Intel i9 and quicksync

zvit · 10-09-2017, 10:10 PM

I don't see i9 in the quicksync list:

https://ark.intel.com/Search/Feature...SyncVideo=true

So i9 doesn't have QS? Even though they have lots of power, will this mean we can't take advantage of the super faster exports in Edius with i9?

zvit · 10-10-2017, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by More4K

Nope, but with x264 (over Tmpeg plugin) you should be able to match QS speed for it's quality.

So would you say that the following would be the correct order of render time, 1 being the fastest and 3 being the slowest:

1. Exporting with i9-7920X witout QS - but with TmpGenc plugin
2. Exporting with i7-7700K (with quick sync)
3. Exporting with i9-7920X without QS and without plugin.

hotte · 10-10-2017, 06:12 PM

Quicksync h264 export on an i7-7700K is a about realtime (with moderate filtering applied and no transitions). That means a 40s clip is being rendered h264 in about 40s, which is extremly fast. Haven't checked it yet, but it is said that quality is limited.

So why care about quicksync ? For me it the fast timeline playback as it helps the CPU to decode h.264 material - especially in 4K. I am not sure if this is the case with TMpeg. At the end of the day it depends what you are looking for.

zvit · 10-10-2017, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotte

Quicksync h264 export on an i7-7700K is a about realtime (with moderate filtering applied and no transitions). That means a 40s clip is being rendered h264 in about 40s, which is extremly fast. Haven't checked it yet, but it is said that quality is limited.

So why care about quicksync ? For me it the fast timeline playback as it helps the CPU to decode h.264 material - especially in 4K. I am not sure if this is the case with TMpeg. At the end of the day it depends what you are looking for.

First, if you're getting 40s export with QS, it will be 3-4 times slower without QS and that's why QS matters.

Second, if your getting real time export with QS, than something is wrong with your system. I export 40s of video in 6-7 seconds which is like 3 times faster than real time. That's the power of QS.

hotte · 10-10-2017, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zvit

I export 40s of video in 6-7 seconds which is like 3 times faster than real time. That's the power of QS.

Hmmm. Are you talking about 4K or FHD export ? I forgot to add it was 4K figures.

In export dialog I have the "use hardware" checkbox. If QS is not working though, than there is either a problem in Edius or in the Intel graphics driver or in both (I tried all 5 available drivers).

If you edit 4K I would be greatly interested in your timeline playback speed. I can play 2 4K-clips-transitions without buffer underrun and moderate filtering, but not 3.

zvit · 10-10-2017, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotte

Hmmm. Are you talking about 4K or FHD export ? I forgot to add it was 4K figures.

In export dialog I have the "use hardware" checkbox. If QS is not working though, than there is either a problem in Edius or in the Intel graphics driver or in both (I tried all 5 available drivers).

If you edit 4K I would be greatly interested in your timeline playback speed. I can play 2 4K-clips-transitions without buffer underrun and moderate filtering, but not 3.

Something IS working or else it would export 3-4 times slower than real time.
I haven't exported 4k in quite a while but I'll test it tomorrow. Maybe 4K IS realtime with QS. Even so, it still makes QT 3-4 times faster at export so it's important to have. So if I'm getting a CPU without QS, the plugin would need to help.

hotte · 10-10-2017, 10:06 PM

I just checked a Full HD export, 8 bit, 25p, lanczos3 with two filters applied (color correction and YUV), so a very basic setup.

Input: 25p non-interlaced video in 1920x1080 m2ts Canon in h.264
>>> 40s of video was exported to h.264/mp4 via quicksync at 15-27 Mbs variable / normal within incredible 5 seconds. CPU load was around 80%. I assume the CPU had to deal with the two filters, whereas the iGPU did the decoding and encoding.
>>> The same with hardware support flag unchecked needed 18 seconds, CPU load was around 65%

4K-Project of 40s with the two filters applied, 8 bit, 29.97p, lanczos
Input: 4K video 29.97p h.264 Panasonic > Output 4K at 50-102 Mbs variable / normal: >>> 24s with QS >>> 77s without QS
The above as 1920x1080 output variable 15-27 Mbs: >>> 17s with QS >>> 28s without QS

It's interesting that with 1920x1080 outputs the CPU goes to the limits, with 4K it stays around 65%. So there seems to be more unused multicore potential with 4K encoding than with FHD.

My machine is I7-7700k @4.9 GHz, with DDR4-3.200.

I very much look forward to your results of playing back 4k footage.

zvit · 10-11-2017, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotte

I very much look forward to your results of playing back 4k footage.

Export 1min 4K footage to 2K from 4K project.
Project settings, File info and export settings in Screenshots.
with QS: 8:41 min.

From 2K project file:
with QS: 35 seconds.

Ron Evans · 10-11-2017, 04:07 PM

Just did a quick test on my system. 1 min of UHD 60P from my FDR-AX1

In a UHD project at 23.97 ( since I wanted to go to a Bluray preset since my outputs are either DVD or Bluray) exporting with QS took 55 sec. So encode had to go from 60P to 24P too.

In a 1920x1080 interlace project same UHD 60P file took 45 sec for a 60i Bluray preset. With hardware acceleration OFF time was 1 min 20 sec.

For comparison a 1 min file from the AX100 shooting XAVC-S 1920x1080 60P in the same 1920x1080 interlace project exported in 18 sec. With QS OFF this took 45sec. Taken from the same point in the dance show so the content was the same. Group dance so lots of movement and coloured lights.

