Vegetano1 Wrote:@Assassinator did you see the flash movie,.?!

Unfortunately, not yet. I slacked off and didn't go to school today. (Uni hasn't officially started yet. Currently orientation week, the week before uni starts, there are some events, but I can't be bothered going every day)

Vegetano1 Wrote:Did't know this thread turned out to be this informative,. ;) but there is still no good answer,. is CUDA and GPU video proccesing worth buying a fast/powerfull graphics card like the 295gtx?

Maybe get someone who already has a really strong nVidia card to do some test encodes for you, to see the real effect?

Vegetano1 Wrote:Faster GPU core speeds prob also means faster video proccesing and more memory on the graphics card prob means more CUDA suport for programs suporting CUDA,.

Stronger card = faster processing. Direct relationship :)

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:He's talking about running 240 serial tasks at once.
To be honest, it's one thing I've been interested in - ie running 20+ encodes simultaneously.
Unfortunately, at present, there's other limitations, such as disk seeks, and RAM usage.

Oh sure, I run 240 encodes at the same time every day, yeah, I really do. The most amount of encodes I've run at the same time is probably 4.

As for memory usage, x264 doesn't take much itself at all (like less than 50MB). It's AviSynth that takes heaps. Use SetMemoryMax in your AviSynth script. If you're not filtering, you can safely cap the AviSynth memory usage down to something really small.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:EDIT2: found this - an encoder which does Main profile.  Apparently, they recommend disabling SLI, so dunno how well it'd run on a GTX295.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=136847&page=5 for some info.

That x264 encode seems unnaturally blocky. I wonder what settings he used... (definitely something bad. When I encode stuff, I never end up with something that blocky).

That's what I was talking about. Not being able to make proper comparisons because the settings matter quite a lot of both speed and quality.

Some other people noticed that too.

a comment on the bottom Wrote:I noticed that the x264 example image is suffering from artifacts due to nearest-neighbor resizing, it looks like it was encoded at a substantially lower resolution, or at the very least not resampled correctly for playback. You might want to verify that the settings used were correct, as it should look substantially better than the BadaBoom results.

Ha, nearest-neighbor resizing.

x264 supports high profile and all the rest of the crazy shit that no other encoder currently supports. Shouldn't loose to anything in quality if used properly.

(This post was last modified: 19/02/2009 04:09 AM by Assassinator.)