Testing AMD VCE on Handbrake using a 2400g APU

primetime said:
I think one of the reasons i get so much different results with handbrake and AMD 265 is im actually running the gpu part on my Vega 64 gpu and not an IGP part of the cpu. So it makes sense we would have very different results is all.
View attachment 187253
Click to expand...

Performance wise, I am still happy with VCE on the 2400g as it is still over 4x faster than the 4/8 cpu portion (1950x territory), but visual quality still takes a bigger hit than the cpu encoding at the same file size.
 
Nightfire said:
Performance wise, I am still happy with VCE on the 2400g as it is still over 4x faster than the 4/8 cpu portion (1950x territory), but visual quality still takes a bigger hit than the cpu encoding at the same file size.
Click to expand...
running a test right now....but honestly dont have the best eyes to see difference with my 1080p display


I probably have the wrong settings ticked anyway lol
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    345 KB · Views: 0
  • Capture2.PNG
    Capture2.PNG
    41 KB · Views: 0
One really great use for VCE I have found on Handbrake is for re-encoding Audio only. I don't want to bog down the computer when I don't care about the video.

When I encode movies from discs I use Gain of +5db and Dynamic Range Compression (DRC) setting of 2.0 to make the volume louder and bring up the quiet parts of the movies. I have found this works across the board and makes it to where I don't have to keep the volume remote in hand while watching movies. Not an issue when ripping from disc.

But when downloading 4K movies (I have real UHD drives, not "friendly" drives) I want to keep that sound ability. So I use VCE and set the resolution to like 840xXXX and quality to something stupid high like 30. I then set the sound as I want. This lets it blow through the video encoding pretty quickly. I then use Subler to match the original video stream from the download with the 2 audio streams from VCE encode (stereo and Dolby 5.1). I can even do this on my paltry Athlon 200GE processor in my file sharing server. The video looks like absolute shit, but I dispose of it.

The people that are saying Handbrake sucks, just wondering if you use AppleTV, or you use non-Apple products for consuming the resulting file?
 
I do audio gains on some films. But my sonos playbar does speech enhancement which really boosts the important parts of audio.
 
westrock2000 said:
One really great use for VCE I have found on Handbrake is for re-encoding Audio only. I don't want to bog down the computer when I don't care about the video.

When I encode movies from discs I use Gain of +5db and Dynamic Range Compression (DRC) setting of 2.0 to make the volume louder and bring up the quiet parts of the movies. I have found this works across the board and makes it to where I don't have to keep the volume remote in hand while watching movies. Not an issue when ripping from disc.

But when downloading 4K movies (I have real UHD drives, not "friendly" drives) I want to keep that sound ability. So I use VCE and set the resolution to like 840xXXX and quality to something stupid high like 30. I then set the sound as I want. This lets it blow through the video encoding pretty quickly. I then use Subler to match the original video stream from the download with the 2 audio streams from VCE encode (stereo and Dolby 5.1). I can even do this on my paltry Athlon 200GE processor in my file sharing server. The video looks like absolute shit, but I dispose of it.

The people that are saying Handbrake sucks, just wondering if you use AppleTV, or you use non-Apple products for consuming the resulting file?
Click to expand...
You can tweak the auido like that in real time on most TVs, AV equipment, or even VLC player.
 
tangoseal said:
This is a standard issue performance number for using 2080ti with nvenc. I am not even pushing the options right now. This is just a vanilla 8 bit with no special circumstances applied. 265

Movie is a 1080p copy of the Equalizer I ripped from my DVD a few years ago.

Notice the VE (Video Encode Engine) usage of 99%

View attachment 187698.

PlaCEHOLDER - I will do a handbrake next with about as close to this settings as I can do.

Placeholder 2 - I will do a staxrip and then a handbrake of my 5700xt with this same exact movie file and about as close to these settings as I can do.
Click to expand...
you have both those cards in same 12 core work station? you can burn thru some encoding lol if we could put all 3 to work on the same task would be soothing... you just testing the performance of amd vs nvidia for time being i guess
 
primetime said:
you have both those cards in same 12 core work station? you can burn thru some encoding lol if we could put all 3 to work on the same task would be soothing... you just testing the performance of amd vs nvidia for time being i guess
Click to expand...

