I'll try to find a HD4xxx GPU to test it on...
I'm currently testing next version on GTX460. Looks good so far. Will probably release it next week.
I wouldn't kill nVidia just yet. AFAIK, as of now, it is the only card that supports GPU video transcoding [...]
Quote from: hlloyge on 15 September, 2009, 01:50:25 AMI wouldn't kill nVidia just yet. AFAIK, as of now, it is the only card that supports GPU video transcoding [...]I've transcoded a bunch of videos with ATI Avivo.
Quote from: JapanAudio on 06 November, 2010, 02:40:02 PMQuote from: hlloyge on 15 September, 2009, 01:50:25 AMI wouldn't kill nVidia just yet. AFAIK, as of now, it is the only card that supports GPU video transcoding [...]I've transcoded a bunch of videos with ATI Avivo.Maybe it's not quite on topic but it might be informative.GPU video transcoding is different. Mainly it is used for H.264 lossy coding. Untill now every GPU H.264 encoder was very inferior to good CPU H.264 encoder. Speed comes at cost of quality.
I don't think it's possible. FLAC seems to be the only codec properly suitable for parallel encoding.
-8 - -o %d
Well I have my GTX 460 now, and am trying the new ver above, but still can't get it to run as quickly as others.Encoding the 13 tracks from Pink Floyd's Final Cut, as before, from WAVS with the settingsCode: [Select]-8 - -o %dI get speeds of less than 160x(That's with 4 threads, it is [much] slower if I set Foobar to just 1... what is the story there?)This vs 122x with regular Flac -8 on my Q6600, which maxes out all four cores.To try to minimize the HDD factor, I transcoded a single FLAC of Mike Oldfield's Amarok (60 mins long), but only got 86x... can the HDD be slowing it down this much? The Amarok FLAC is 330 MB... Windows will copy the file in mere seconds...
No difference here. my 8800GT used to give me a maximum of 220. This thing is amazing. I look forward for the Cuetools version.
Interesting. Having that close numbers between SSD and HDD makes me wonder. Do you have Win7 and some kind of Readyboost kicking in?