Hardware platform:
- CPU: Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 (2.4Ghz/4 cores)
- GPU: nVidia GTX 275 (896M/448bit/240 SP)
- Memory: 4GB
Software platform:
- OS: Windows XP x64
- Transcoder: MediaCoder 0.7.1.4475
- x264 command line options: –no-psnr –no-ssim –keyint 250 –min-keyint 25 –me hex –merange 16 –non-deterministic –aq-mode 1 –aq-strength 1.0 –b-adapt 1 –ref 1 –subme 6 –psy-rd 1:0 –bframes 3 –trellis 1 –weightb –direct auto –bitrate $(VideoBitrate) –qcomp 0.6 -o “$(DestFile)”
Test 1:
- Input: H.264/9Mbps/1920×800/23.97fps
- Output: H.264/2Mbps/1920×800/23.97fps
- Content duration: 60 seconds
- Results:
- x264: 57.4s/25.05fps/1.04x
- CUDA: 23.5s/61.19fps/2.55x
Test 2:
- Input: MPEG-2/5Mbps/720×480/29.97fps/Interlaced
- Output: H.264/1Mbps/720×480/29.97fps/Progressive
- Content duration: 60 seconds
- Results:
- x264: 19.5s/92.48fps/3.08x
- CUDA: 6.3s/284.29fps/9.48x
Test 3:
- Input: WMV/600Kbps/352×240/25fps
- Output: H.264/500Kbps/352×240/25fps
- Content duration: 60 seconds
- Results:
- x264: 5s/299.10fps/11.96x
- CUDA: 2.9s/510.55fps/20.42x
Is the Nvidia CUDA encoder enabled again ?
Yes, in 4470.
4450 only available on download. what happened to 4470 ?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1304124#post1304124
A recent thread on doom9.org, titled “CUDA H.264 vs x264 Speed and Image Quality Benchmarks”, compares x264′s ultrafast preset to CUDA.
Results?
CUDA GPU H.264 – 23.5s 114.4 FPS
x264 preset ultrafast – 30s 90.8 FPS
x264′s image quality was far, far superior.
Did you read that thread carefully? It shows x264 generates lower quality, though it is able to generate far better quality with a lot slower.
You’re right, I was looking at the wrong image.
I made this mistake too at the first look.
我咋就没觉得有多大区别呢