Video Transcoding Examined: AMD, Intel, And Nvidia In-Depth

Transcoding Quality: Rated By Software Title

Best per Software Title

MediaConverter: Quick SyncMediaConverter: Quick SyncBadaboom: CUDABadaboom: CUDAMediaEspresso: AMDMediaEspresso: AMD

If you had to choose the best video output quality across hardware and software, we'd go with the AMD and Intel (Quality setting) solutions in CyberLink's MediaEspresso, Intel's solution in Arcsoft's MediaConverter, and Nvidia's solution in Badaboom. 

Worst per Software Title

Badaboom: IntelBadaboom: IntelMediaConverter: AMDMediaConverter: AMDMediaEspresso: NvidiaMediaEspresso: Nvidia

The worst (or perhaps least-optimized) choices would be Intel's solution in Badaboom, AMD's hardware in MediaConverter, and Nvidia's CUDA in MediaEspresso. Granted, the difference between the worst and the best outputs in MediaEspresso and MediaConverter are very large and noticeable. In Badaboom, the differences between CUDA and Quick Sync are slight.

To be fair, these are over-generalizations based on countless hours of viewing. When a video is "bad," we're often referring to a specific scene in one clip, where it looks perfectly fine on a competing configuration. Rather that trying to editorialize the slight differences between clips and leave the disparities open to interpretation, we're actually going to make all of the videos we're analyzing in this story available for download so you can see for yourself. We have even added the original 1080p Deathrace trailer into our transcode tests (though not shown in our benchmark tables) and a very twitchy 1080p clip from Death Race.

Download Links: Original Source Content, Badaboom Output, MediaConverter Output, MediaEspresso Output. Warning: large file sizes. Remember to view all videos in their native resolution to avoid scalers.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
52 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • spoiled1
    Tom,
    You have been around for over a decade, and you still haven't figured out the basics of web interfaces.

    When I want to open an image in a new tab using Ctrl+Click, that's what I want to do, I do not want to move away from my current page.

    Please fix your links.
    Thanks
    28
  • spammit
    omgf, ^^^this^^^.

    I signed up just to agree with this. I've been reading this site for over 5 years and I have hoped and hoped that this site would change to accommodate the user, but, clearly, that's not going to happen. Not to mention all the spelling and grammar mistakes in the recent year. (Don't know about this article, didn't read it all).

    I didn't even finish reading the article and looking at the comparisons because of the problem sploiled1 mentioned. I don't want to click on a single image 4 times to see it fullsize, and I certainly don't want to do it 4 times (mind you, you'd have to open the article 4 separate times) in order to compare the images side by side (alt-tab, etc).

    Just abysmal.
    19
  • cpy
    THW have worst image presentation ever, you can't even load multiple images so you can compare them in different tabs, could you do direct links to images instead of this bad design?
    17
  • Other Comments
  • spoiled1
    Tom,
    You have been around for over a decade, and you still haven't figured out the basics of web interfaces.

    When I want to open an image in a new tab using Ctrl+Click, that's what I want to do, I do not want to move away from my current page.

    Please fix your links.
    Thanks
    28
  • spammit
    omgf, ^^^this^^^.

    I signed up just to agree with this. I've been reading this site for over 5 years and I have hoped and hoped that this site would change to accommodate the user, but, clearly, that's not going to happen. Not to mention all the spelling and grammar mistakes in the recent year. (Don't know about this article, didn't read it all).

    I didn't even finish reading the article and looking at the comparisons because of the problem sploiled1 mentioned. I don't want to click on a single image 4 times to see it fullsize, and I certainly don't want to do it 4 times (mind you, you'd have to open the article 4 separate times) in order to compare the images side by side (alt-tab, etc).

    Just abysmal.
    19
  • cpy
    THW have worst image presentation ever, you can't even load multiple images so you can compare them in different tabs, could you do direct links to images instead of this bad design?
    17
  • ProDigit10
    I would say not long from here we'll see encoders doing video parallel encoding by loading pieces between keyframes. keyframes are tiny jpegs inserted in a movie preferably when a scenery change happens that is greater than what a motion codec would be able to morph the existing screen into.
    The data between keyframes can easily be encoded in a parallel pipeline or thread of a cpu or gpu.
    Even on mobile platforms integrated graphics have more than 4 shader units, so I suspect even on mobile graphics cards you could run as much as 8 or more threads on encoding (depending on the gpu, between 400 and 800 Mhz), that would be equal to encoding a single thread video at the speed of a cpu encoding with speed of 1,6-6,4GHz, not to mention the laptop or mobile device still has at least one extra thread on the CPU to run the program, and operating system, as well as arrange the threads and be responsible for the reading and writing of data, while the other thread(s) of a CPU could help out the gpu in encoding video.

