A quick question about Quick Sync

**geno888** · 10-06-2012

No pun intended

I'm just curious about a detail. If no VGA is installed in the computer, because the one included in Sandy/Ivy bridge CPUs is used, when all GPU cores are used for encoding purposes, is the computer still usable? I mean is it still possible to watch a clip from youtube for example or using the browser while the machine is busy with video encoding? Even more: is it still possible to watch a movie with VLC for example while the machine is encoding?

I know that quick sync allow to encode a full movie in a matter of minutes (thanks Dee for posting test results

), but what happen if you keep the machine busy for a couple of hours?

Moreover, what happen to quick sync if a discrete VGA is installed? Is it still possible to use the Sandy/Ivy GPU cores for video encoding when a discrete video card is installed?

I almost forgot: I'm referring to a system with Z77 chipset

Just for comparison, my current system (Intel E8400) allow me to watch a movie with VLC when Handbrake is working without any problem (no stuttering, no pixelation). Handbrake process priority is set as normal, so even if it using the CPU at 100 the machine is still usable.

I have a pretty basic VGA installed in my computer, a nvidia 8500GT, not exactly the most powerful video card available, but is still able to manage VLC playback when handbrake is running using the CPU at 100%.

**Dee** · 10-06-2012

With no discrete GPU fitted and when using quick sync to encode, you won't even notice quick sync is running. It uses around 25% of one CPU core for I/O, so the PC just runs as if there are no background tasks, and is perfectly usable.

Using a discrete GPU, you can still use quick sync via Lucid Virtu MVP. You get a fully licenced Virtu MVP with Z77 boards. If this is not supplied with the board, then don't buy that board.

Regarding a discrete GPU, you'll need a fairly new graphics card to outperform HD4000 in OpenGL games, as its about as fast as a Radion HD4870 when the HD4000 has a mild overclock.

Below is a Cinebench OpenGL benchmark. The bottom score is HD4000 at stock speeds. The higher score is HD4000 @1600MHz, which is a pretty mild overclock for HD4000.

**Dee** · 10-06-2012

Regarding Quick Sync
I ripped a DVD to HDD with DVDFab (no compression), and then encoded the VOB files to MPEG4.

Media Espresso allows 4 streams to be processed simultaneously.
The VOB files were around 7GB in total, and here are the results.

Pic 1 Output DVD (720x576 pixels) - Total time for encode 2 minutes 38 seconds.
Pic 2 Output 720p - Total time for encode 4 minutes 22 seconds.
Pic 3 Output 1020p - Total time for encode 8 minutes and 9 seconds.

**geno888** · 10-06-2012

Thanks a lot Dee

I definitely want that monster CPU

The E8400 requires about 2 hours for a single movie

**Kerry56** · 10-06-2012

Everything I've read about Quick Sync says it produces lesser quality output compared to software using X264. It is many times faster of course.

And the output may be perfectly acceptable for you, but I've also read that it is quite inconsistent, depending on individual movies used as the source.

**Dee** · 10-06-2012

It isn't quite as good as "software only" but very much better quality than Nvidia Cuda or hardware ATI.

You'd also need a very large screen TV to notice the difference between quick sync and software only.

The Quick Sync 2 codecs (Ivy Bridge) also give better quality than the original Quick Sync in Sandy Bridge.

It also depends on the compression level used. I've found 4MB/s is fine for DVD, but I use 9MB/s for HD, and I can't detect any problems on a 37 inch TV.

I guess it depends on how critical you are. No doubt some folks will say Quick Sync is not as good, and I guess if I looked really closely I could detect a difference.

Having said that, the really critical will swear blind that a £50 HDMI lead gives better quality than a £5 HDMI lead, while most of us can't tell the difference.

**Kerry56** · 10-06-2012

Well, at least with video compression results, you can look at individual frames and see the compression artifacts that are introduced with different processes. Its not hard to pick out the blockiness in the dark backgrounds or the lack of edge sharpness, or even completely new errors that are introduced where they didn't exist before.

So, it depends on your priorities...speed or quality. Quick Sync hasn't progressed on the quality side enough to match X264. This is not to say it might not at some point, but Intel may decide its good enough for most uses now. And "good enough" isn't going to satisfy a lot of video enthusiasts.

