 7 cores plus GPU for 12.4fps

Surprised me but the main system is getting rather old has 6 core CPU running at 4Ghz, (see signature) while the laptop has a 4 core CPU running at 2.6G - 3.6 turbo
Hope that helps
Barry

[Bassman]

After upgrading my CPU to a 10 core model the performance in Neat Video dramatically improved. I am sure it would be better with a more current GPU but that will have to wait. As stated above, don't forget about the CPU in the equation.

[Zorro]

Thank you for your observations.

I really would like to know:

1. How much faster will a GTX 1080 be compared to a GTX 1060?

2. How many CPU cores are useful?

[Bassman]

I would e-mail Vlad at Neat Video. He would have the best perspective.

[Ron Evans]

I have just got a MSI 1080Ti so have not done lots of tests yet. However anything that uses NVENC or CUDA cores will have 3 times the processing power from the 1080Ti compared to the 1060. That has to have a big effect. I have only tested encoding times for h265 with NVENC with TMPGenc 6 or with x265 on my system. NVENC encode for a 22 min 23G UHD 60P file from my GH5 was 25 mins and the x265 which would just use my i7 4790K estimated 7 hours and 26 mins !!! File size came down to 9G from the 23G which was my reason for trying. On the timeline I compared to the original and that looks good for my purposes. I was looking for a way to archive a nice file rather than keep the original.