GPU assisted possible / useful?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 8:51 pm
only way to find out if it benefits from a gpu is for them to test it or for people that know how to test it with a gpu and see if there is a performance gain.
especially with the likes of cuda, and now the nvidia gtx 300 coming, i woudl say it would be a great advantage if they were some how able to get the gpu to take a load of time away from the rendering.
especially with the likes of cuda, and now the nvidia gtx 300 coming, i woudl say it would be a great advantage if they were some how able to get the gpu to take a load of time away from the rendering.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:17 pm
I am using NeatVideo for Premiere for half a year now. Is there any statement by NV to rather use/test/release or trash a CUDA powered solution ?
To me, CUDA enabled software is one of the best new features in Video editing/encoding etc. in the last few years.
Thanks for any new infos on that topic.
Greets from Austria/EU
To me, CUDA enabled software is one of the best new features in Video editing/encoding etc. in the last few years.
Thanks for any new infos on that topic.
Greets from Austria/EU
As a part of our regular development work we test several available technologies, including CUDA, looking for a good way to increase filtration speed. Hopefully some of these technologies will offer appreciable improvements in terms of filtration speed. This may be a bit unexpected but computations are not always faster when GPU is used instead of CPU. A universal order of magnitude speedup in all types of computations is mostly a marketing myth. In some cases, CUDA may be slower than a regular multi-core CPU. So we conduct this kind of testing to determine when, how and what technology should be used to achieve the best efficiency. When we find something worthy (taking into accounts all involved aspects such as ease of use, flexibility, support by hardware manufactures, support by drivers, by OS, reliability, future development, etc.) we will certainly try to use that in Neat Video to make it work faster on your machines.
To summarize, we do work on improving the efficiency of filtration in Neat Video. Will it be CUDA or some other technology -- that is to be decided by our team.
Until that is done (and we will let you know when that is done), it is a safe bet to invest in fast multi-core CPUs with large L2/L3 cache and fast memory modules. This will always be useful.
Vlad
To summarize, we do work on improving the efficiency of filtration in Neat Video. Will it be CUDA or some other technology -- that is to be decided by our team.
Until that is done (and we will let you know when that is done), it is a safe bet to invest in fast multi-core CPUs with large L2/L3 cache and fast memory modules. This will always be useful.
Vlad
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 8:51 pm
Personally from what you have just said, why not add multiple options for faster performances so that the user can select whats most appropraite for their system.
heck if you say your doign tests on multiple ways of improvement then why not give that chance of those new features to the user.
sooner than later i say
heck if you say your doign tests on multiple ways of improvement then why not give that chance of those new features to the user.
sooner than later i say
The idea is certainly good but please keep in mind that it is not that easy to implement all possible options to offer an end user a flexibility of switching between them at will. This is a bit like having a gas/hydrogen/electric/coal engine in one car at the same time. A hybrid engine is generally a good idea but it takes time and a lot of efforts to do it right. Please do not think that we sit and do nothing.
Vlad
Vlad
Last edited by NVTeam on Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 8:51 pm
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 8:51 pm
Only because there is this mindset with developers to only use CUDA for some unknown reason... not because its "better" or anything like that.mathewlisett wrote:well i hope that its cuda over more than anything becuase cuda is gettign everywhere.
mathewlisett wrote: but i do understand the above comment about the open option as i understand after effects doesnt use cuda at all.
Has nothing to do with AF ( or any other application for that matter ). Its to do with the fact that there are just as many AMD ( ATi ) users as there are nVidia and the playing field should be even not always skewed toward " Nvidia " or "Intel" which always seems to be the way.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 8:51 pm
currently cuda for encoding has been proven by many software applications to be the way , but that started like 3 years ago.
how ever with opencl i think it is, with the amd6990 that can be used to signficant effect with after effects due to adobe refusing to use cuda with ae even though they use cuda with premire pro.
just like 64bit years ago, there was barely any software applicaitons out that supported this, eyt theres hardly any not runnign with it.. and thats the same with cuda, its only taken quite a 3/4 efect with a lot of software, but now opencl is also beign seen as a way forward and an option for many .
and to me its great to see further options for hardware owners, but its also a expensive decision especially if at the moment it very far and few inbetween that use opencl for encoding etc, wher cuda is further ahead in the field.
but it would be great to see neatvideo be developed for both features, it would enable the consumer to maybe test which card features is best for the work they do.
how ever with opencl i think it is, with the amd6990 that can be used to signficant effect with after effects due to adobe refusing to use cuda with ae even though they use cuda with premire pro.
just like 64bit years ago, there was barely any software applicaitons out that supported this, eyt theres hardly any not runnign with it.. and thats the same with cuda, its only taken quite a 3/4 efect with a lot of software, but now opencl is also beign seen as a way forward and an option for many .
and to me its great to see further options for hardware owners, but its also a expensive decision especially if at the moment it very far and few inbetween that use opencl for encoding etc, wher cuda is further ahead in the field.
but it would be great to see neatvideo be developed for both features, it would enable the consumer to maybe test which card features is best for the work they do.
mathewlisett wrote:currently cuda for encoding has been proven by many software applications to be the way
Depends how you look at it but it has nothing to do with nVidia cards being "better", thats for sure !!mathewlisett wrote: wher cuda is further ahead in the field.
