Quick Sync is not available for P67 motherboards

[Hogan773]

I'm a noob also but add me to the list of super-confused people.

1) they give only the K chips the 3000 graphics, yet if you want to use said graphics, you can only do it on a H67 board which doesn't allow OCing. Weird.

2) QuickSync can't be used by P67 boards---again, you're making people choose between overclocking and QuickSync? (or making everyone hold off on buying EITHER P67 or H67 until the Z68 comes out)???? So you dangle this great new feature, then tell people that they would be better off waiting a few more months to buy a Z68 board.

Sounds strange and hopefully it is some bad information/rumor/assumptions going around pre-release, and maybe we're missing something.

Otherwise Intel is just weird.

 

[mosox]

Wait a minute. Is this Quick Sync thinghy killing Nvidia's CUDA? Or not?
What are those, mainstream CPUs or workstation CPUs?

 

[MrTransistorm]

Wait a minute. Is this Quick Sync thinghy killing Nvidia's CUDA?

Yes, if you're talking about transcoding quality and speed. The CUDA transcodes look awful in comparison (the ones I've seen so far anyway).

What I want to know is how well a Quick Sync transocde stands up to a software transcode quality-wise. I'm sure that Quick Sync is fine for making files for iPhone/iPod/etc., but if the quality is not good for HTPC playback then I'm not interested. I'd much rather let the CPU churn away for a few hours with x264 to get better quality.

I'm sure things will improve when more programs can make use of the specialized hardware. I'd be especially pleased if x264 could use it with the same quality results. However, that's likely a ways down the road, and until then I want a top notch CPU for software video encoding today! :biggrin:

 

[Hogan773]

Yes, if you're talking about transcoding quality and speed. The CUDA transcodes look awful in comparison (the ones I've seen so far anyway).

What I want to know is how well a Quick Sync transocde stands up to a software transcode quality-wise. I'm sure that Quick Sync is fine for making files for iPhone/iPod/etc., but if the quality is not good for HTPC playback then I'm not interested. I'd much rather let the CPU churn away for a few hours with x264 to get better quality.

I'm sure things will improve when more programs can make use of the specialized hardware. I'd be especially pleased if x264 could use it with the same quality results. However, that's likely a ways down the road, and until then I want a top notch CPU for software video encoding today! :biggrin:

This is a question of mine as to how important the QuickSync is for me. Is it only valuable in speeding up transcoding jobs.....which is taking a video file and shrinking it? I don't really do this at this point.

Does it impact the ENcoding job like when I take a bunch of AVI files and use a DVD authoring program to turn those into an MPEG/DVD format? Or is that all CPU based?

And I can still do very HQ transcoding with the CPU right? QuickSync is just a "shortcut" that runs much faster and still gives acceptable or good results but the CPU could do an even better job if I were willing to do it more slowly?

I just want to make sure I understand whether its worth waiting (for me) for Z68 or whether I really care a lot about QuickSync.

 

[MrTransistorm]

I just want to make sure I understand whether its worth waiting (for me) for Z68 or whether I really care a lot about QuickSync.

I'd be sorely disappointed if I were to wait for Z68 only to find out that the IGP still needs to be active (with a monitor connected) in order to use Quick Sync. But that's just me being pessimistic

Oh, when I say transcoding, that's really what's going on. It's very unlikely that I or most other home users would be encoding directly from an uncompressed source. If I'm editing video footage or backing up DVDs and BDs, they're already compressed. Hence transcoding not just encoding. (I just realized I said "encoding" once in my previous post. Opps.)

 

[stahlhart]

This is a question of mine as to how important the QuickSync is for me. Is it only valuable in speeding up transcoding jobs.....which is taking a video file and shrinking it? I don't really do this at this point.

Does it impact the ENcoding job like when I take a bunch of AVI files and use a DVD authoring program to turn those into an MPEG/DVD format? Or is that all CPU based?

And I can still do very HQ transcoding with the CPU right? QuickSync is just a "shortcut" that runs much faster and still gives acceptable or good results but the CPU could do an even better job if I were willing to do it more slowly?

I just want to make sure I understand whether its worth waiting (for me) for Z68 or whether I really care a lot about QuickSync.

Those would be my questions also. But I figure that since it's all LGA1155, I can go with P67 now and revisit the motherboard option when the Z68 models are available. If it's worth it to activate the IGP, I'll switch. I don't see it as anything worse than a short-term inconvenience if the Z68 roadmap is accurate.

I figure at the very least that since it's going to be such a significant CPU upgrade for me, already the software encoding performance is going to improve in any event. And I'm already happy with the results I get from that, so perhaps the IGP features aren't going to be as significant.

 

[Jumpem]

This is really strange. Intel's marketing department are going nuts with the mix-n-match let's throw darts at feature sets decision making that went into this product.

- No QuickSync with a discrete board.
- No Vt-d with a K series.
- No USB 3.0.
- Two native SATA 3.0 ports.