**Dee** · 10-06-2012

Video enthusiasts are not a majority though, and just like people who overclock a PC, are probably a very small minority (less than 1% for overclockers) and I have no idea what the percentage would be for video enthusiasts.

Most folks will never overclock a PC, just like most folks only what to sit down and watch a movie in a form that they would consider good quality, IMO, Quick Sync does the job.

However, each to their own, and if someone does buy an Ivy Bridge system. Would it do any harm for them to try out quick sync and see what they make of it?
Even if they don't like the result, they can easily use "software only" and it certainly won't take as long to encode as it does on an E8400.

**Kerry56** · 10-06-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee

However, each to their own, and if someone does buy an Ivy Bridge system. Would it do any harm for them to try out quick sync and see what they make of it?
Even if they don't like the result, they can easily use "software only" and it certainly won't take as long to encode as it does on an E8400.

Oh I agree. And if I were in the market for a new computer using an Ivy Bridge cpu, one of the first things I'd do would be to test the Quick Sync process and do some direct comparisons. Even if I stuck with X264, the speed of the encoding would be a very big jump over my AMD hexcore system.

*eric93se* · 10-06-2012

To me, quality is paramount. If I had a slow CPU it would simply batch encode over night.

And the lay computer users out there in the internets, they need to be told what is good because they will always be happy with mediocrity because its free.

*debro* · 24-06-2012

I would expect that a huge target for quicksync would be re-encoding dvd/bluray for portable tablets/phones. Artifacts on a 10" screen, would be insignificant.

10-06-2012	#1
geno888 Senior Moderator, Editor and Guru Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Italy Posts: 29,213	A quick question about Quick Sync No pun intended I'm just curious about a detail. If no VGA is installed in the computer, because the one included in Sandy/Ivy bridge CPUs is used, when all GPU cores are used for encoding purposes, is the computer still usable? I mean is it still possible to watch a clip from youtube for example or using the browser while the machine is busy with video encoding? Even more: is it still possible to watch a movie with VLC for example while the machine is encoding? I know that quick sync allow to encode a full movie in a matter of minutes (thanks Dee for posting test results ), but what happen if you keep the machine busy for a couple of hours? Moreover, what happen to quick sync if a discrete VGA is installed? Is it still possible to use the Sandy/Ivy GPU cores for video encoding when a discrete video card is installed? I almost forgot: I'm referring to a system with Z77 chipset Just for comparison, my current system (Intel E8400) allow me to watch a movie with VLC when Handbrake is working without any problem (no stuttering, no pixelation). Handbrake process priority is set as normal, so even if it using the CPU at 100 the machine is still usable. I have a pretty basic VGA installed in my computer, a nvidia 8500GT, not exactly the most powerful video card available, but is still able to manage VLC playback when handbrake is running using the CPU at 100%. __________________ Click here or here to download latest version of CD-DVD Speed Click here to read more about DMA User guide for CD-DVD Speed: English version - Versione Italiana User guide for ImgBurn in BUILD mode English version - Italian version Please do not ask questions via PM. Post in the forum instead. Thanks Per favore, non chiedete consigli o suggerimenti tramite PM. Usate invece il forum (che serve proprio per questo). KTPHTT

10-06-2012	#4
geno888 Senior Moderator, Editor and Guru Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Italy Posts: 29,213	Re: A quick question about Quick Sync Thanks a lot Dee I definitely want that monster CPU The E8400 requires about 2 hours for a single movie __________________ Click here or here to download latest version of CD-DVD Speed Click here to read more about DMA User guide for CD-DVD Speed: English version - Versione Italiana User guide for ImgBurn in BUILD mode English version - Italian version Please do not ask questions via PM. Post in the forum instead. Thanks Per favore, non chiedete consigli o suggerimenti tramite PM. Usate invece il forum (che serve proprio per questo). KTPHTT

