Comments

MSmart wrote on 4/3/2013, 2:27 AM
<<I just uninstalled my new EVGA GTX 660 Superclocked 2gb DDR5 video card (with 960 CUDA cores) because Intel Quick Sync was significantly faster at rendering with equal results.>>

I'm getting ready to build a new PC using a i7 3770 cpu on a ASUS P8Z77-V PRO MOBO and am wondering if I need to spend money on a graphics card. I was thinking of getting a this EVGA GTX 650 Ti card and am wondering if I could save the money and just use the onboard graphics for now.

I'm just barely getting into editing HD video so if the above is true, I prolly don't need the card *yet*. Or have the newer nVidia drivers changed that?
Dach wrote on 4/3/2013, 4:26 AM
I saw no improvement in performance when I purchased my GTX 650 Ti card. Save your money and use the onboard graphics until a release from Sony or Nvidia without a doubt improves results.

That said, I personally did experience results with my 550 Ti, but not enough to justify the cost of the card.

- Chad
NormanPCN wrote on 4/3/2013, 9:32 AM
Here is a test doing a PSNR comparison of H.264 encoders. It has Quicksync and MainConcept OpenCL and CUDA encoders. Interesting that the OpenCL beat the CUDA, but only technically. The dif was not statistically significant I think.

They have been doing this test for years.

http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2012/

The bottom line is that GPU and hardware encoders are not all that good quality wise compared to mature CPU encoders. This only comes up if you are pushing the bitrates low. Most everything does well at moderate and higher bitrates.

Also, of note. x264 competes with Hardware/GPU encoders speed wise at similar quality.
Hulk wrote on 4/3/2013, 9:52 AM
At the same bitrates how does QuickSync quality compare to the Cuda and non-Cuda Vegas render?
VidMus wrote on 4/3/2013, 10:24 AM
I have the I7 3770. I read this thread and have absolutely no idea as to how to setup and/or use Quick Sync!

What on earth does one do to use it??????????????
NormanPCN wrote on 4/3/2013, 10:37 AM
QuickSync was typically better in speed and quality than Main Concept OpenCL or CUDA.

MainConcept CPU encoder is always better quality. x264 is king when it comes to quality. x264 can be a speed demon was well at similar quality, but alas we don;t have access to x264 directly in Vegas.

Quality diffs show more and more as you lower bitrate.

"quality" is determined by PSNR and SSIM measurements. In other words, something that is better objectively, you might not see a difference subjectively watching the video.
Hulk wrote on 4/3/2013, 11:03 AM
QuickSync is fixed function hardware Intel started incorporating into their integrated graphics starting with Sandy Bridge (2600k, etc.. HD3000/2500 graphics). Ivy Bridge (3770k) upgraded HD graphics to HD4000/2500 (faster rendering).

Reviews seems to indicate astonishing speed and good, but not great quality output. Speed improved from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge. Speed AND quality are expected to increase with the upcoming Haswell implementation.

NormanPCN wrote on 4/3/2013, 11:16 AM
Are you using the Intel integrated video?

Yes. it should be there just make sure drivers are current.

No. If you have the Intel integrated graphics but you have installed an AMD or Nvidia card you can still use QuickSync while those cards are your main video card.

Check this page.
http://mirillis.com/en/products/tutorials/action-tutorial-intel-quick-sync-setup_for_desktops.html
MSmart wrote on 4/4/2013, 1:33 AM
Save your money and use the onboard graphics until a release from Sony or Nvidia without a doubt improves results.

Thanks, Dach. That's what I now plan to do.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, but my current rig is a 10 year old P4 3.0GHz HT 2GB RAM with a GeForce FX5200 128MB graphics card. So the i7 3770 using onboard graphics will blow it in the dust. I guess I could even step down to an i5 3570 and still be in processing heaven.