As you can see when I was shooting all HD then QS for a 2 hour show is a real time saver as well as editing on the timeline. However now that more of my output comes from the GH5 and AX1 at UHD 60P in an interlace project the savings are not as great as maybe a much faster processor. Hence my dithering over what to move to next.

hotte · 10-11-2017, 05:56 PM

Ron, Zvit thanks for your figures. As far as I can see everybody benefits a lot from QS, except for the 4K export of Zvit which seems pretty long with more than 8 minutes ?

My Kaby-lake seems to hold an edge, but nothing to worry about. We all know, that Intel has not been very innovative in the last years.

What I am really interested much more is: How about unrendered playback performance of UHD ?

2 UHD clips with 29.97p with color correction and stabilizer applied play smoothly on the timeline. Adding a 3rd clip in a pip-arrangement will let the buffer run out after a couple of seconds. 10bit is a killer: Not even 2 clips will play well together. What are your experiences ?

10-09-2017, 10:10 PM	#1
zvit Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Israel Posts: 2,158	Intel i9 and quicksync I don't see i9 in the quicksync list: https://ark.intel.com/Search/Feature...SyncVideo=true So i9 doesn't have QS? Even though they have lots of power, will this mean we can't take advantage of the super faster exports in Edius with i9? __________________ Gigabyte Z77X-UP4 TH, Intel Core i7 3770k 3.5GHz, 4 Core, 8 Threads, 32GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 2GB, 500GB SSD HDD for OS, 40TB Usable Hard Drive Capacity, Window 10 PRO 64-bit Edius 9.5 WORKSTATION...

10-10-2017, 10:06 PM	#7
hotte Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Germany Posts: 62	I just checked a Full HD export, 8 bit, 25p, lanczos3 with two filters applied (color correction and YUV), so a very basic setup. Input: 25p non-interlaced video in 1920x1080 m2ts Canon in h.264 >>> 40s of video was exported to h.264/mp4 via quicksync at 15-27 Mbs variable / normal within incredible 5 seconds. CPU load was around 80%. I assume the CPU had to deal with the two filters, whereas the iGPU did the decoding and encoding. >>> The same with hardware support flag unchecked needed 18 seconds, CPU load was around 65% 4K-Project of 40s with the two filters applied, 8 bit, 29.97p, lanczos Input: 4K video 29.97p h.264 Panasonic > Output 4K at 50-102 Mbs variable / normal: >>> 24s with QS >>> 77s without QS The above as 1920x1080 output variable 15-27 Mbs: >>> 17s with QS >>> 28s without QS It's interesting that with 1920x1080 outputs the CPU goes to the limits, with 4K it stays around 65%. So there seems to be more unused multicore potential with 4K encoding than with FHD. My machine is I7-7700k @4.9 GHz, with DDR4-3.200. I very much look forward to your results of playing back 4k footage. Last edited by hotte; 10-10-2017 at 10:44 PM.

10-11-2017, 04:07 PM	#9
Ron Evans Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Ottawa Posts: 4,057	Just did a quick test on my system. 1 min of UHD 60P from my FDR-AX1 In a UHD project at 23.97 ( since I wanted to go to a Bluray preset since my outputs are either DVD or Bluray) exporting with QS took 55 sec. So encode had to go from 60P to 24P too. In a 1920x1080 interlace project same UHD 60P file took 45 sec for a 60i Bluray preset. With hardware acceleration OFF time was 1 min 20 sec. For comparison a 1 min file from the AX100 shooting XAVC-S 1920x1080 60P in the same 1920x1080 interlace project exported in 18 sec. With QS OFF this took 45sec. Taken from the same point in the dance show so the content was the same. Group dance so lots of movement and coloured lights. As you can see when I was shooting all HD then QS for a 2 hour show is a real time saver as well as editing on the timeline. However now that more of my output comes from the GH5 and AX1 at UHD 60P in an interlace project the savings are not as great as maybe a much faster processor. Hence my dithering over what to move to next. __________________ Ron Evans Threadripper 1920 stock clock 3.7, Gigabyte Designare X399 MB, 32G G.Skill 3200CL14, 500G M.2 SATA OS, 500G EVO 850 temp. 1T EVO 850 render, 6T Source, 2 x 1T NVME, MSI 1080Ti 11G , EVGA 850 G2, LG BLuray Burner, BM IP4K, WIN10 Pro ASUS PB328 monitor, BenQ BL2711U 4K preview monitor, EDIUS 9.5 WG, Vegas 17, Resolve Studio 16 Cameras: GH5S, GH5, FDR-AX100, FDR-AX53, DJI OSMO Pocket, Atomos Ninja V x 2

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which Intel driver for Quicksync?	John Hooper	Editing with EDIUS	13	10-16-2015 11:17 PM

10-10-2017, 06:12 PM	#3
hotte Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Germany Posts: 62	Quicksync h264 export on an i7-7700K is a about realtime (with moderate filtering applied and no transitions). That means a 40s clip is being rendered h264 in about 40s, which is extremly fast. Haven't checked it yet, but it is said that quality is limited. So why care about quicksync ? For me it the fast timeline playback as it helps the CPU to decode h.264 material - especially in 4K. I am not sure if this is the case with TMpeg. At the end of the day it depends what you are looking for.

10-11-2017, 05:56 PM	#10
hotte Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Germany Posts: 62	Ron, Zvit thanks for your figures. As far as I can see everybody benefits a lot from QS, except for the 4K export of Zvit which seems pretty long with more than 8 minutes ? My Kaby-lake seems to hold an edge, but nothing to worry about. We all know, that Intel has not been very innovative in the last years. What I am really interested much more is: How about unrendered playback performance of UHD ? 2 UHD clips with 29.97p with color correction and stabilizer applied play smoothly on the timeline. Adding a 3rd clip in a pip-arrangement will let the buffer run out after a couple of seconds. 10bit is a killer: Not even 2 clips will play well together. What are your experiences ?