Shadowplay coming june 25

[mvitkun]

Or let's hope that I am right, so that as many as possible can get this feature (Intel users, AMD users and Nvidia users with cards of the 5XX and 6XX series cards).

if you're right then this is pretty much pointless as the quality will be inferior,and if it's run off the graphics card resources instead of an onboard decoder/encoder there will be a larger performance hit than with an onboard h.264 encoder/decoder,where the h.264 encoder/decoder would give equal performance to that of an avermedia card the cuda path method would give performance  hits that could up there with fraps.

 

this feature you could get wouldn't be nearly as refined as it would be the my scenario.

 

also 6xx users will get shadowplay....it is for kepler.

 

and nvidia stated already that only kepler can have shadowplay because it is the first to have the h.264 decoder/encoder onboard,which leads me to believe there is a dedicated chip,unless they're bs'ing it.

[LAwLz]

if you're right then this is pretty much pointless as the quality will be inferior,and if it's run off the graphics card resources instead of an onboard decoder/encoder there will be a larger performance hit than with an onboard h.264 encoder/decoder,where the h.264 encoder/decoder would give equal performance to that of an avermedia card the cuda path method would give performance  hits that could up there with fraps.

 

this feature you could get wouldn't be nearly as refined as it would be the my scenario.

 

also 6xx users will get shadowplay....it is for kepler.

 

and nvidia stated already that only kepler can have shadowplay because it is the first to have the h.264 decoder/encoder onboard,which leads me to believe there is a dedicated chip,unless they're bs'ing it.

But Kepler is not the first to have H.264 encoder/decoder onboard. Like I said, even 4XX cards can encoder/decode on the GPU. Again, there are dedicated logics for this on both Nvidia and AMD cards for several generations now. They do have blocks on them dedicated for hardware accelerating different video formats. That's how you can get a 1080p video running very smoothly while only using a very small amount of CPU resources.

 I am going to cite Anand on this:

ShadowPlay will be NVIDIA’s take on video recording, the novel aspect of it coming from the fact that NVIDIA is basing the utility around Kepler’s hardware H.264 encoder. To be straightforward video recording software is nothing new, as we have FRAPS, Afterburner, Precision X, and other utilities that all do basically the same thing. However all of those utilities work entirely in software, fetching frames from the GPU and then encoding them on the CPU. The overhead from this is not insignificant, especially due to the CPU time required for video encoding.

 

With ShadowPlay NVIDIA is looking to spur on software developers by getting into video recording themselves, and to provide superior performance by using hardware encoding. Notably this isn’t something that was impossible prior to ShadowPlay, but for some reason recording utilities that use NVIDIA’s hardware H.264 encoder have been few and far between. Regardless, the end result should be that most of the overhead is removed by relying on the hardware encoder, minimally affecting the GPU while freeing up the CPU, reducing the amount of time spent on data transit back to the CPU, and producing much smaller recordings all at the same time.

[...]

NVIDIA’s hardware encoder does have some limitations that are necessary for real-time encoding, so as we’ve seen in the past with qualitative looks at NVIDIA’s encoder and offline H.264 encoders like x264, there is a quality tradeoff if everything has to be done in hardware in real time. As such ShadowPlay may not be the best tool for reference quality productions, but for the YouTube/Twitch.tv generation it should be more than enough.

So yeah, this has been possible in the past but nobody has done it, so Nvidia decided to take matters into their own hands. If I understand this correctly (ShadowPlay is just Nvidia using the encode/decode block pretty much all modern GPUs already has to encode to H.264) then the solution I suggested above, with the iGPU of Intel processors doing the encoding, would be far better not only in terms of performance (there will be a performance hit running this on Nvidia GPUs compared to not running it) but also quality (see the comparison I posted above).

 

So again, they haven't taken a capture card and added the logics to the GPU, they are simply using the logics already in there to enable a software feature which would have been enabled by third party developers before, but nobody did. I am not sure if the encoding/decoding block (which AMD cards does have) is powerful enough for real time encoding, but if it is then I don't see any reason why AMD wouldn't be able to release something similar to ShadowPlay for existing as well as future AMD graphics cards (without having to do anything hardware wise).

[mvitkun]

But Kepler is not the first to have H.264 encoder/decoder onboard. Like I said, even 4XX cards can encoder/decode on the GPU. Again, there are dedicated logics for this on both Nvidia and AMD cards for several generations now. They do have blocks on them dedicated for hardware accelerating different video formats. That's how you can get a 1080p video running very smoothly while only using a very small amount of CPU resources.

