![]() ![]() > Some disparage Quick Sync as a "one trick pony", but for video editors it's a very useful pony. ![]() > This has created a situation where "consumer" i7 CPUs vastly out-perform Xeon on certain video transcoding tasks. Xeon doesn't have this, not even the brand-new E5-2699 v3. > Sandy Bridge and later core CPUs have Quick Sync, which is apparently tied to on-chip Is there any plan to add Quick Sync to Xeon in the future? ![]() The problem is Xeon is also used in workstation-class systems, and the shortfall in H.264 transcoding performance is quite significant vs i7. I assume because Quick Sync somehow requires on-chip HD Graphics, this entire subsystem would have been required on Xeon which would have consumed transistor budgets and not provided any benefit for the server case. If Xeon does not adopt this, by the Skylake time frame the variance in video encode/decode performance will become broader and greater. However I'm not seeing trends in that direction.Īlso early Skylake info says Quick Sync will be enhanced to do more codecs: JPEG, JMPEG, MPEG2, VC1, WMV9, AVC, H264, VP8 and HEVC/H265 video, and possibly VP9: Skylake_graphics_architecture Even though it only works for MPEG-2 and single-pass H.264, these are commonly needed, so it's not a rare edge case.Ī counter-argument is Xeon workstation-class systems usually have powerful discrete GPUs, and GPU-assisted transcoding is more flexible than Quick Sync, and will eventually be refined to equal that performance. Some disparage Quick Sync as a "one trick pony", but for video editors it's a very useful pony. This has created a situation where "consumer" i7 CPUs vastly out-perform Xeon on certain video transcoding tasks. Sandy Bridge and later core CPUs have Quick Sync, which is apparently tied to on-chip HD Graphics. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |