WEBVTT

00:00:07.680 --> 00:00:15.639
well today I have what I believe is going to be a fascinating episode for

00:00:11.920 --> 00:00:17.279
you guys so let's start with video okay

00:00:15.639 --> 00:00:21.359
so videos everybody likes to watch videos there's a few people these days

00:00:19.039 --> 00:00:25.480
who own tablets there's a Motorola Zoom or smartphones there's an iPhone 4 and

00:00:23.760 --> 00:00:28.720
want to watch video on them but not all these devices and not all the media

00:00:26.960 --> 00:00:32.680
players are compatible with every kind of media that you that you download or

00:00:30.920 --> 00:00:38.160
rip or whatever however else you get your media so you often have to

00:00:35.200 --> 00:00:42.200
transcode or convert the media from one format to another so I'm going to be

00:00:39.559 --> 00:00:46.000
using media converter 7 for my testing today this is actually a really cool

00:00:43.680 --> 00:00:50.280
little piece of software it was $29.99 with a coupon code that I found very

00:00:47.960 --> 00:00:56.800
easily on their website okay so I'm going to be using a 200 Meg it is a 3

00:00:54.160 --> 00:01:02.199
minute 1080p file that was actually taken with oh here you guys can actually

00:00:58.879 --> 00:01:03.879
see me this camera the sx1 is 1080p I'm

00:01:02.199 --> 00:01:07.960
going to be outputting it to an iPad compatible format and I'm going to be

00:01:05.880 --> 00:01:11.840
doing it on a number of different platforms a number of different ways so

00:01:10.200 --> 00:01:17.320
I have three platforms I'm going to use and I'm going to be using kind of a best

00:01:13.439 --> 00:01:19.720
of Intel 1155 so that's the z68 chipset

00:01:17.320 --> 00:01:23.720
with a 2600k hyperthreaded processor that is the most expensive platform out

00:01:21.600 --> 00:01:30.520
of what I'll be using today I have an AMD am3 platform I have a Crosshair 4

00:01:26.840 --> 00:01:31.960
formula with a 6 core 1100t CPU bear in

00:01:30.520 --> 00:01:37.880
mind of course that the motherboard doesn't really have any impact on the performance in this case it's a CPU

00:01:35.399 --> 00:01:44.520
limited thing and finally I have AMD socket fm1 so this is their new Apu

00:01:40.479 --> 00:01:47.960
socket so I've got a 3850 quad core Apu

00:01:44.520 --> 00:01:50.119
here on an a75 m55 motherboard I'm going

00:01:47.960 --> 00:01:54.520
to be using all the same Hardware across these different boards and platforms so

00:01:52.280 --> 00:01:59.680
I'm going to be using 8 gigs of DDR3 memory I've got same power supply and

00:01:56.360 --> 00:02:02.640
Intel 510 series SSD on my test platform

00:01:59.680 --> 00:02:07.360
then on each platform I'm going to en uh transcode the video a different way so

00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:11.840
I'm going to use a CPU then I'm going to use a GTX 580 then I'm going to use a

00:02:10.759 --> 00:02:16.400
radon 6970 and finally I'm going to use the

00:02:14.480 --> 00:02:20.319
integrated GPU and we're going to compare how all these Solutions perform

00:02:18.879 --> 00:02:28.879
against each other whether we're using CPU Cuda direct compute or uh in Intel

00:02:24.280 --> 00:02:30.400
1155 case virtue or the Apu on AMD fm1

00:02:28.879 --> 00:02:34.440
let's see how it goes okay so my first two runs are done with

00:02:32.120 --> 00:02:39.280
the CPU as well as with the GTX 580 using Cuda on the 1155 platform and the

00:02:37.560 --> 00:02:44.239
one that I'm about to run and the reason I'm stopping to tell you guys about it

00:02:41.120 --> 00:02:47.239
is with Lucid virtue so all I have to do

00:02:44.239 --> 00:02:49.040
is turn virtue on there we go the

00:02:47.239 --> 00:02:55.480
processor Graphics are now enabled although I am plugged into the dedicated

00:02:52.080 --> 00:02:57.040
graphics card so the igp is working now

00:02:55.480 --> 00:03:01.280
and I'm going to run it with this one and see how it goes so I'll share

00:02:59.000 --> 00:03:07.120
results with you as I go here and as I discover what works better and what

00:03:04.680 --> 00:03:12.239
doesn't so here's a bit of an update I have the AMD fm1 system running right