 I am going to cite Anand on this:

So yeah, this has been possible in the past but nobody has done it, so Nvidia decided to take matters into their own hands. If I understand this correctly (ShadowPlay is just Nvidia using the encode/decode block pretty much all modern GPUs already has to encode to H.264) then the solution I suggested above, with the iGPU of Intel processors doing the encoding, would be far better not only in terms of performance (there will be a performance hit running this on Nvidia GPUs compared to not running it) but also quality (see the comparison I posted above).

 

So again, they haven't taken a capture card and added the logics to the GPU, they are simply using the logics already in there to enable a software feature which would have been enabled by third party developers before, but nobody did. I am not sure if the encoding/decoding block (which AMD cards does have) is powerful enough for real time encoding, but if it is then I don't see any reason why AMD wouldn't be able to release something similar to ShadowPlay for existing as well as future AMD graphics cards (without having to do anything hardware wise).

as I don't think we're gonna understand each other lets put an end to it here,okay?would prefer not to have a mod come in and play parent with us.

[Wauthar]

No 5xx? Well...

[Hyydrah]

"I'd like them to,but I doubt that they will" doesn't really belong in the poll, since the question is asking "should they" include it, not "would they". Those that chose this answer should have chosen "Definitely" or "As long as it doesn't increase the price substantially".

[pjm0925]

Looks like a good excuse to upgrade :)

 

I think this is a great feature, I've been enjoying watching some "let's plays" on youtube.  Great way to check out if a game interests you before buying it.

[LAwLz]

as I don't think we're gonna understand each other lets put an end to it here,okay?would prefer not to have a mod come in and play parent with us.

Look, all ShadowPlay does is take advantage of the logics for H.264 encoding which is already on a lot of graphics cards (I think it goes back to the 4XX series). They did not put the logics from a dedicated capture card in their GPU. They didn't even put in any special logics at all, compared to previous generations.

I understand you, but you don't seem to understand what I am saying. Even the 460 can do H.264 encoding on the GPU, using a special block dedicated for encoding and decoding of H.264.

 

What I tried to say was that it would be possible, in theory, for Intel to enable all Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell computers to capture and encode H.264 with QuickSync, which would offer better performance as well as higher quality than ShadowPlay. That is all I tried to say.

I think what Nvidia is doing is pretty cool, but it is to my understanding not the optimal solution. By the way, AMD's H.264 encoding offers much better quality (still pretty far from QuickSync though) but it is quite a bit slower (should still be fast enough for 30 fps or maybe higher). I don't see any reason why AMD wouldn't be able to simply include a ShadowPlay clone in their drivers in the future, and since it would just be software it wouldn't increase the price of their products. I would like to see this being done.

[silencerbob]

As long as YouTube is 30 fps, there's no point in furthering the tech for h264 encoding... No point in h265! There needs to be a platform that supports 60 fps, that supports h265.

I'm all for advancement in the tech, but development will be as stunted as PC games vs console games... This is a great step forward.. Assuming the performance hit is not noticeable.

[mvitkun]

As long as YouTube is 30 fps, there's no point in furthering the tech for h264 encoding... No point in h265! There needs to be a platform that supports 60 fps, that supports h265.

I'm all for advancement in the tech, but development will be as stunted as PC games vs console games... This is a great step forward.. Assuming the performance hit is not noticeable.

there's plenty point in using h.265 or VP9 for youtube.

the idea isn't so that it shows more fps,or to improve video quality.

the idea is to compress the video further so that youtube 

-doesn't consume as much bandwidth

  -allowing people with worse connections to enjoy 1080p 

  -allowing people with limited data plans to watch 720p or 1080p without maxing out their plan.

-and so that youtube doesn't require as much storage making it cheaper to maintain. 

[silencerbob]

there's plenty point in using h.265 or VP9 for youtube.

the idea isn't so that it shows more fps,or to improve video quality.

the idea is to compress the video further so that youtube 

-doesn't consume as much bandwidth

  -allowing people with worse connections to enjoy 1080p 

  -allowing people with limited data plans to watch 720p or 1080p without maxing out their plan.

-and so that youtube doesn't require as much storage making it cheaper to maintain.

My point is that YouTube has neither h265 nor 60 fps.

When that happens.. Much later will u actually a see a h265 version of shadowplay.

[mvitkun]

My point is that YouTube has neither h265 nor 60 fps.

When that happens.. Much later will u actually a see a h265 version of shadowplay.