Oh no, I just have a 3900x and 2080ti in this rig and a 3600 and 5700xt in my other rig that my son uses. Not in the same machine.

I am done building computers for years with these two machines, I think haha
This hobby is getting to be stupid expensive.
 
Uggh I messed up and deleted the post with the screenshots. I will make another and update it in a bit.
 
Here is VCE handbrake .,.. no options or filters on ... just 23 quality 1080p

upload_2019-9-17_0-26-1.png


Here is staxrip with about the same exact settings:

Staxrip shows SIGNIFICANT performance increase - handbrake is really hurting the process somewhere.
upload_2019-9-17_0-27-53.png
 
Here is nvidia 2080 ti, basically same exact settings except I am doing B frame lookahead but that isn't a big performance penalty.

upload_2019-9-17_0-47-53.png
 
Thanks, I may play around some. I downloaded last weekend, but other projects won over my time ;). Put together a mini itx am4 (1600) with Radeon fury with aio for cpu and put new drives and setup my raid array in my server. Hitting 1GB/s with 2.5" mechanical drives, it's faster than the SSD that I use for the OS now. Anyways, that's my media server (Plex server) which is why I am curious on some of this info. What do you guys use to get dvd/bluray unencrypted? Anydvd, makemkv, ? I tried a few things but they a had ups and downs.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Thanks, I may play around some. I downloaded last weekend, but other projects won over my time ;). Put together a mini itx am4 (1600) with Radeon fury with aio for cpu and put new drives and setup my raid array in my server. Hitting 1GB/s with 2.5" mechanical drives, it's faster than the SSD that I use for the OS now. Anyways, that's my media server (Plex server) which is why I am curious on some of this info. What do you guys use to get dvd/bluray unencrypted? Anydvd, makemkv, ? I tried a few things but they a had ups and downs.
Click to expand...
https://www.deuhd.ru/ kinda a Russian competitor/version of anydvd. I love anydvd but it erks me to have to buy another lifetime license just because the owner sold the program.
 
Yeah, this is why I dislike 'for life' purchases sometimes. It's just for the life of the product. That said it can still end up much cheaper than buying the same thing @ each upgrade or paying monthly.
 
What is an acceptable total bit rate? Would not just making all videos to a certain bit rate be the best way to guaranty certain quality?
 
Nightfire said:
I decided to see how the VCE encoder would work on Handbrake. For the test, I used an episode of Midsomer Murders from a Blu-Ray mkv rip. Settings for all encodes were 22 quality using 1080p, DTS-HD AC3 256 bit stereo (limited options). Included are fps, approx time to complete (never around to see it finish), file size and power usage, though this is only for comparative purposes as the tv and other devices were on the meter.

First up was cpu using H.264: 12.3 fps, ~3:05, 3.02 GB, 200w.
Overall, great picture but slow at over 3 hours and rather large.
View attachment 186669

Next was cpu using H.265: 19 fps, ~2:00, 1.93 GB, 200w.
Similar quality, surprisingly faster, and about 2/3s the size.
View attachment 186670

Now for gpu using H.264: 67 fps, 0:35?, 1.24 GB, 150w using about 80% gpu and 30% of the cpu
Super fast, very small file, but a terrible picture. I am currently trying with better settings with deblock. Perhaps the VCE H.264 does not line up the same.
View attachment 186675
Finally I tried gpu H.265: 72 fps, 0:32, 5.12 GB, 170w using about 80% gpu and 50% of the cpu
Fast, nice picture. Though the file was huge and I am really not ready for H.265 for my network videos.
Again, pehaps the presets do not line up. Maybe I will try 23 quality and see how it matches up.
View attachment 186676
When zooming in to the old farts in the back ground, this looks to be the case. Compare the smaller file cpu H.265 to the much larger gpu H.265. I am thinking I can set gpu H.265 to at least 23 while still getting similar quality.
View attachment 186677 View attachment 186678

The image on the left looks slightly more hazy, at least to me.
Click to expand...
The quality setting is not the same when you go from h265 CPU to GPU. At least not when it comes to NVENC. They work on a different scale. Usually for me a higher number when encoding with the GPU will net the same results as a lower with the CPU.
 