00:03:09.640 --> 00:03:16.519
now so I've got most of my results done for that and I'm actually running it

00:03:13.560 --> 00:03:23.000
with the 6970 right now so you can see that the GTX 580 due to its very high

00:03:20.080 --> 00:03:27.560
performance actually outperforms the CPU by itself which we expect I mean the CPU

00:03:25.400 --> 00:03:33.000
was the slowest out of all of our results even on the 1155 platform where

00:03:30.319 --> 00:03:39.879
it's a significantly faster CPU with hyperthreading um the igp did beat the

00:03:36.680 --> 00:03:42.560
CPU but uh not maybe not by as much as I

00:03:39.879 --> 00:03:47.640
would like to see and uh actually here's something interesting I also added on

00:03:44.200 --> 00:03:50.000
the 1155 platform I tested a GTX 550 to

00:03:47.640 --> 00:03:55.040
see how it would compare to the 580 so it's almost as slow as a CPU so and

00:03:52.840 --> 00:03:58.959
definitely slower than the igp so if you're using 1155 and a lower end

00:03:57.280 --> 00:04:04.120
graphics card well anything but a super high-end graphics card you might

00:04:00.760 --> 00:04:07.360
actually be better off with uh with

00:04:04.120 --> 00:04:09.840
virtue or using the CPU versus using

00:04:07.360 --> 00:04:14.140
Cuda so uh here we go we've got our result for the

00:04:11.439 --> 00:04:15.680
6970 so here it is it is

00:04:15.680 --> 00:04:20.959
133 so you can see the 6970 once again

00:04:18.720 --> 00:04:26.400
doesn't perform quite as well as the 580 but it's close and then the igp trails

00:04:24.160 --> 00:04:30.880
significantly behind those two due to it well being substantially slower so I'm

00:04:29.400 --> 00:04:36.600
pretty much much finished my data at this point only to discover that it was

00:04:34.080 --> 00:04:42.680
all pretty much for nothing so what I accidentally did was I used a video file

00:04:41.080 --> 00:04:49.919
this one which had already been converted from its uh large High bit

00:04:46.440 --> 00:04:52.360
rate self into a Windows media audio

00:04:49.919 --> 00:04:56.759
file so what I'm going to do Second Time Around is I'll be using this one this is

00:04:54.000 --> 00:05:02.840
a 1.64 gig file whereas this is a 200 Meg file by

00:04:58.160 --> 00:05:05.919
aent okay so this is a OV file that is

00:05:02.840 --> 00:05:08.479
what is natively recorded by my camera

00:05:05.919 --> 00:05:14.600
then I'm going to convert this into an iPad format so you can see the data I've

00:05:10.759 --> 00:05:17.360
got here with the other file so the uh

00:05:14.600 --> 00:05:23.240
Intel Quicks sync is a good performer uh Cuda also performs quite well open CL is

00:05:20.199 --> 00:05:26.880
a little bit behind Cuda and then CPU is

00:05:23.240 --> 00:05:30.600
uh inv variably uh the slowest solution

00:05:26.880 --> 00:05:33.919
however I just ran quicksync on the new

00:05:30.600 --> 00:05:36.639
file which is the Intel Core i7 extreme

00:05:33.919 --> 00:05:41.880
Edition 990x or maybe it's a 980x unboxing and I it was done in 56 seconds

00:05:40.240 --> 00:05:46.479
I am now running it on opencl and you can see the difference in performance

00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:51.960
between quicksync and opencl on that already transcoded once file this ran in

00:05:49.400 --> 00:05:57.520
yeah 56 seconds and it's already taken well over 2 minutes with open CL when

00:05:54.560 --> 00:06:00.520
we're doing a far more complicated file so I'm going to just rerun everything

00:05:59.240 --> 00:06:04.600
which is good going to take me look at the time it is now already which is

00:06:02.240 --> 00:06:08.360
going to take me another you know hour or hour and a half or whatever and then

00:06:06.240 --> 00:06:13.000
I will be back with proper results for you guys okay well I'm finally done took

00:06:10.479 --> 00:06:19.479
me another couple hours to uh finish up here but I have the results so I've just

00:06:16.280 --> 00:06:22.479
uh used my old chart but all of the

00:06:19.479 --> 00:06:25.280
bottom results are the ones using the

00:06:22.479 --> 00:06:29.960
larger file and converting it to an iPad compatible format with media converter 7