Also...is it true the socket 2011 won't have an integrated GPU? That would mean their high end consumer parts are much slower at transcoding than their pedestrian parts.

Strange bunch of folks over at Intel.

What is this?

 

[busmaster11]

Anyone want to venture a guess as to what the impact of lack of VT-d is for my running win7-74, 8gb ram, 2500k oc, with VMWARE workstation 7.2 as my primary use, with ESXi hosts and various 32bit servers plus the odd OSX 10.6 running as guests...

 

[beginner99]

What is this?

IMHO something lga1155 consumer plattform users don't need anyway.

Use google or if you do not run VMs or do not now what a VM is, you don't need it.

Back to topic. Yes this is a big mess Intel made. I think no one really gets it.

And as someone said I would not hope on Z68 to solve the issue yes you can overclock and use QS at the same time but I would not bet on being able to use QS with a discrete graphics card.

The Lucid thing sounds great but then lucid hydra sounded great as well and we all know how delayed it was and how well it actually worked in real-life compared to the marketing claims. So I'm rather pessimistic especially since it seems to require work on AMD/NVs side and I see no reason why they should support this.

EDIT: And I wonder how that lucid thing works in terms of where to connect the screen(s). On the intel or discrete gpu?

 

[flexcore]

There wasn't much info on Lucid's Virtu. They commented on it being software solution so????

 

[Habeed]

What I want to know is how well a Quick Sync transocde stands up to a software transcode quality-wise. I'm sure that Quick Sync is fine for making files for iPhone/iPod/etc., but if the quality is not good for HTPC playback then I'm not interested. I'd much rather let the CPU churn away for a few hours with x264 to get better quality.

If you read the original article here on Anandtech, you'll see that quick sync is not quite as good a quality as software using the CPU, but that the visual differences are almost imperceptible. And it is at least 2 times faster, sometimes more.

Truth is, quick sync is most useful for those using this CPU for a HTPC. Just need one of the cheaper lower end parts, an H67 mobo, and about 4 gigs of ram and you'll have a blazing fast HTPC that is almost perfect. Virtually no power draw : you could passively cool it most of the time and have a PWM controlled fan that switches on only when needed. No GPU or sound needed, all taken care of in one part. And HTPCs need to do transcoding all the time : ripping blu-rays and dvds to disk, archiving episodes of shows you already watched in a more compact format, etc etc.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Well since if you get a K series and overclock it high you will have the fastest CPU available till 2011 hits so yeah its a good idea still. Unless you spend more time encoding video than gaming this isnt even going to matter to you.

I agree with this too. You can't go wrong. Just make sure to get the 2500K or the 2600K. Price/performance can't be beat. I'm seriously going back and forth on this as I've started a new i7 950 build and was thinking of returning my unopened CPU/mobo combination; but since I can't use Quick Sync anyway on the setup I would be building with SB instead, that's one reason to stick with what I'm doing right now and wait a year or so. I'll still get a huge boost in performance with an OC'd i7 950.

 

[IntelUser2000]

If you read the original article here on Anandtech, you'll see that quick sync is not quite as good a quality as software using the CPU, but that the visual differences are almost imperceptible. And it is at least 2 times faster, sometimes more.

I don't even see the lower quality. If you look at the Dark Knight screenshot, you can see that QuickSync image has even smoothed the edges, especially noticeable on the letters, while others don't, and CUDA just sucks.

This is what PCWatch's review says:

QuickSync: You can't use QuickSync with P67, but with H67 you should be able to use it even if you have the discrete graphics enabled. Need to put the "Always enable" settings in BIOS for the integrated graphics to work.

Multi-monitor: Expanding on the first point, it means you can use both the discrete graphics and integrated graphics for multi-monitor support. The graphics aren't always disabled unless you specify it in the BIOS, even with the discrete graphics when the H67 chipset is used. Presentations indicated the multi-monitor support can be up to 4 when you combine the discrete and integrated graphics.

 

[Tsavo]

I don't even see the lower quality. If you look at the Dark Knight screenshot, you can see that QuickSync image has even smoothed the edges, especially noticeable on the letters, while others don't, and CUDA just sucks.

As I've already said, screen shots do not show how bad CUDA is. For that, you've got to see actual videos that have been pressed through a CUDA device.

I've got a GTX 460 and *any* kind of video work that gets pinched through the GPU is shockingly bad. This is my first Nvidia product since the 7600 and it shall be my very last. Because of CUDA alone? No, because anything they add on that's outside of the Dx API is pure garbage. CUDA, PhysX, mystical river glowing increase in xcode speed simply do not exist unless the end user likes eating warm gorilla shit that looks like badly pixelated gorilla shit.

The reason why I went EVGA over anything AMD 68xx was because of the mythical legendary support of EVGA. Mythical yes, because NEWEGG promised a $20 rebate and both EVGA and NEWEGG told me to go phuck oph.

EVGA have been perfectly worthless. Crap company, crap products, crap support.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Yes, the image isn't perfect but I think we're at a point where the speed increases justify the slight sacrifices on image quality.