primetime said:
What is an acceptable total bit rate? Would not just making all videos to a certain bit rate be the best way to guaranty certain quality?
Click to expand...
No, typically you want a variable bit rate so scenes with little movement of color can be compressed more and scenes with fast motion get a bit more bits. Then, some encoders are better/worse than others. One may give you 1mb/s and look fine and another might look blocky at the same bitrate. Also different methods of encoding h.264 vs h.265, vp8, vp9 all look different at different rates. Then it's also dependant on the type of video... Natural scene vs anime can be completely different.
 
lightsout said:
The quality setting is not the same when you go from h265 CPU to GPU. At least not when it comes to NVENC. They work on a different scale. Usually for me a higher number when encoding with the GPU will net the same results as a lower with the CPU.
Click to expand...

I did notice that in my blu-ray test. I tested using the gopro 60 fps video as well. By the time quality of gpu powered h.265 was matching that of cpu powered h.264 and h.265, the size was higher. This might not be the case at lower frame rates, though.
 
Nightfire said:
I did notice that in my blu-ray test. I tested using the gopro 60 fps video as well. By the time quality of gpu powered h.265 was matching that of cpu powered h.264 and h.265, the size was higher. This might not be the case at lower frame rates, though.
Click to expand...
so with time to spare it just best to stick to cpu h265? personally i want to make one perfect conversion for each video....its kinda a shame the gpu saves so much time.
 
Until they add more functions for processing on a GPU, CPU encoding is going to give you the best visual quality. Yes, GPU encoding can save you time (even lots of it) but the quality difference is obvious to some.
 
primetime said:
so with time to spare it just best to stick to cpu h265? personally i want to make one perfect conversion for each video....its kinda a shame the gpu saves so much time.
Click to expand...

Well if every device you play the movies with runs the format and you are worried about hdd space, then yes. For now though, I am sticking with CPU h.264
 
Nightfire said:
Well if every device you play the movies with runs the format and you are worried about hdd space, then yes. For now though, I am sticking with CPU h.264
Click to expand...
i see your point....dont think my daily phone even plays 265.....but its not mostly intended for my phone (but it could be) eventually everything should be playing h265 done the road but i can see your point if your media player for your tv only takes 264
 
What sucks is that my tablet only plays hevc 8bit and my phone plays hevc 10bit. I've standardized on hevc 8bit for now. Any 4k content is done in 10bit obviously.

Also, cpu is almost always better however it takes damn forever to run. I will take a 10-20% size hit or a slight degradation to quality to pump encodes out in 20 minutes, weee. Overall I'm still shrinking everything 50% from source.
 
My Samsung nu8000 looks to support hevc. Still, I have plenty of 1080p tvs in the house that I am sure do not. Furthermore, if I share my movies, I doubt my friends' devices will support it.

When I do finally start ripping in 4k, I will probably make 2 copies of each. A quality hevc 4k version in the 10GB+ range and a general purpose h.264 1080p version in the 3 GB range.
 
Nightfire said:
My Samsung nu8000 looks to support hevc. Still, I have plenty of 1080p tvs in the house that I am sure do not. Furthermore, if I share my movies, I doubt my friends' devices will support it.

When I do finally start ripping in 4k, I will probably make 2 copies of each. A quality hevc 4k version in the 10GB+ range and a general purpose h.264 1080p version in the 3 GB range.
Click to expand...
So in your mind...10GB is a goal size for ripping 4K? Thats really close to 10000 bit rate or in the area for the few i messed with. In the old days we would size according to BD space size but whens that last time i burned a disk? IDK
 
Nightfire said:
My Samsung nu8000 looks to support hevc. Still, I have plenty of 1080p tvs in the house that I am sure do not. Furthermore, if I share my movies, I doubt my friends' devices will support it.

When I do finally start ripping in 4k, I will probably make 2 copies of each. A quality hevc 4k version in the 10GB+ range and a general purpose h.264 1080p version in the 3 GB range.
Click to expand...

Everything new today plays hevc 8bit at least. In the worst case, get a current roku or shield or any of those types as they all support hevc. My S10 plays 10bit, so does do the new Tabs. My TabS2 is too old to support 10bit, and its the device I watch on most, doh.