10-06-2012	#5
Kerry56 Administrator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: West Texas Posts: 14,422	Re: A quick question about Quick Sync Everything I've read about Quick Sync says it produces lesser quality output compared to software using X264. It is many times faster of course. And the output may be perfectly acceptable for you, but I've also read that it is quite inconsistent, depending on individual movies used as the source. __________________ Basic Guide for BD Rebuilder BD Rebuilder Guide for MP4 or MKV conversion AVStoDVD Guide

10-06-2012	#6
Dee Senior Administrator and Reviewer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 12,817	Re: A quick question about Quick Sync It isn't quite as good as "software only" but very much better quality than Nvidia Cuda or hardware ATI. You'd also need a very large screen TV to notice the difference between quick sync and software only. The Quick Sync 2 codecs (Ivy Bridge) also give better quality than the original Quick Sync in Sandy Bridge. It also depends on the compression level used. I've found 4MB/s is fine for DVD, but I use 9MB/s for HD, and I can't detect any problems on a 37 inch TV. I guess it depends on how critical you are. No doubt some folks will say Quick Sync is not as good, and I guess if I looked really closely I could detect a difference. Having said that, the really critical will swear blind that a £50 HDMI lead gives better quality than a £5 HDMI lead, while most of us can't tell the difference. __________________ We came to wreck everything and ruin your lives, God sent us MyCE SSD Reviews To become a member of MyCE.com just click here to join The Forum Rules \| The SSD FAQ \| The NEC/Optiarc F.A.Q. \| Liggy & Dee's NEC/Optiarc Firmware Page

10-06-2012	#7
Kerry56 Administrator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: West Texas Posts: 14,422	Re: A quick question about Quick Sync Well, at least with video compression results, you can look at individual frames and see the compression artifacts that are introduced with different processes. Its not hard to pick out the blockiness in the dark backgrounds or the lack of edge sharpness, or even completely new errors that are introduced where they didn't exist before. So, it depends on your priorities...speed or quality. Quick Sync hasn't progressed on the quality side enough to match X264. This is not to say it might not at some point, but Intel may decide its good enough for most uses now. And "good enough" isn't going to satisfy a lot of video enthusiasts. __________________ Basic Guide for BD Rebuilder BD Rebuilder Guide for MP4 or MKV conversion AVStoDVD Guide

Today
Mr. Adbot Register to remove me Join Date: Today Location: Myce HQ Posts: Zillions

Today
Adbot Always the best offers Join Date: Today Location: Myce HQ Posts: Zillions

10-06-2012	#10
eric93se MyCE Resident Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,622	Re: A quick question about Quick Sync To me, quality is paramount. If I had a slow CPU it would simply batch encode over night. And the lay computer users out there in the internets, they need to be told what is good because they will always be happy with mediocrity because its free.

24-06-2012	#11
debro Blown to smitherines Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Between the CDFreaks Orange and Blue Portals Posts: 13,338	I would expect that a huge target for quicksync would be re-encoding dvd/bluray for portable tablets/phones. Artifacts on a 10" screen, would be insignificant. __________________ / ----- I remember when all this will happen again -----/ You will be baked ... and there will be cake ... you monster. Click here to still be alive! Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. --Terry Pratchett Primary PC: 1.4Ghz Quad Core Cortex A9, 2048MB Ram, Mali 400 video, 32GB Primary, 64Gb Secondary, 802.11N 2.4/5Ghz, 1280x800@10.1" with one years supply of Jelly Beans Secondary PC: i7-Q720@1.6Ghz, 4GB, 500GB Hybrid HDD, Win7 x64 BusPre, Ati HD5470M-1GB, backlit keyboard. Tertiary PC: Amd Phenom II 945, 4GB DDR2, 120GB Vertex 2, AMD HD7850(OC) 2GB , Win8 Pro, 24" 1920x1200, cordless keyboard + mouse + gaming mouse.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A quick question about RAID	geno888	General Hardware Forum	28	21-07-2010 19:44
Quick Question about DVD+R	kolz2788	Blank Media	3	26-05-2009 07:06
Quick question about PAL	pantera_frii	AnyDVD	6	28-10-2006 14:13
quick question about DMA	aznsmartguy	NEC / Optiarc Writer	10	01-03-2005 02:53
quick question about a rebate...	MrPolite	Bargain Basement	1	31-05-2003 02:04