CUD-CUDA, or why you should not reap video card

    A few months ago, disappointed in the Badaboom utility, I abandoned the idea of ​​using a video card to encode video in the Sony PSP format. With a relatively small time saving, neither the output file size nor the - especially pleased! - picture quality. I stung myself and stung with the help of the free XViD4PSP , and I really liked this thing. I have long had a self-assembled NAS on a dual-core Intel Atom. Charge it in the night, he himself and spanks slowly.

    But last night I received a letter from Nvidia, in which I reported on the release of a new version of Movavi Video Converterwith serial number 9. It was also written there that now the converter “received acceleration up to 4 times”. What the acceleration was not specified, but I decided that the video compression speed compared to compression via the CPU. Rubbing my hands carnivorously, I downloaded the novelty and set it on a file with the youth comedy "Young Pranks in London" (children don’t watch!), Which lasts 2 hours 57 minutes.

    My video card is now not one of the very weak ones - the GeForce 275 with 240 stream processors and a core frequency of 635 megahertz. So on it the movie was squeezed a little less than 23 minutes. The chip warmed up to 80 degrees, the CPU load was a miserable 22-25 percent. The output was a gigabyte file, running which I was, to put it mildly, disappointed. All the shortcomings of “badabum” were obvious: “killed” colors, the general turbidity of the picture, twitching in dynamic scenes. You can watch, of course, but, given that the program costs $ 29.95, I want to do something a little more.

    I launch XviD4PSP- absolutely, I note, free. The program a few times unobtrusively offers to transfer any amount of money to the seller at its own discretion, but if you don’t want to pay, no one will force you (I’ll notice, I transferred it myself because you need to support such kosher things). Compressing the same file in HQ Ultra mode took 35 minutes. I note that this mode is rather severe, providing excellent quality, and if the latter is not critical (for example, when compressing a series of average scab), you can save about 30-40 percent of the time. But in this case, I decided not to compromise.

    As it is easy to calculate, we can’t even talk about any fourfold acceleration. And two-time does not smell. Yes, I have a processor - Core i7 965, but for more than a year it turned out, and the old man was removed from production. Meanwhile, his slightly less productive fellow Core i7 920 in retail can be found even cheaper than the GeForce 275.

    Yes, probably, in comparison with any Core 2 Duo E6300, the acceleration will be more serious. Well, or with the old AMD dual-core. That's just the quality of the picture it does not add. And I have no complaints about the picture obtained during compression by means of CPU. Clear, colors are correct, no twitching is noticed. At the same time, the file size is even a little (40 megabytes) smaller than what Movavi Video Converter did.

    In short, everything is again, as in a joke about a secretary who printed 800 characters per minute, but the output was such nonsense ... I don’t even know how to take money for such a result. However, do they give? ..

    Also popular now: