The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    CUDA video encoding performance

    Discussion in 'Lenovo' started by seiyafan, Nov 16, 2011.

  1. seiyafan

    seiyafan Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    19
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Recently I have been doing some video encoding work (H.264) and I am wondering what's the performance level of W520 with Quadro 2000m in a software that enables CUDA encoding. How is the performance like compare to a i7 2600 with SLI Geforce GTX 580?
     
    seiyafan, Nov 16, 2011
    #1
  2. Colonel O'Neill

    Colonel O'Neill Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    300
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    *cough* QuickSync *cough*
     
    Colonel O'Neill, Nov 16, 2011
    #2
  3. seiyafan

    seiyafan Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    19
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Do you think a W520 with Quad 2000m is about the same price range as a i7 2600 with SLI Geforce 570 or 580?
     
    seiyafan, Nov 16, 2011
    #3
  4. Thors.Hammer

    Thors.Hammer Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    982
    Messages:
    5,162
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Which encoding product are you using? For some products, you need 200+ CUDA cores before the product starts to take advantage. The 2000M is at 192 I believe.
     
    Thors.Hammer, Nov 16, 2011
    #4
  5. seiyafan

    seiyafan Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    19
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I have Handbrake and Aimersoft
     
    seiyafan, Nov 16, 2011
    #5
  6. Colonel O'Neill

    Colonel O'Neill Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    300
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Colonel O'Neill, Nov 16, 2011
    #6
  7. seiyafan

    seiyafan Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    19
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
    i feel so outdated, so what's the use of CUDA then?
     
    seiyafan, Nov 17, 2011
    #7
  8. Colonel O'Neill

    Colonel O'Neill Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    300
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    CUDA still works for other parallel computing. Quick Sync is only for video.
     
    Colonel O'Neill, Nov 17, 2011
    #8
  9. investmenttechnology

    investmenttechnology Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yep, I think they are about the same price range, in Australia anyways
     
    investmenttechnology, Nov 17, 2011
    #9
  10. icesample

    icesample Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    27
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    the HD 3000 is pretty good at video encoding actually, cuda is no longer the best
     
    icesample, Nov 18, 2011
    #10
  11. seiyafan

    seiyafan Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    19
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I had this feeling that we may see HD 4000 or 5000 next year with Ivy Bridge. :D
     
    seiyafan, Nov 18, 2011
    #11
  12. formerglory

    formerglory Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    168
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Tried the Arcsoft converter mentioned in the article, and the encode quality was crap compared to a Handbrake encode.

    I took a DVD rip, encoded it with Arcsoft (main profile x264) and Handbrake (Normal x264, which is main profile), and compared the results. Both were encoded on my HTPC with a Core i3-2105/HD3000 IGP.

    The QuickSync'ed Arcsoft encode was much faster, but there were noticeable artifacts and the quality was noticeably lower.

    Maybe it's just me, or maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I've been using Handbrake for a long time now and have gotten pretty good at getting the proper settings for a great balance of quality/size. I wish Handbrake actually used QuickSync, or even just general GPU acceleration.
     
    formerglory, Nov 19, 2011
    #12