Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I920 or 4870 ati encoder for video encoding

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Video Encoding
  • ATI
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 25, 2008 10:54:22 PM

I am doing a lots of video encoding avi to dvd. I am using a Q6600 at 3ghz atm with a normal 8800gts 320mb card. I just read up that ati allow video encoding cpu with gpu with 4870 card, but i don't know how more faster is it. My average encoding time is 15-20min with my proc. Would getting a i920 would be better over a 4870.

More about : i920 4870 ati encoder video encoding

December 25, 2008 11:38:00 PM

The 4870 should be much faster. Of course it requires AVIVO until 3rd party developers pick up the ATI supplied toolkits. AVIVO has many issues right now, as does Nvidia's software... but if you can get it working, you could expect transcoding that was formerly done in the hour scale to be done in the minute scale. The power is there.. but software is in it's infancy. Some have suggested that this will get better in the first half of 09, and from what I see this is likely. AMD is pushing pretty hard in this area.
December 26, 2008 12:10:27 AM

I do the same.

On my i7 920 3.6, a 700mb AVI to DvD takes 14 minutes. High quality settings.

I use convertxtodvd, 16% processer is used so there is alot more potential with a better program.

If you got a different program you would like me to try for a comparison, just ask. I will run it no problem.
Related resources
December 26, 2008 3:53:49 PM

I use Nero Vision, but sometimes i use Convertxtodvd when i get problem with nero ( very rare ) With nero it use 75-80% of my core (quad core)
December 26, 2008 3:56:43 PM

I will give nero vision a go right now, be right back with results.
December 26, 2008 3:58:50 PM

Oh and not to mention that i would get 4870 512mb for 230 CAD ( 188us ) powercolor brand. Worth it ?
December 26, 2008 4:12:29 PM

Its taking a bit to dl and install.
December 26, 2008 4:22:49 PM

What about TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress with Cuda ?
December 26, 2008 4:24:13 PM

Dont know, I dont use Nvidia cards.
December 26, 2008 4:46:51 PM

I am trying TMPGEnc atm using 4 core, but its slower 20 min from nero to 30 min with TMPGENc i guess with Cuda witch they suppose to tell its 4x faster should be the same as just using nero...
December 26, 2008 4:59:03 PM

On default settings 700mb avi to dvd took 16min 3 secs to convert and burn with nero vision. 55% avg CPU usage. 11min 30 sec just for the encode.

I dont think the CPU or GPU solution is gonna matter much because the HDD is always gonna limit the speeds. Maybe a ram disk setup could greatly increase performance if you had enough ram to store the image in ram.


I remember back in the day spending hours converting video. Life is good these days.
December 26, 2008 8:38:11 PM

Actually i made some more specific test with Nero and TMPEnc 4Xpress. Same video bitrate, resolution, Nero do it in 21min and the same movie with TMPenc4Xpress in 16 min. With Cuda Support i thing this could be very interesting, i just made a order to get the gtx260 core 216, ive checked the benchmark too compared to 4870 1gb its pretty much equal or superior, inferior in some case. Hopefully Cuda become more inplainted in software and with Mirror Edge incoming for PC with physx i think i made a good choice with that card plus if i want to go fir i7 setup later that would be nice with it and maybe SLI config if Cuda is really helping there. Well if you want i can msg you when i get the card to see the difference with Cuda support, if you are interested of course. Thank you.
December 26, 2008 9:18:04 PM

Sure. But like I said Hard drives will become the bottleneck real fast.

Mine might only be faster then yours now because of the hard drives. I have 4SSDs in raid 0, Very fast!! 300MB/s + writes.
December 26, 2008 11:37:24 PM

Yeah that was my next upgrade because my hard drive starting getting old. I was thinking about getting a Velociraptor but maybe a SSD but i hear that they have lifetime reduced and they are slowly booting but i don't have much information about them. Would it worth more getting ssd drive or 10k hd ?
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2008 11:48:17 PM

damn roadrunner, You make me soooooo Jealous
December 27, 2008 2:01:58 AM

I am a SSD kind of guy. The four I got are amazingly fast.
December 27, 2008 3:49:56 AM

Damn 300mb/sec ! I just benchmark my os hard drive. Result are about 60mb/sec read and write speed !
December 27, 2008 2:10:59 PM

wow ! What your hard drive brand, model ?
December 27, 2008 2:35:47 PM

OCZ Core series V2 SSD x4 in raid 0.
December 27, 2008 5:47:24 PM

Is your os installed on it and software ? And i guess you have normal hd for storage after encoding video ?
December 27, 2008 6:42:43 PM

OS and apps on it. Everything else on WD640x2 raid 0. Correct.
December 29, 2008 4:24:38 AM

I am running a 9850be. @3.2, Asus 79-T with 750 sb and a seagate 1 tb hard drive 7200rpm with 32mb cach and the even with just one Vision Tech 4870 running using Nero Ult. ver. 7.11 i think? It takes for endcoding and writing around 15-25min total.
December 31, 2008 3:33:06 PM

I just got my gtx 260 core 216 and tryed TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress with cuda encoding. Honestly doesn't change anything my cpu still at 90% use and there no acceleration with or without. I don't know where those number came from but...
December 31, 2008 3:39:13 PM

Like I said you can only go as fast as your hard drive can write. I suspect your hard drive is the bottleneck.
December 31, 2008 6:30:19 PM

Correction: There we go after multiple test and search. I found that Tempgenc improve filter speed with cuda. HD content to mpg2 with filter on without Cuda take me 13 min. With Cuda acceleration it take 3 min. 10 min off. When encoding it cleary show Cuda 85% and Cpu 15% utilisation. But the base hd video is 102mo and mpg2 final encoding end up with 120mo ( 9200 rate) and 58mo ( 4400 rate ) And quality is the same and same encoding speed 3 min. Its pretty interesting i need to test it out with a full hd movie to mpg2.
!