    The only issue here would be B-frames, but for fast encoding video you could give up 5-15MB video on a 700MB file due to no B-frame support, if it could save you time by processing threads in parallel.
    4
  • intelx
    first thanks for the article i been looking for this, but your gallery really sucks, i mean it takes me good 5 mins just to get 3 pics next to each other to compare , the gallery should be updated to something else for fast viewing.
    7
  • _Pez_
    Ups ! for tom's hardware's web page :P, Fix your links. :) !. And I agree with them; spoiled1 and spammit.
    7
  • AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls
    I agree. Tom's needs to figure out how to properly make images accessible to the readers.
    8
  • kikireeki
    spoiled1Tom, You have been around for over a decade, and you still haven't figured out the basics of web interfaces.When I want to open an image in a new tab using Ctrl+Click, that's what I want to do, I do not want to move away from my current page.Please fix your links.Thanks


    and to make things even worse, the new page will show you the picture with the same thumbnail size and you have to click on it again to see the full image size, brilliant!
    7
  • acku
    Apologies to all. There are things I can control in the presentation of an article and things that I cannot, but everyone here has given fair criticism. I agree that right click and opening to a new window is an important feature for articles on image quality. I'll make sure Chris continues to push the subject with the right people.

    Web dev is a separate department, so we have no ability to influence the speed at which a feature is implemented. In the meantime, I've uploaded all the pictures to ZumoDrive. It's packed as a single download. http://www.zumodrive.com/share/anjfN2YwMW

    Remember to view pictures in the native resolution to avoid scalers.

    Cheers
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
    6
  • Reynod
    An excellent read though Andrew.

    Please give us an update in a few months to see if there has been any noticeable improvements ... keep your base files for reference.

    I would imagine Quicksynch is now a major plus for those interested in rendering ... and AMD and NVidia have some work to do.

    I appreciate the time and effort you put into the research and the depth of the article.

    Thanks,

    :)
    4
  • acku
    Anonymous said:
    An excellent read though Andrew.

    Please give us an update in a few months to see if there has been any noticeable improvements ... keep your base files for reference.

    I would imagine Quicksynch is now a major plus for those interested in rendering ... and AMD and NVidia have some work to do.

    I appreciate the time and effort you put into the research and the depth of the article.

    Thanks,

    :)


    Will do, but I think overall this article sums up everything in a way that it's relavant for months to come. (Well, it's my hope it did anyways). "In a worst-case scenario, hardware acceleration gives you 75% of the quality and a minor speed up versus processor-only transcoding. In a best-case scenario, you are getting 99% of the quality, and running up to 400% faster than a processor working on its own." The difference is that in a few months, the worse case will likely be up to 80%, 90%, or even 99%.

    There is always going to be some sort of trade off, and for the majority of us, 99% quality preservation at 4x the speed is well worth the benefit. The problem is that there is virtually no way to compare transcoding software or even GPGPU hardware (or software) without introducing new variables to testing. You need to accept all the variables and treat the problem like a puzzle grid.

    I would add there is so much more to image quality than what we talked about. We didn't even discuss LCD hardware or colorspace. I think this article changes the game a bit. I think we have gotten so use to seeing tearing, blocking, or some video artifact and then we simply blame the video encoder without a second thought.

    If you read many of the sandy bridge articles on the web, people were simply saying "that video looks fuzzy" in very specific cases and then labeled Quick Sync or CUDA poor at transcoding as a result. While the video they saw was fuzzy, that doesn't automatically make it a transcoding error. It could have been a renderer or decoder problem. For example, if bitrate dropped off suddenly, its possible that a specific decoder wasn't cable of keeping up. This was a major point we were trying to make. Those automatic claims are invalid if they didn't cross check the problem to isolate decoders and renderers.

    Hell, you can't even rely on the same trancode path. If you rerun a trancode, the randomness (due to parallelism) can cause an visible error you didn't see in the first transcode, even if you use the same hardware and software config

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
    -1
  • Miharu
    Hi Toms,
    Before you write this article I had never hear about all of 3 softwares you talking about.
    I figure out you talk about new software supporting iPhone.

    New softwares... who they're probably no optimized for all solution.
    So I just imagine you didn't thinked about this before write this article.