It also happens that when you do full-scene anti-aliasing with graphics(like with the QuickSync screenshot), it tends to turn everything a bit blurry. That's what happened when they compared Matrox Parhelia's AA that only smoothes the edges vs. everyone else that did FSAA.

 

[mclaren777]

I personally prefer the look of Quick Sync over the other transcoding options and I really hope we get some solid answers today during the ASUS/Intel webcast.

 

[Hogan773]

Ok so I'm still confused.

If I use a DVD authoring program, will it run the transcoding thru QS? Or I guess only if the specific program SUPPORTS QS, of which there are only a couple right now.

Putting aside Z68, one way of perhaps looking at it is IF I overclock my 2600K and use the CPU to encode, it should be at least as good of quality, and does the SPEED of an OCed CPU compensate some or all vs the better speed you'd get by going thru QuickSync? Because I won't be able to run the H67 board at 4.6ghz.

Will the Z68 chipset allow overclocking I guess?

Damn Intel, I was all ready to buy with a clean conscience, and now you throw this wrench in to give me potential reason to regret a P67 purchase or make me wait another few months. Bastiges.

 

[mclaren777]

Damn Intel, I was all ready to buy with a clean conscience, and now you throw this wrench in to give me potential reason to regret a P67 purchase or make me wait another few months. Bastiges.

That's exactly how I feel.

And based on Intel's response in this video there will never be a way to enable QS on a P67 board. :'(

 

[sticks435]

And based on Intel's response in this video there will never be a way to enable QS on a P67 board. :'(

that's exactly what I took from that video too, but it still wasn't very clear. I don't think that guy knew very much about how the processor actually worked.

 

[mclaren777]

I just stumbled upon this article and it got me wondering about Z68. Have you guys read any rumors about when it might be coming out? I'm hearing Q2 but I'd like a more solid answer because I may well put off my entire build until I can have both OC+QS on the same board.

The other problem is that the P67 is currently the only chipset that fully supports Intel's new overclocking regime. You can read more about that in our Sandy Bridge review, but the bottom line is that performance enthusiasts will want the P67 chipset. But they'll also want to use Quick Sync Video. And since they've paid for the frigging HD Graphics core, why shouldn't they be able to use that? It's all thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Making this whole story even more intriguing is the rumoured arrival of a third consumer-orientated Sandy Bridge chipset known as Z68. If the scuttlebutt is correct, the Z68 is the one chipset to rule them all. It supports both the HD Graphics core and the overclocking options. In other words, it's what the P67 should have been.

Quite why the Z68 is not available at launch we cannot say with certainty. But it sure looks like Intel suddenly – and belatedly - realised the P67 has a major problem.

 

[stahlhart]

And bear in mind, that's CPU encoding on the 2600K, which is a ludicrously fast processor.

"They've gone to plaid!" :biggrin:

I can live with P67 for now. If Z68 ends up being QS-enabled P67, then I'll get a new board and rebuild. I haven't done any upgrades in seven years; I need to get caught up anyway.

 

[mclaren777]

Would replacing a P67 with a Z68 require a reinstall of Windows?

 

[stahlhart]

Would replacing a P67 with a Z68 require a reinstall of Windows?

I was assuming so. I've never done a motherboard swap with an existing OS load. Perhaps Windows is more forgiving now? But I just don't think I'd feel comfortable unless I rebuilt it from scratch -- sort of like how you'd prefer to have full installation media rather than the upgrade version.

 

[Attic]

Would replacing a P67 with a Z68 require a reinstall of Windows?

I doubt it. Windows 7 is gernerally pretty good about handling hardware changes.

And you can always look into sysprep /generalize which basically puts the system in a state where at next boot up it will identify and install any new hardware.

 

[ElFenix]

Does it impact the ENcoding job like when I take a bunch of AVI files and use a DVD authoring program to turn those into an MPEG/DVD format? Or is that all CPU based?

that's transcoding.

And I can still do very HQ transcoding with the CPU right? QuickSync is just a "shortcut" that runs much faster and still gives acceptable or good results but the CPU could do an even better job if I were willing to do it more slowly?

yes

I just want to make sure I understand whether its worth waiting (for me) for Z68 or whether I really care a lot about QuickSync.

depends on how many transcoding jobs you want to do. i'd certainly appreciate a 2x faster transcode even at slightly reduced quality. problem with it for me is that it requires specific software. so until a more comprehensive program has support for it, it's not interesting.

I was assuming so. I've never done a motherboard swap with an existing OS load. Perhaps Windows is more forgiving now? But I just don't think I'd feel comfortable unless I rebuilt it from scratch -- sort of like how you'd prefer to have full installation media rather than the upgrade version.

in my experience, and maybe i'm just lucky, windows xp didn't require reinstall even swapping from amd to intel or vice versa, let alone between similar platforms like p67 and z68 are going to be. wasn't even that finicky, just needed a re-registering with MS in most cases. i doubt windows 7 went backward on that but i haven't had the opportunity to try.