Best offers
|
GeForce GTX 295 Video Card (1.75GB,... | $549.99 Dell Home More info |
|
GeForce GTX 260 Video Card (896MB,... | $214.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
GeForce 9800 GTX Video Card (512MB,... | $109.99 Best Buy More info |
|
Radeon HD 5770 Video Card (1GB,... | $179.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Radeon HD 4890 Cyclone OC Video Card... | $209.99 Directron More info |
- after effects what is rendering
- cuda processor
- cuda apps
- nvidia cuda video encoder
- nvidia cuda transcode
- seti home gpu
- performance test nvidia cuda
- nvidia cuda benchmark
- difference between 9600 gt and 9800 gt
- cuda use two graphics cards
- cuda enabled graphic cards
- seti home cuda
- cuda h264
- cuda test h.264
- unable to set sound playback device
Partners
The Games selection
crazy :
PC Breakdown
What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
|
kids :
Bob
Throw bubbles so as to make the ones that appear in the game disappear. For this, use the Right / Left arrow keys to duck or move about, and the...
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (57) |
- Share
PowerDirector 7 includes 10 effects that can leverage CUDA acceleration during rendering. If you’re new to editing, the process boils down to this: you take your video clip, put it on your editing timeline, add effects (blurring, sepia toning, or whatever), and when you go to output the project into your target format, the video clip and effects get rendered into a final file. This sounds simple, but applying effects to video is tremendously compute-intensive. In fact, rendering has traditionally been the bane of video editors because one render would consume a system’s resources for hours, bringing productivity to a standstill. The size of files may be different, but home editing falls prey to the same resource limitations.
Armed with a 30-second, 720x480 MPEG-2 test clip, we added the CUDA-assisted Pen Ink effect and rendered into an MPEG-2 output file. With CUDA enabled, our render time was less than half of putting the render load entirely on the CPU on both cards. But notice two things here. Unlike with SETI@home, we see little if any benefit from all those extra stream processors in the 9800 GTX. Additionally, employing CUDA only shaved 3% to 5% of the load from the CPU, which remained almost entirely consumed by the render job. In this test, CUDA will help accelerate your task, but you’re still going to have a buried processor unable to handle any other applications.
The second test set involved a larger 1080, H.264 clip from the HDNet show Get Out!, which we then exported into PowerDirector’s MPEG-2, AVCHD 720 x 480, and AVCHD 1920 x 1080 profiles. Again, we see very little difference in performance between the 9600 GT and 9800 GTX. Also note that there is no difference in exporting into MPEG-2 with or without GPU acceleration because NVIDIA’s library is only supporting H.264 encoding, not MPEG-2 encoding. The moral of that story is that if you’re in the habit of transcoding movies into MPEG-2 files for playback on a device that doesn’t support H.264, then CUDA will be about as useful to you as a third arm while jogging.
Still, you can see that CUDA gives us over a 100% improvement on the 480 test and a nearly 300% improvement when encoding to 1080. Extend this task to the duration of a movie and you can start to see how much time CUDA might save you and your system.
- four 9800GX2 cards: will it work? [Graphic & Displays]
- Is AMD doomed? [CPU & Components]
- Larrabee vs geforce 9800gt vs radeon 5770 vs gt250 [Graphic & Displays]
- Power supply for 9600GT [Graphic & Displays]
- DirectX11 shader in action on Nvidias upcoming GPU [Graphic & Displays]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
Related articles
-
CUDA-Enabled Apps: Measuing Mainstream GPU Performance
You've heard all about CUDA and speeding up general-purpose apps using graphics horsepower. The time has finally come to put the pedal to the metal and benchmark two mainstream GPUs, while exploring how these applications are really used!
-
Nvidia's CUDA: The End of the CPU?
CUDA software enables GPUs to do tasks normally reserved for CPUs. We look at how it works and its real and potential performance advantages.
-
Nvidia Goes For Four: Quad SLI Gaming Dissected
An SLI setup can employ four graphics processors, which results in the most powerful 3D gaming solution available. But at the same time, Quad SLI requires an equally powerful system and a high-grade display to make sense. THG takes a look at this "best...
The 8800GS or with the new name 9600GSO goes for 60$ and delivers 96 stream processors. Would it be correct to assume that it would perform betwen the 9600 GT and 9800 GTX you reviewed?