    Comeback with x264 and MediaConcept H.264 analyst and benchmark. Perhaps I'll read you this time.
    -4
  • acku
    Anonymous said:
    Hi Toms,
    Before you write this article I had never hear about all of 3 softwares you talking about.
    I figure out you talk about new software supporting iPhone.

    New softwares... who they're probably no optimized for all solution.
    So I just imagine you didn't thinked about this before write this article.

    Comeback with x264 and MediaConcept H.264 analyst and benchmark. Perhaps I'll read you this time.


    When it comes to GPGPU transcoding, these are the three software titles that are at the forefront. MediaConcept only recently finished a CUDA encoder in August. Elemental coded its own back in 2008. They were the first and they are just as valid as MediaConcept. If you follow insider industry news (like streamingmedia.com - read by people that create video for the masses like Hulu's Eric Feng), then you know that Elemental's software is used by ABC, Big Ten Network, CBS Interactive, National Geographic and PBS. Hell MainConcept's Quick Sync encoder is still in beta as of this month. http://www.mainconcept.com/press/single-view/article/updated-mainconceptTM-h264avc-encoder-sdk-for-intelR-quick-sync-video.html Arcsoft and Cyberlink were Intel's launch partners to demo Quick Sync, read any of the Sandy reviews.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware
    1
  • Anonymous
    Thanks for the work put into the article, since I'm very new to all this however, I think it may have gone over my head :)

    I am in the market for a new 'budget pc' and leaning toward an intel i5-2500k with an nVidia gts450 gfx card, the system should be aimed at producing great video quality at reasonable speed.

    I'm not sure if I interpretted the results correctly, but it seems I would not need to get the nvidia card after all since software encoding produces better results and the HD 3000 would suffice? any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks!
    Amien
    0
  • acku
    Quote:
    Thanks for the work put into the article, since I'm very new to all this however, I think it may have gone over my head :)

    I am in the market for a new 'budget pc' and leaning toward an intel i5-2500k with an nVidia gts450 gfx card, the system should be aimed at producing great video quality at reasonable speed.

    I'm not sure if I interpretted the results correctly, but it seems I would not need to get the nvidia card after all since software encoding produces better results and the HD 3000 would suffice? any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks!
    Amien


    Quick Sync is basically = GPGPU. It's just done fixed function style. I would say if you aren't a crazy cook about image q, and I mean at the extreme end.... Using Spectracal to calibrate your HDTV. Only watch tv-reruns on Blu-ray, etc... Don't worry about software encoding. If are willing to give up that 1% (best case scenario) or ~25% (worse case), Quick Sync on the new Sandies will gives you up to a 4x speed bump. Remember that we used a GTX 580. It has 512 CUDA cores. The 450 only has 192. If you bought that graphics card, you wouldn't see the same transcoding performance as we did with the 580. Plus transcoding using a CUDA or APP uses the GPU for processing. That is going to burn into your power bill. Quick Sync uses fixed function hardware so its always going to be the most power efficient, even more than a pure software route.

    As I see it, forget the Nvidia card (unless you are gaming). The i5-2500k will still give you two options: Quick Sync or full software encoding. Remember that you need software that actually uses Quick Sync to transcode though. It isn't an automatic feature with every transcode software.

    Good luck on your build. I'd ping Don (who does our best CPU and graphics for the $ guides) if you have more questions on specific components.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
    0
  • Miharu
    Andrew, did there are any avantage using Intel 3000 with ATI or Intel 3000 with Nvidia chipset as GPGPU ?
    I don't think "drivers" currently support that kind of thing... or any encode softwares?

    What did you think?

    Thank you
    0
  • acku
    Anonymous said:
    Andrew, did there are any avantage using Intel 3000 with ATI or Intel 3000 with Nvidia chipset as GPGPU ?
    I don't think "drivers" currently support that kind of thing... or any encode softwares?

    What did you think?

    Thank you


    You can only choose one encoder. It is only going to be one of the following Quick Sync, APP, or CUDA. You can't do combos. Remember that Intel HD 3000 is the graphics side. Quick Sync is a separate logic circuit even though it's on the same die. I'll add that Quick Sync is disabled if you use a discrete graphics card.
    1
  • cknobman
    I have always just been happy using handbrake for all my video encoding needs and have never been disatisfied.

    I usually dont get in that big of a hurry and have never noticed anything terrible when watching the output but then .......

    Im not a videophile
    0
  • amien
    Thanks very much for that info, I'll be using Premiere Pro cs5, so i'm not sure if that supports Quick Sync?

    Out of interest, what card was used (if any) in the cpu benchmarks at
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Video-Editing-Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CS5,2428.html
    0