this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
23 points (92.6% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
241 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I've pirated every video converter known to man (UniConverter, WinX, VideoProc, Aiseesoft, Tipard, etc) & even tried open source tools like ffmpeg and handbrake and I can't get hardware acceleration to work unless I just don't understand how it's supposed to work. I have a Radeon (TM) RX 470 graphics card and plenty of processing power.

An example is when I attempt to convert a video to HEVC and don't use acceleration, I can get like 100 FPS and 2-3 mins rendering time but all my CPUs go to over 100%.

However, when I turn on acceleration or use the AMD HEVC Encoder (ffmpeg, handbrake), the FPS rate drops to like 10-15 FPS, the CPUs barely go over 10% and the GPU then jumps to over 100% which is fine but then it tells me it'll take like 20 mins to render a 20 mins tv episode!?!?

This is driving me crazy. Can someone provide some insight on this? I'd be forever grateful. Thanks!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FBJimmy@lemmus.org 15 points 5 days ago (9 children)

Based on how you're observing the loading move from 100% CPU ro 100% GPU, I would suggest that it is "working" to some extent.

I don't have any experience with that GPU, but here's few things to keep in mind with this:

  1. When you use a GPU for video encoding, it's not the case that it's 'accelerating' what you were doing without it. What you're doing is switching from running a software implementation of an HEVC encoder on your CPU to running a hardware implementation of an HEVC encoder on your GPU. Hardware and Software encoders are very different to one another and they won't combine forces; it's one or the other.

  2. Video encoders have literally hundreds of configuration options. How you configure the encoder will have a massive impact on the encoding time. To get results that I'm happy with for archiving usually means encoding at slower than real-time for me on a 5800X CPU; if you're getting over 100fps on your CPU I would guess that you have it setup on some very fast settings - I wouldn't recommend this for anything other than real-time transcoding. Conversely, it's possible you have slower settings configured for your GPU.

  3. Video encoding is very difficult to do "well" in hardware. Generally speaking software is better suited to the sort of algorithms that are needed. GPUs can be beneficial in speeding up an encode, but the result won't be as good in terms of quality vs file size - for the same quality a GPU encode will be bigger, or for the same file size a GPU encode will be lower quality.

I guess this is a roundabout way of suggesting that if you're happy with the quality of your 100fps CPU encodes, stick with it!

[–] Rodrigo_de_Mendoza@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It doesn't help when I don't have a very good grasp of the Hardware mechanics of it. Thanks for trying to clarify for me! The thing I'm most concerned with in using the CPU for everything is most software including Handbrake I try, if I let the CPU do all the processing, each CPU core goes to >100% which is not good for the system for long periods of time and literally got 100s of DVD/BluRays I want to reprocess. I've always been told around 55%-65% on each core is acceptable when processing video. Any additional information you can provide would be most appreicated.

[–] we_avoid_temptation@lemmy.zip 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

each CPU core goes to >100% which is not good for the system for long periods of time

If you don't have effective cooling, maybe, but I've never heard of any reason to keep core utilization under any specific percentage. Are your temps an issue?

[–] Rodrigo_de_Mendoza@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago (3 children)

No, not so far. No crashes or anything like that. Someone somewhere just told me a good range for video rendering was between 65-75% core usage.

[–] Paula_Tejando@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A good range for CPU utilization is 100%. Same for memory. Anything less and you’re wasting your computer, letting energy flow through your components and degrading them without much benefit.

Thank you for the helpful information! Sounds like I got some bad information in the past. {not from here} lol

[–] Kissaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

That's bullshit. There's no reason to limit or target a specific or non-maximum CPU core usage.

That would only make sense to evade hardware faults or cooling issues. Never as a general guideline.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I can think of no logical explanation for that. Maybe if you wanted to use CPU encoding and use the system at the same time. But given how many cores systems have these days, percentages don't mean much. As long as you leave a few cores available, you'll be able to use the system.

If you don't care about that, let it go to 100%.

[–] hedidwot@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 days ago

Even then you'd still want 100% with encoding running at a lower priority.

load more comments (7 replies)