And yea, I do two copies for movies but only on the truly great keepers and big ass action flicks do I make a 4k encode. For general viewing upscaled 1080p on a 70in looks pretty darn good as is.
 
primetime said:
im talking about after Handbraking it , not the original full size lol
Click to expand...

But you determine what you need by the sources specs. You don't do that? For ex. fast action sequence flicks will require be a ton more bitrate than a meandering slow movie. Thus final encode size is determined by source content and its original ql level.
 
thesmokingman said:
Everything new today plays hevc 8bit at least. In the worst case, get a current roku or shield or any of those types as they all support hevc. My S10 plays 10bit, so does do the new Tabs. My TabS2 is too old to support 10bit, and its the device I watch on most, doh.

And yea, I do two copies for movies but only on the truly great keepers and big ass action flicks do I make a 4k encode. For general viewing upscaled 1080p on a 70in looks pretty darn good as is.
Click to expand...

Well my JVC 1080p tv in my sure as hell does not, and I see no reason of getting rid of it as the picture looks very good yet.

I think people get too caught up in the tech-saviness of it all and not what's actually practical.

For me, it's just not worth the compatibility issues while burning my CPU up the extra time just to save a few GBs of dirt-cheap storage.
 
primetime said:
So in your mind...10GB is a goal size for ripping 4K? Thats really close to 10000 bit rate or in the area for the few i messed with. In the old days we would size according to BD space size but whens that last time i burned a disk? IDK
Click to expand...

With hevc, 10 GB seems like a goal. That is about the equivalent of 18 GB of h.264 (not quite half if you factor in audio). Most of my current h.264 BR rips are around 5 GB with great audio and any more than that seems plenty good. So, a 4k rip that is around 4 times as big as an h.264 equivalent of a BR rip makes sense as it is 4 times the resolution.
 
Nightfire said:
Well my JVC 1080p tv in my sure as hell does not, and I see no reason of getting rid of it as the picture looks very good yet.

I think people get too caught up in the tech-saviness of it all and not what's actually practical.

For me, it's just not worth the compatibility issues while burning my CPU up the extra time just to save a few GBs of dirt-cheap storage.
Click to expand...

Compatibility issues? I dunno about that or maybe its specific to your setup. I mentioned the hevc devices because personally I would not be archiving on x264. But that's just me.
 
thesmokingman said:
Compatibility issues? I dunno about that or maybe its specific to your setup. I mentioned the hevc devices because personally I would not be archiving on x264. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

It's not 'specific' to my setup, it's specific to my tv. You know, the thing that actually decodes the file when not connected through a pc.

Also, I know my friends and family are not going to want to download and run VLC player on their PCs just so they can view my movies.
 
There seems to be a bit of a format war between HEVC and AV1, which is open source. It looks like AV1 has a further 30% compression improvement over hevc. That means an AV1 in 4k plus a general-purpose hevc in 1080p would use no more space than an HEVC in 4k by itself. You would have the best combo of compatibility and size.
 
Nightfire said:
There seems to be a bit of a format war between HEVC and AV1, which is open source. It looks like AV1 has a further 30% compression improvement over hevc. That means an AV1 in 4k plus a general-purpose hevc in 1080p would use no more space than an HEVC in 4k by itself. You would have the best combo of compatibility and size.
Click to expand...
dont remember seeing av1 in handbrake? or is that for the other app staxrip?
 
Nightfire said:
It's not 'specific' to my setup, it's specific to my tv. You know, the thing that actually decodes the file when not connected through a pc.

Also, I know my friends and family are not going to want to download and run VLC player on their PCs just so they can view my movies.
Click to expand...

Yea, those are all your issues, specific to you. I sense some snarkiness dude.
 
thesmokingman said:
But you determine what you need by the sources specs. You don't do that? For ex. fast action sequence flicks will require be a ton more bitrate than a meandering slow movie. Thus final encode size is determined by source content and its original ql level.
Click to expand...
I had not thought of it in that way really.....i suspect i would just put them all in a fast action high detail mode just to keep things uniform? I do get the point that some movies look way better in perfect 4k compared to some others that look ok in 720p...and i do agree it varys from movie to movie...i might prefer a simpler do them all the same approach? but maybe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top