AMD could be developing a 24-core/48-thread Ryzen 9 7950X CPU w/ a TDP of 170 W & up to 5.4GHz CPU clocks (Updated)

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You're streaming/scrubbing a video and can settle for "Good enough"

This happens to be one of the strongest uses-cases for QuickSync. Even with an NVidia GPU in the system timeline scrubbing in Adobe Premier is up to ~30% faster when paired with QuickSync than not having it. The input source is typically sufficiently high enough that the pitfalls of such a solution isn't so bad, unless it's a video file captured at the same settings as stream output. But this really shouldn't be a discussion exclusively about game streaming and game streaming footage, you can use QuickSync with any video and that's where and why it's so nice to have, it's why many video editors have actually sung it's praise because it actually is a direct quality of life upgrade.

 

And timeline scrubbing is decoding not encoding.

[LAwLz]

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Literally that. Time for you to figure it out at this point. And it's not THE answer it's an answer as to why AMD would want it in their CPUs more broadly.

Why are you so hostile? 

I am not understanding you, or think that we are misunderstanding each other, and when I want to clarify and find some middle-ground you dismiss it and act rude? How about we have a calm and friendly discussion where we try and understand what the other person means?

 

QuickSync is not a single thing. It's a collection of things that can be used for multiple purposes. That's why I ask you to clarify exactly what you mean.

 

 

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well hang on now, since it was my point about QuickSync then lets I don't know, actually talk about what I said and not game stream encoding? Seems like a fair ask right?

Again, what you are saying does not make any sense. Can you please define what you mean by "QuickSync"? It seems like you use it to refer to decoding, which is only part of what QuickSync is.

 

When you say "QuickSync", what exactly do you mean?

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why are you so hostile? 

Because i have to keep repeating it's not about and was never about game streaming and my head has passed through the brick wall and caved in during that process. So please take the hint that it's not about that, please!

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Again, what you are saying does not make any sense. Can you please define what you mean by "QuickSync"? It seems like you use it to refer to decoding, which is only part of what QuickSync is.

 

When you say "QuickSync", what exactly do you mean?

Argh go back to the post about Adobe Premier with actual video evidence of the improvement!

 

I only ever said Quicksync, you made this only about encoding not me.

 

I have already made it as clear as possible, either you get it or you don't 

[LAwLz]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I only ever said quicksync, you made this about encoding not me.

If this was the case that you were talking about decoding, why didn't you say that to begin with?

Could have prevented a lot of discussions back and forth if you had just said "well, I mean decoding" as soon as you say me mention encoding, which I did in the first response I made to you and pretty much every single response after.

 

Hell, even you talked about encoding in several posts. The post where you linked the GamersNexus Adobe Premier was a response to igormp where he specifically talked about encoding.

You even linked a video about encoding performance for game streaming. Even when you were talking about video editing you said things like "QuickSync achieves excellent image quality", which is clearly talking about encoding, not decoding.

 

Everyone except you have been talking about encoding (you have just said QuickSync, which can be either encoding or decoding), so to me it seems like you just changed the subject.

 

 

 

 

Could it be that you misunderstood things (like what the GamersNexus video was doing and benchmarking), you misunderstood what QuickSync was (you thought it was a single thing), and you thought AMD's encoder was competitive with Nvidia's and Intel's, and once you realized you were wrong about those things you lashed out at me and then pretended like you had been talking about decoding performance all along?

 

Not even your comment about encoding hardware being in the 7000 series makes sense if we assume you were only talking about decoding performance.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

so to me it seems like you just changed the subject.

No you changed the subject because you thought it was or want it to be about encoding and game streaming

 

 

You're the one that came in after I said Quicksync about encoding and called it terrible and my response to that was simply that RNDA2 is supposed to be a lot better. That wasn't actually an open invitation to ONLY talk about game streaming and encoding.

 

Then in my next post, which was a reply to you asking for evidence, I said there were some good comparison videos on YouTube if you want to look at those. Then I explicitly called out in that post basically at the start just after this I said "At much higher bitrates, not for streaming then the RNDA2 encoder does a much better job which would be the sort of situation used for video editing acceleration.". Another attempt to clarify this was not about game streaming and limited bitrates and just a general point that having this capability in the CPU is a benefit for multiple different things.

 

You could use this for processing video files to make them smaller to consume less storage, something we had to do recently for a lot of Zoom video recordings that were multiple hours long so we dedicated a few A40's to the task and saved an absolute ton of backend storage without much quality loss.

 

Honestly in your opinion how many times must a person say it's not about X situation should be required?

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Could it be that you misunderstood things (like what the GamersNexus video was doing and benchmarking), you misunderstood what QuickSync was (you thought it was a single thing), and you thought AMD's encoder was competitive with Nvidia's and Intel's, and once you realized you were wrong about those things you lashed out at me and then pretended like you had been talking about decoding performance all along?

Nope. I just get very tired of you when you literally ignore what has been said multiple times over to argue your point against something you you started then act like the other person did.

 

Quicksync is Quicksync. It can be used for many different things, I never defined it as only one thing at any point.

 

GamersNexus video showed both encoding and decoding for UHD and also UHD with CUDA for timeline scrubbing, the video shows both encoding and decoding and what I was pointing to was the extra performance of UHD with dGPU for timeline usage.

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

As you say even if you don't use it for the final render the workflow improvement you can get from having it is very nice.

So you are trying to say or imply that I think this had to do with encoding? Yea no.

 

Edit: It being Quicksync, not a "encoder"

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No you changed the subject because you thought it was or want it to be about encoding and game streaming

Then why did you engage in the conversation about that subject instead of just saying "I was actually talking about decoding"?

Again, could have saved us a lot of time and effort if you had just pointed out that I was talking about something different, instead of giving no hint about it and responding with arguments about how AMD's encoding capabilities isn't that far behind (which they are).

 

 

So if I understand your old post correctly.

What you meant is that you believe AMD is including a GPU in their new line-up of CPUs because they want to offer fast video decoding in programs like Adobe Premier. Correct?

That is very different from wanting to compete with QuickSync, at least in my mind. That's because "QuickSync" does far more than just decode video, and a competitor to that would have to be able to do more than just compete with video decoding.

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Then why did you engage in the conversation about that subject instead of just saying "I was actually talking about decoding"?

Because you asked for evidence so I though that was something you wanted and I wasn't only talking about decoding. I am talking about decoding for Adobe timeline scrubbing but Quicksync can be used for Adobe Export as could an AMD iGPU with encoder/decoder support.

 

Because again for encoding at higher bitrates the quality difference between software and hardware options diminishes a lot so having an iGPU with equivalent capabilities as Quicksync (decode and encode) is a nice benefit that people do utilize in both ways.

 

If you want to talk about saving time then it is you that is at fault, I said it's not about game streaming and you just bulldozed on past that without any care in the world.

 

Edit:

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Again, could have saved us a lot of time and effort if you had just pointed out that I was talking about something different, instead of giving no hint about it and responding with arguments about how AMD's encoding capabilities isn't that far behind (which they are).

 

You mean like I did literally more than once? How dare you (I say this in jest) say I gave no hint. Are you yet again ignoring my quotes from myself of these very hints?

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because you asked for evidence so I though that was something you wanted and I wasn't only talking about decoding.

Okay, so you were talking about encoding as well? Then why did you claim I changed the subject? 

 

 

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because again for encoding at higher bitrates the quality difference between software and hardware options diminishes a lot so having an iGPU with equivalent capabilities as Quicksync (decode and encode) is a nice benefit that people do utilize in both ways.

But AMD's offering is not equivalent to the capabilities of QuickSync, since it is not able to offer the same quality (and maybe not the same codecs either, since AV1 might be added to Intel's offerings soon).

 

AMD's video quality when encoding is significantly worse. You can hide its deficiencies by adding more bit rates to the file, but that's like saying a GTX 1060 is competitive with an RTX 3090 if you play at the lowest settings. That does not really make the 1060 competitive with the 3090. The lack of support for B-frames is still a massive drawback of AMD's hardware encoder.

 

If we are talking about things like video editing then my guess is that those people can afford to (and should) throw in a half-decent dGPU on top of their iGPU. It will greatly benefit them for things other than encoding (such as accelerating the creation of effects).

Doing video editing on a CPU with an iGPU sounds like a strange way to cut corners to me.

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

If you want to talk about saving time then it is you that is at fault, I said it's not about game streaming and you just bulldozed on past that without any care in the world.

You seem to equivalate using reasonable bit rates to game streaming. It isn't.

 

20+ Mbps video streams (streams as in the data stream, not game streaming) are massive. Even for non-streaming it is wasteful to go that high if your encoder is decent. 

Most of my archived 1080p videos sit at around 6Mbps. 20Mbps bit rates is what I would consider for really high quality archival. Maybe 4K HDR videos for example.

[igormp]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

That was what I was referring to. The "number of streams" is a software driver limitation, but the underlying hardware resources is not. If you're driving a game that's already maxing out the GPU performance and the video memory, the encoder suffers

It doesn't, the encoder/decoder is a separate chip and doesn't share many resources other than VRAM and PCIe bandwidth, both of which games don't really gobble up that much.

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

When you run OBS, every layer in the scene goes through multiple passes. So if you have a h264-encoded camera feed at 4K and a NDI HX video feed at 4K, this is being decoded somewhere at the same time as the encoder is running. OBS isn't doing the compositing entirely on the CPU before sending it back the GPU. It can't tell the capture source to "wait" until it's done drawing the frame to start the next layer. So every compositing layer ends up adding up. If you have a multi-core CPU this comes in handy, to a point, but you can't decode videos in software and suddenly expect no penalty to it.

 

On Windows, whatever monitor OBS starts up on, is the one that ends up doing the decoding. If you drag OBS to another monitor, it doesn't change it, and it still runs on the original GPU it started up on, but now it's also invoking a memory copy from one GPU to the other through the CPU.

I believe I get what you mean now, but that's still not really a decoder issue, but more of a where-to-copy-that-stuff-over issue. The decoder itself isn't breaking a sweat in the case you mentioned.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Not if you got an Nvidia GPU.

Nvidia's encoder outperforms x265 at the "slow" preset if you keep the bit rate the same between the two. I doubt many people want to use anything slower than "slow" anyway.

TIL that even pascal had great HEVC quality, interesting.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, igormp said:

TIL that even pascal had great HEVC quality, interesting.

It is surprisingly decent, at least at 8Mbps. It quickly falls off though once you go down in bit rate though.

As you can see, at 8Mbps it is better than x265 at the medium preset, but once you go down to 6Mbps it falls behind x265 at "veryfast".

[MageTank]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

No you changed the subject because you thought it was or want it to be about encoding and game streaming

 

 

You're the one that came in after I said Quicksync about encoding and called it terrible and my response to that was simply that RNDA2 is supposed to be a lot better. That wasn't actually an open invitation to ONLY talk about game streaming and encoding.

 

Then in my next post, which was a reply to you asking for evidence, I said there were some good comparison videos on YouTube if you want to look at those. Then I explicitly called out in that post basically at the start just after this I said "At much higher bitrates, not for streaming then the RNDA2 encoder does a much better job which would be the sort of situation used for video editing acceleration.". Another attempt to clarify this was not about game streaming and limited bitrates and just a general point that having this capability in the CPU is a benefit for multiple different things.

 

You could use this for processing video files to make them smaller to consume less storage, something we had to do recently for a lot of Zoom video recordings that were multiple hours long so we dedicated a few A40's to the task and saved an absolute ton of backend storage without much quality loss.

 

Honestly in your opinion how many times must a person say it's not about X situation should be required?

 

2 hours ago, igormp said:

TIL that even pascal had great HEVC quality, interesting.

Man, the phrasing of "even pascal" makes me feel old. Then I realize it's been 6 years since its release...

[LAwLz]

@leadeater

Here is a quote from AMD when asked about the iGPU:

 

Quote

Integrated graphics is very relevant for the commercial market, where most of our CPUs have not had graphics, that's a big customer appetite, they don't buy discrete GPUs. Now we have a much richer portfolio of processors that can play into the commercial space. For enthusiasts, it will help diagnose a bad graphics card to get the system up and running when you're still waiting on the GPU to show up. 

 

So it seems like Robert agrees with me. The reason they include an iGPU is because of commercial customers who do not have dGPUs, and for enthusiasts they can use it for troubleshooting or while they wait for their dGPU to show up.

 

 

He did confirm that it includes the video encode and decode block as well, so now we know that. He did not bring up that as a selling point or reason for including the GPU though. 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

So it seems like Robert agrees with me. The reason they include an iGPU is because of commercial customers who do not have dGPUs, and for enthusiasts they can use it for troubleshooting or while they wait for their dGPU to show up.

I never said this wasn't a reason either, AMD still needs a Quicksync offering on the high end otherwise they'll continue to get trashed on in Adode and others that utilize both the dGPU and iGPU. When Adobe implemented that capability, because it didn't do that always, then TR and even Intel HEDT became pretty well useless platforms for it.

 

There's almost never one single reason for anything. Like lets not ignore Ryzen Pro APUs has been a thing the entire time, commercial customers have always had AMD options with iGPUs this whole time, 4 cores max for Ryzen Pro 2000/3000 APU and then later 8 cores for Ryzen Pro 4000 and later.

 

Commercial customers aren't suddenly getting iGPUs that they couldn't get before, they're getting them on the high end CPUs for workloads where the cache reduction on the APUs mattered. General office PCs don't benefit from that.

 

Basically the entire line of HP business desktops have been Ryzen Pro APU

https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-elitedesk-805-g6-small-form-factor-pc

 

Also the part right before your qoute is just as important, and not to be excluded.

Quote

,which has a small number of compute units built in, specifically to enable video encode & decode and multiple display outputs.

 

and

Quote

The IGP in Ryzen 7000 is designed to light up a monitor, handle video encode/decode, run a home theater PC, do productivity, but it's not gaming-grade graphics.

 

Also no it's not just about Adobe, it's just a nice and easy example that got a lot of traction and talk when Adobe implemented the new Quicksync support. It'll work for Handbrake or anything equally as well etc

 

P.S. I am not aware Adobe actually utilized AMD iGPUs when they are present with a dGPU like they do for Intel and Quicksync. That may actually happen now with this change.