The only reason CUDA is "the way" and " ahead in the field " is because of what i said before... There is this mindset " in the field " to either optimize for nVidia or Intel... Granted, Intel CPU's are currently better than their AMD equivalent, but when it comes to GPU's, the same rule does not apply. AMD gpu's have been proven to be just as powerful as their nVidia equivalent.. It just depends on what developers decide to use ( CUDA, OpenCL, Stream etc.... ).
Personally, i am sick to death of being "discriminated ( for lack of a better word )" against just because of my choice of hardware.. Developers should really start to consider consumers a lot more and not leave people out in the cold. I am so annoyed with Adobe deciding to go with CUDA only for Premiere..
Same applies to the gaming industry... Consumers get screwed left, right and centre by game developers because of this crappy attitude. They should optimize games for both AMD and nVidia, or not optimize at all... Not fair for the consumer. If i buy a game, it should not matter what hardware i choose to use because i paid the same amount of money as the nVidia user who will get better performance than me, and not because his GPU card is better, but because the game is optimized for his hardware.
ahhhhhhh... i feel better letting that out. lol
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 8:51 pm
"just because of my choice of hardware"
oh i totally agree, ive even mentioned here and other places that i wish we had cards that had all features so that the consumer wasnt subjected to this macvspc BS type situaiton.
i can see benefits from the amd cards but due to the fact amd cards seem to be focused more on games than editing (seriously find me a few reviews that go on about editing rather than flipping games).
i also feel you may have missed what i said, and thats the fact that opencl etc are in a position just like cuda was few years back where cuda wasnt looked or taking seriously or taking on board as hard and as fast by software makers as it is now.
it seems clear that we could have cuda and opencl etc on a card, but then you would either have a very expesnive card due to the "money making" situaiton becuase the card makers would know by doing this they woudl lose profit on simply creating each card for each feature.
you also have the ongoing war between amd and intel, yet intel keep proving that its more benficial in editing than amd is, yet amd has proven to be far cooler under pressure but more benficial for gamers.
so its not about following the herd but having ones own opion and view of a product and actually developing that view from experince. and i personally went from pentium to amd and then to intel and stayed with intel becuase of the speed and advantages with editing and simple pc processing.
there will always be an ongoing argument for which is better etc, but lets try not get into a battle of whos dong is bigger.
i priase the developers for creating opencl, cuda etc simply becuase i couldnt even think of where to start to even creat such fantatsic features and i also priase the software (incluing plugins) for knowing how to deal or try to deal with this coding to bring us fast and efficient features.
edit oh and here is soemthign you jay not have known, of which i recntly foudn out.
with all the media attention and the indstrie wetting themselves about the dual gpu cuda cards that now have 1024 cores ie gtx590.
did you know that as of this writing i dont know of a single peice of software that can even use the max, i now certainyl know that even adobe premir pro cant, and its even limited to one gpu with its communications and wont even max out the 500+ cores.
so what exactly is the point of dual gpus with 1024 cores when games dont (as far as ima ware) take on cuda and theres no sofware that takes advantage of the full 1024 cores. as this was purely the reaosn i was loing at the gtx590 (and then you have the price os say the evga gtx590 at over £800)
oh i totally agree, ive even mentioned here and other places that i wish we had cards that had all features so that the consumer wasnt subjected to this macvspc BS type situaiton.
i can see benefits from the amd cards but due to the fact amd cards seem to be focused more on games than editing (seriously find me a few reviews that go on about editing rather than flipping games).
i also feel you may have missed what i said, and thats the fact that opencl etc are in a position just like cuda was few years back where cuda wasnt looked or taking seriously or taking on board as hard and as fast by software makers as it is now.
it seems clear that we could have cuda and opencl etc on a card, but then you would either have a very expesnive card due to the "money making" situaiton becuase the card makers would know by doing this they woudl lose profit on simply creating each card for each feature.
you also have the ongoing war between amd and intel, yet intel keep proving that its more benficial in editing than amd is, yet amd has proven to be far cooler under pressure but more benficial for gamers.
so its not about following the herd but having ones own opion and view of a product and actually developing that view from experince. and i personally went from pentium to amd and then to intel and stayed with intel becuase of the speed and advantages with editing and simple pc processing.
there will always be an ongoing argument for which is better etc, but lets try not get into a battle of whos dong is bigger.
i priase the developers for creating opencl, cuda etc simply becuase i couldnt even think of where to start to even creat such fantatsic features and i also priase the software (incluing plugins) for knowing how to deal or try to deal with this coding to bring us fast and efficient features.
edit oh and here is soemthign you jay not have known, of which i recntly foudn out.
with all the media attention and the indstrie wetting themselves about the dual gpu cuda cards that now have 1024 cores ie gtx590.
did you know that as of this writing i dont know of a single peice of software that can even use the max, i now certainyl know that even adobe premir pro cant, and its even limited to one gpu with its communications and wont even max out the 500+ cores.
so what exactly is the point of dual gpus with 1024 cores when games dont (as far as ima ware) take on cuda and theres no sofware that takes advantage of the full 1024 cores. as this was purely the reaosn i was loing at the gtx590 (and then you have the price os say the evga gtx590 at over £800)