Other then that great article, been waiting for it since we got a sneak preview from Chris last week.
And I'll never take Nvidia marketing seriously until they either stop singing about CUDA being the holy grail of computing, or this changes: "Aside from Folding@home and SETI@home, every single application on Nvidia’s consumer CUDA list involves video editing and/or transcoding."
As more software will use CUDA, we will not only see a great boost in performance for e.g. video performance, but for parallel programing in general. This sky rocket this business into a new age!
As more software will use CUDA, we will not only see a great boost in performance for e.g. video performance, but for parallel programing in general. This sky rocket this business into a new age!
Honestly, I dont think a proprietary language will do this. If anything, it's likely to be GPGPU's in general, run by Open Computing Language.(OpenCL)
Are we both thinking about the same "Pirates 2"? Or am I missing something...
Who knows it's just a clip he used he could be naming it anything for the hell of it.
CUDA transcoding is very nice to someone that does H.264 transcoding at a high profile and lacks a 300+ dollar cpu who would spend hours transcoding a dvd on high profile settings.
Else from that CUDA acceleration has just been more of a feature nothing like a main event. Although can easly be the main attraction to someone that does a good flow of H.264 trasncoding/encoding.
Encoding/transcoding in h.264 high profile can easily make someone who is very content with their cpu and it's power become sad very quickly when they see the est time for their 30 min clip or something.
I'm using CoreAVC since support was added for CUDA h264 decoding. I kinda feel stupid for buying a high end CPU (at the time) since playing all videos, no matter the resolution or bit-rate, leaves the CPU at near-idle usage.
Vid card: 8600GTS
CPU: E6700
Well you lucked in considering not all of the geforce 8 series supports H.264 decoding etc.
they should remove Adobe CS4 suite from there since Cuda transcoding is only posible with nvidia CX videocards not with normal gaming cards wich supports cuda.
CUDA means Miracle in my language :-) I it will do those
The sad thing is that ATI does not truly compete in CUDA department and there is not standard for it.
I was only really interested in the Badaboom benchmarks and I was fairly impressed but I seem to remember the last time you guys done an article based on GPU accelerated apps (Cuda vs Stream) Badaboom suffered from output quality issues something that hasn't been mentioned in this article. It's all very well a 9800GTX being able to encode HD video content in half the time if the final product is no good.
Jean,
Actually, I don't believe we've done a comparison between the two. However, I have read that comparison at other sites, and it's actually ATI's Stream app that has the quality issues. Version two of the software is on the way, and it purportedly fixes the quality issues (though it still isn't demonstrating much GPU scaling, from what I've seen thus far).
Jean,Actually, I don't believe we've done a comparison between the two. However, I have read that comparison at other sites, and it's actually ATI's Stream app that has the quality issues. Version two of the software is on the way, and it purportedly fixes the quality issues (though it still isn't demonstrating much GPU scaling, from what I've seen thus far).
yeah but chose your words carefouly since readers could be misslead on this one
Cangelini, Badaboom definitely has lower quality output compared to the newest x264 builds. I'd definitely like to take advantage of my 9600 GT, but not unless I can use it with Handbrake or some other app on my own terms (NOT BASELINE OR MAIN PROFILE.)
I can haz chezberger?
ATI
CUDA
CONA
The 8800GS or with the new name 9600GSO goes for 60$ and delivers 96 stream processors.
The 9600GSO has 2 versions (ignoring VRAM variations), one with only 48 SPs (essentially a castrated G94, not G92).
There is a plugin for people who do audio engineering/recording/mixing/mastering from this guy:
http://www.nilsschneider.de
It runs on CUDA, but TBH, it has not manifested itself as anything special just yet, it's more a "proof of concept". However, as someone who's been doing that kind of thing for years, any quad-core ever made is good enough for real-time audio work, so there's not much point in CUDA acceleration.
Measuing? Do you not even have spellcheck now?
I enjoyed the article, and just like in the dual-core versus quad core debate, there remains few applications that can fully exploit CUDA.
By the way, I have quick correction. The author writes, "...that can leverage parallelism in a way that jives with CUDA’s architecture." The correct word is "jibe" not "jive."
CUDA is mostly about hype. Nothing really else.