00:06:28.479 --> 00:06:36.479
so let's have a look at the chart here and let's go we'll go through it together so this is the

00:06:33.400 --> 00:06:38.360
2600k with the CPU alone it clocks in at

00:06:36.479 --> 00:06:44.280
1 minute 40 seconds which is better than the 1100t better than the 3850 and

00:06:41.800 --> 00:06:48.720
better than the I 32105 so that makes a lot of sense cuz

00:06:47.400 --> 00:06:52.240
this is more expensive than this which is more expensive than this which is

00:06:50.840 --> 00:06:56.360
almost the same as this so this one you can see due to its four cores this is

00:06:54.720 --> 00:07:00.720
two cores with hyperthreading this is six cores four hyperthreaded cores so

00:06:58.960 --> 00:07:05.800
this guy with this four cores performs better than the equivalently priced

00:07:02.800 --> 00:07:07.960
Intel CPU with only two cores all right

00:07:05.800 --> 00:07:13.120
now let's factor in Cuda so we've got a GTX 580 now so they actually all perform

00:07:11.400 --> 00:07:18.000
fairly similarly this was a bit of a glitch but I ran it again and I don't

00:07:15.120 --> 00:07:25.400
know why but the 1100t did not perform quite as well with my Cuda GTX 580 as

00:07:21.840 --> 00:07:27.720
the uh the other cards did with the 6950

00:07:25.400 --> 00:07:33.479
we seem to see a lot more benefit from additional CPU power so you can see that

00:07:29.759 --> 00:07:34.240
the 6950 is still an improvement over

00:07:33.479 --> 00:07:41.800
the CPU but it doesn't like Cuda was very

00:07:38.759 --> 00:07:44.479
similar for with a GTX 580 across the

00:07:41.800 --> 00:07:48.039
board whereas the 6970 it seems like if you have a more powerful CPU to feed it

00:07:46.479 --> 00:07:54.520
it is really able to ramp up the performance so with the I

00:07:50.000 --> 00:07:58.000
32105 it clocked in at 246 with the 3850

00:07:54.520 --> 00:08:01.319
226 209 with the 1100t and a whopping 1

00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:04.960
minute 36 seconds seconds with the

00:08:01.319 --> 00:08:09.840
2600k now igp performance so the

00:08:04.960 --> 00:08:12.759
1155 the 2600k and the 2105 were both

00:08:09.840 --> 00:08:17.520
within spitting distance of each other and in spite of this being a quad core

00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:21.440
CPU that is clocked higher this being a dual core CPU so you can see that the

00:08:19.599 --> 00:08:25.199
igp is doing all the work here it's not getting a whole lot of help from the CPU

00:08:23.759 --> 00:08:33.519
side like we saw with the 6950 as for the fm1 solution remember

00:08:28.919 --> 00:08:36.240
unlike the Intel igp with using Lucid

00:08:33.519 --> 00:08:40.959
virtue on the fm1 solution you can only use it if you are running Onboard video

00:08:38.320 --> 00:08:47.160
this can be used if you're using a z68 or h67 chipset here's my z68 board this

00:08:45.040 --> 00:08:52.120
can be used even if you are running a discret graphics card so that's kind of

00:08:49.560 --> 00:08:56.720
a cool feature as well so here you can see that the igp did not perform as well

00:08:54.120 --> 00:09:02.279
as the 6970 but was still better than the CPU on its own so hopefully this was

00:08:59.920 --> 00:09:07.079
helpful thanks for checking out my video on the uh different platforms and their

00:09:04.240 --> 00:09:11.040
video transcoding performance Baron ma here's another quick thing to bear in

00:09:08.279 --> 00:09:17.040
mind you guys so you can see here that the with the h67 or z68 chipset the 1155

00:09:14.959 --> 00:09:22.839
chips whether it's an i7 or an I3 just smoke everything else but only a few

00:09:20.200 --> 00:09:26.640
software applications actually support all of these different Hardware

00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:30.800
accelerations so if you're using anything that doesn't in terms of share

00:09:28.480 --> 00:09:37.200
CPU perform performance you can see that the fm1 3850 due to its additional cores

00:09:34.160 --> 00:09:39.079
blows away the equivalently priced uh

00:09:37.200 --> 00:09:42.240
product from Intel and then you have to spend quite a bit more to get better

00:09:40.640 --> 00:09:45.839
performance on the Intel side don't forget to subscribe guys