![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,145
|
![]()
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, 20 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity, Window 10 PRO 64-bit Edius 9.5 WORKSTATION... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,145
|
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 20 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity, Window 10 PRO 64-bit Edius 9.5 WORKSTATION... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 58
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,145
|
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 20 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity, Window 10 PRO 64-bit Edius 9.5 WORKSTATION... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 58
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,145
|
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 20 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity, Window 10 PRO 64-bit Edius 9.5 WORKSTATION... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 58
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,145
|
![]() Quote:
Project settings, File info and export settings in Screenshots. with QS: 8:41 min. From 2K project file: with QS: 35 seconds.
__________________
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, 20 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity, Window 10 PRO 64-bit Edius 9.5 WORKSTATION... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,956
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 58
|
![]()
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 ? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which Intel driver for Quicksync? | John Hooper | Editing with EDIUS | 13 | 10-16-2015 11:17 PM |
|
|