Haswell IGP chipsets - Does the HD4xxx number effect Quick Sync performance?

[TheDarkKnight]

I own both a SandyBridge dual-core and an IvyBridge dual-core(i3-3225) CPU. I've always skimped on the cores in the past to save money.

But I am considering adding a Haswell CPU to my family of computers and I think I may purchase my first quad-core CPU. One reason I am wanting to go from dual-core to quad-core is for increased performance when converting/compressing/encoding/decoding HD video using Intel's quick-sync feature.

It currently takes my IvyBridge 4+ hours to compress a 50GB Blu-Ray disc to a 25GB Blu-Ray using DVDFab9.

Now my simple question is, is the Intel quick-sync features performance affected by the HD series numbers? In other words, is there any difference between a HD 4000, HD4400, HD4600(and whatever other number the series includes) in the context of using the quick-sync features?

If I got a Haswell quad-core with the crummiest HD graphics(no numbers) would the quick-sync be as good and as fast as the HD4600?

Thanks for reading

 

[VirtualLarry]

The low-end Pentium and Celeron CPUs, with just "Intel HD" lack quicksync completely. Other than that, I'm really not sure if there's that much of a difference.

Does DVDFab9 even utilize QS?

A quad-core might speed things up, regardless of the IGP's QS abilities.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

The low-end Pentium and Celeron CPUs, with just "Intel HD" lack quicksync completely. Other than that, I'm really not sure if there's that much of a difference.

Does DVDFab9 even utilize QS?

A quad-core might speed things up, regardless of the IGP's QS abilities.

Yes a quad-core will speed things up regardless of quick-sync. But I didn't want the quick-sync performance crippled according to which CPU I purchased. If the quick-sync is faster on the HD4600 versus the HD alone, then I might as well opt for the HD4600.

DVDFab9 allows you to specifically select quick-sync as the encode/decode method for H.264. Yes, it is a very nice piece of software.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Quicksync is a fixed unit. So all quicksync devices (in the same generation) performs the same.

 

[mikk]

Quicksync is a fixed unit. So all quicksync devices (in the same generation) performs the same.

Not true, since the texture sampler are important as well, also the EUs can be important depending on the bit rate mode used. Intel uses a hybrid approach of fixed function and programmable EU array. HD5200 can be 50% faster with Lookahead than HD4600.

 

[sm625]

I'd rather have software do the encode so I can end up with a smaller filesize for the same quality video. What does it matter how long it takes... its not like you're going to sit there watching the progress bar for 4 hours. (I would hope not anyway...)

 

[ChronoReverse]

Someone said that Quicksync quality has improved a lot now? If the difference in file size isn't that large, spending half the time is worth it.

Of course, you have to be able to use it. I've not been able to get it to work on my system without pulling my discrete video card.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

I'd rather have software do the encode so I can end up with a smaller filesize for the same quality video. What does it matter how long it takes... its not like you're going to sit there watching the progress bar for 4 hours. (I would hope not anyway...)

Oh your not supposed to watch the progress bar until it reaches 100%? Thanks for ruining my fun, now I have nothing else to look forward to when waking up each day. What matters how long it takes is that Windows 7 is a multitasking operating system. Compressing a 50GB to a 25GB movie takes a lot of resources that I can't use to do other things while it is being compressed. Slower response/launch times on all "other" software that I might be using to make the best use of my time. Instead I am falling asleep waiting for windows to resize or redraw, all while listening to the hard drive gurgle and make funny noises like a big fat man trying to get over the peak of a steep hill.

And what about the person who has 100 Blu-Ray movies who wants to backup/convert his disc collection and be done with it. Not put 1 disc in the computer every night before he goes to sleep.

So yeah, it matters how long it takes.

If people didn't care about how long "things" take we wouldn't have microwaves and fast-food drive-thrus.

I gotta "what does it matter" question for you. Why does the filesize matter when compressing a 50GB movie to fit in the space of a 25GB blank disc? If your backing up your movies like regular Blu-Ray discs your not doing anything with the extra space on the disc anyway. For me personally, I would rather have the dual-layer movie compressed to consume the highest percentage of 25GB on the disc that I paid for than to have a smaller size and wasted disc space. That's being wasteful.

*SHAZZAAMMM BA BA BA BA BA BAM!!!! Anymore questions?

 

[Essence_of_War]

Why does the filesize matter

Because some people back-up their blu-rays and DVDs to HDDs. Because HDD space is way cheaper.

Do I get to say "sham-wow" or something like that now?

 

[evilr00t]

Slower response/launch times on all "other" software that I might be using to make the best use of my time. Instead I am falling asleep waiting for windows to resize or redraw, all while listening to the hard drive gurgle and make funny noises like a big fat man trying to get over the peak of a steep hill.

set priority to "background" or "idle", problem solved