I thought your point was that since youtube has a max of 30fps there isn't a need for h.265/VP9

As long as YouTube is 30 fps, there's no point in furthering the tech for h264 encoding... No point in h265!

[silencerbob]

I thought your point was that since youtube has a max of 30fps there isn't a need for h.265/VP9

Sorry I should have been clearer. Where are u going to post ur 60fps h265 videos? Not YouTube. YouTube needs to support that first, then tech development from GPUs with 60 fps h265 recording tech will happen... Not the other way around.

Hope that's clearer.

[ShadyHost]

Too bad I just bought a Live Gamer HD. 

 

Still will use it for Xbox though because ShadowPlay sounds awesome. 

[Godlygamer23]

No 5xx? Well...

There's a very good reason. To achieve the 5 or so percent performance hit, they have to use the onboard hardware H.264 encoder, which only 600 series and above have.

[Godlygamer23]

Look, all ShadowPlay does is take advantage of the logics for H.264 encoding which is already on a lot of graphics cards (I think it goes back to the 4XX series).

Anything below 600 series is software based. Only 600 series and above have hardware based encoders, which is how they're able to achieve that low performance hit. And this is also why it's available only for 600 series and above.

[LAwLz]

As long as YouTube is 30 fps, there's no point in furthering the tech for h264 encoding... No point in h265! There needs to be a platform that supports 60 fps, that supports h265.

I'm all for advancement in the tech, but development will be as stunted as PC games vs console games... This is a great step forward.. Assuming the performance hit is not noticeable.

My point is that YouTube has neither h265 nor 60 fps.

When that happens.. Much later will u actually a see a h265 version of shadowplay.

Sorry I should have been clearer. Where are u going to post ur 60fps h265 videos? Not YouTube. YouTube needs to support that first, then tech development from GPUs with 60 fps h265 recording tech will happen... Not the other way around.

Hope that's clearer.

I don't think you know what H.265 is. H.265 can cut bandwidth in half for the same quality. If you got a 100MB video file, then that could be 50MB in H.265. There is no reason not to push it as much as possible (or VP9 which seems to offer the same size:quality ratio).

H.265 does not really have anything to do with 60 fps content. Also, there are more reasons to use H.265 than just "so that we can post videos on YouTube". For example Japanese TV stations have said that they will start airing TV programs in 4K during the summer of 2014. That will most certainly require H.265 or VP9 for encoding (they also announced that 8K broadcasts are on schedule for 2020).

 

As for VP9 (competitor to H.265), it is already supported in Chrome, and YouTube has announced that YouTube will support it.

 

 

Anything below 600 series is software based. Only 600 series and above have hardware based encoders, which is how they're able to achieve that low performance hit. And this is also why it's available only for 600 series and above.

No it's not. Go read the Anand review, or even go get a <600 card and try it for yourself. You can hardware accelerate H.264 video encoding as far back as the 400 series. You can get above 65 fps when transcoding H.264 on a GTX 460 (the i5-2500K with QuickSync gets ~100 fps for comparison, and a 6870 gets ~60 fps). The reason why it's not available on anything lower than 600 series is because:

1) Nvidia wants you to have more reason to buy a new GPU.

2) Would require a lot more work put into the drivers, and they don't feel like it is worth it.

3) Some other reason I can't think of.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/9

[silencerbob]

The h264 hardware u might be thinking of is for DEcoding, not encoding. It goes back before the 4xx series nvidia cards. I remember the 4xx cards started support for hardware mpeg2 decoding and h264 was already there.

Encoding is creating video files, decoding is playing them.

[LAwLz]

The h264 hardware u might be thinking of is for DEcoding, not encoding. It goes back before the 4xx series nvidia cards. I remember the 4xx cards started support for hardware mpeg2 decoding and h264 was already there.

Encoding is creating video files, decoding is playing them.

I know the difference between encoding and decoding... God doesn't anyone read my post or do research? You can encoding H.264 on a 460, yes that is with hardware acceleration on and yes it can do over 60 frames per second. Even the 460 can both encode and decode H.264 as shown in Anand's i5-2500K review (when he tests hardware accelerated encoding of H.264 on the GTX 460 vs QuickSync on the Intel HD 4000).

Anyway I looked it up and it seems like they are now using a new hardware block for it which they call NVENC, but older GPUs can still do hardware accelerated H.264 encoding just fine (not just as powerful).

By the way, even the Nvidia 6000 series of card had support for hardware accelerated decoding of mpeg2, it was not introduced in the 400 series.

http://www.nvidia.com/docs/CP/11036/PureVideo_Product_Comparison.pdf

The library for hardware accelerated video encoding on Nvidia cards pre-Kepler is called NVCUVENC by the way.

It does seem like I was wrong about Nvidia not including any new hardware to enable ShadowPlay though. They do have some extra logics in there, but it is still very much possible to enable this on older GPUs if they tried to, and AMD could enable it as well, as so can Intel. For AMD, it would have a bigger performance impact than on Kepler GPUs though, but with a high end AMD card you should be able to play a game and record at the same time (for example the 7950) without any hardware changes necessary.

[silencerbob]

Yeh I had issues with hardware decoding on the software side that it wasn't good till the 4xx series.

As for this particular tech that shadowplay and the project shield needs.. At least Kepler is needed.. The realtime part is all to crucial for it to work in realtime, thus the hardware requirement of 650+ cards.

[Zeal]

Somewhat interested in messing around with shadowplay but I'll stick with Virtual Audio Cable & DxTory.

 

Why?

 

When editing a video/montage, you want to edit it in its RAW format, not a compressed format that's lost bit depth (24  bits -->12bits after compressing with Handbrake in H.264)

Believe me, the colour loss is just not worth the hassle trying to saturate your footage with colour correction, when you're never going to recover that lost data.

 

For the more casual people that just record it and upload directly, sure it'll be a great feature if you're not editing the footage much.

[Godlygamer23]

I don't think you know what H.265 is. H.265 can cut bandwidth in half for the same quality. If you got a 100MB video file, then that could be 50MB in H.265. There is no reason not to push it as much as possible (or VP9 which seems to offer the same size:quality ratio).

H.265 does not really have anything to do with 60 fps content. Also, there are more reasons to use H.265 than just "so that we can post videos on YouTube". For example Japanese TV stations have said that they will start airing TV programs in 4K during the summer of 2014. That will most certainly require H.265 or VP9 for encoding (they also announced that 8K broadcasts are on schedule for 2020).

 

As for VP9 (competitor to H.265), it is already supported in Chrome, and YouTube has announced that YouTube will support it.

 

 

No it's not. Go read the Anand review, or even go get a <600 card and try it for yourself. You can hardware accelerate H.264 video encoding as far back as the 400 series. You can get above 65 fps when transcoding H.264 on a GTX 460 (the i5-2500K with QuickSync gets ~100 fps for comparison, and a 6870 gets ~60 fps). The reason why it's not available on anything lower than 600 series is because:

1) Nvidia wants you to have more reason to buy a new GPU.

2) Would require a lot more work put into the drivers, and they don't feel like it is worth it.

3) Some other reason I can't think of.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/9

I said hardware based. I didn't say older cards didn't have the ability.

[LAwLz]

I said hardware based. I didn't say older cards didn't have the ability.

Yes and NVCUVENC is hardware accelerated, since it is not running in software. It's just that Kepler is even better than the older cards at hardware accelerating it thanks to NVENC.

Anyway, I still think that it would be better if Intel could make it so that QuickSync could encode game footage (better quality, and maybe higher performance), and it is possible for both older Nvidia cards, as well as AMD cards (some might not be powerful enough, but a lot of them are) to record game footage.

 

I think it's really good that we are finally seeing something like ShadowPlay implemented though, and I am surprised that nobody did this earlier. I don't get why MSI Afterburner decided to go for such strange formats such as MJPG.

[Godlygamer23]

I think it's really good that we are finally seeing something like ShadowPlay implemented though, and I am surprised that nobody did this earlier. I don't get why MSI Afterburner decided to go for such strange formats such as MJPG.

Afterburner also seems to be inefficient at recording footage.

[silencerbob]

Yes and NVCUVENC is hardware accelerated, since it is not running in software. It's just that Anyway, I still think that it would be better if Intel could make it so that QuickSync could encode game footage (better quality, and maybe higher performance), and it is possible for both older Nvidia cards, as well as AMD cards (some might not be powerful enough, but a lot of them are) to record game footage.

I'm getting an MSI z87 board specifically for the quick sync support to see if it can be used as a codec in dxtory

[Lauen]

I already have an ASUS GTX 660Ti, but if Shadowplay is good, I might keep it (I was planning on upgrading to a 7970). so, it depends on the next generation of AMD cards, if they are able to use Shadowplay or something similar, I might upgrade very soon, and if Shadowplay is good, I will definately use it instead of Fraps or DXtory.