I recently upgraded my hardware from an i5-2320 to an i7-10700 system with UHD630 graphics as per my signature, but see no obvious difference in mp4 export time between the two systems despite ticking every "hardware acceleration" box that pops up. What I do see is the CPU working rather hard, but the GPU is simply cruising along and obviously playing no part in encoding the video file. What is missing here (can I guess - an MEP upgrade?!).
Richard
Hi Richard.
If you are not running dual monitors and your monitor is plugged into you nvidia card there is a good chance your Intel GPU is not enabled in your UEFI, (new version of the old bios system).
If it is not showing in the MEP's program settings then it is probably disabled.
Ray.
Hi
Do/check the following:
* If connecting a second monitor input is not possible then try a Headless Ghost (monitor emulator) and plug this into the UHD630 port.
HTH
John EB
Hi guys
Apologies for this long delay in getting back to you as a result of "other issues".
I have at last got around to putting your advice into practice. I hadn't realised that the UHD630 GPU in the i7-10700 is disabled by default unless a monitor is connected to it - the GPU in my old i5-2320 was always enabled. Once I had a second monitor connected the UHD630 GPU appeared in Device Manager together with my 1660Ti (which is always enabled in Device Manager). Interestingly, I see no reference to any GPU in the AMI UEFI BIOS.
So, on with the testing: I rendered a short 6 minute DV-AVI clip into MP4 format with the following results (absolute clip details not important - these figures are merely for comparison purposes):
1660Ti only - 7m 15s
UHD630 only - 1m 50s
UHD630 & 1660Ti - 1m 50s
Then I applied a generic Neat Video operation to the clip:
1660Ti only - 10m 0s
UHD630 only - 4m 50s
UHD630 & 1660Ti - 3m 50s
For general rendering purposes the performance of the 1660Ti appears to be pretty feeble compared with the UHD630. In fact, it may as well not be there at all for simple rendering, although some effect is seen with Neat Video - as may be expected. Splashing out on a new i7-10700 system was obviously a good idea.
But now a new problem: As suggested, I decided to purchase an HDMI "ghost" plug to hopefully maintain the UHD630 card up and running when using one monitor only - that on the 1660Ti. No luck. I tried all kinds of contortions but the 1660Ti screen remained blank, whatever I did to the multiple display settings. Any idea what I might have missed, or is the plug faulty? It's the sort of device that's difficult to test except in the configuration I'm using it!
Hi
. . . . For general rendering purposes the performance of the 1660Ti appears to be pretty feeble compared with the UHD630 . . . .
The issue is that only a few effects are accelerated using the 1660 - try the Vegas Stabilisation - you should see it hitting high % usage.
The Neat Video plugin is a very calculation intensive effect which dramatically slows down the export rate - depending on the NV version this could be as low as 1.5 fps, the version 5.3 on the RTX 2060 hits 12-15 fps (1920 x 1080).
. . . . I decided to purchase an HDMI "ghost" plug to hopefully maintain the UHD630 card up and running when using one monitor only - that on the 1660Ti. No luck. I tried all kinds of contortions but the 1660Ti screen remained blank . . . .
With a real monitor plugged in set Windows, System, Display to Duplicate - if you set it to Extend you will lose your mouse as you go past the edge of the main display, and set the primary display - Make this my main display option to the monitor connected to the 1660Ti.
Shut down, remove the 2nd monitor, plugin the Headless Ghost and start up the computer - you should now have the iGPU working and your main Windows screen.
If that does not work the Headless Ghost could be faulty.
HTH
John EB
Hi John
That's precisely the procedure I went through, and the 1660Ti screen was blank on startup. I'll have to get onto the ghost plug's supplier. Good to know about the Vegas stabilisation, though.
Later: I think I see the problem. The small print in the plug's spec hides away the strange requirement for HDMI 2.0. My brand-new Z490-P motherboard complies with HDMI 1.4... Oh, well, you live and learn.
Thanks
Richard
Hi
. . . . The small print in the plug's spec hides away the strange requirement for HDMI 2.0. My brand-new Z490-P motherboard complies with HDMI 1.4. . . . .
All that means is the Headless Ghost can support 4K resolution at 60 fps maximum, the computer will only output 4K at 30fps which is well within the spec of the Ghost.
I am surprised that such a modern board only supports HDMI 1.4.
HTH
John EB
Hi John
All that means is the Headless Ghost can support 4K resolution at 60 fps maximum, the computer will only output 4K at 30fps which is well within the spec of the Ghost.
That is how I would interpret the HDMI 2.0 stipulation, too. However, the spec reads:
"HDMI version supports up to 4K (3840 * 2160) @ 60Hz, 1080P @ 120Hz. HDMI2.0 support required."
I have no idea why the device should require HDMI 2.0, but the spec says it does. I don't comply and the thing doesn't work. Trying to swap it for another on the possibly flawed assumption it's faulty is a bigger issue for me than simply buying a Display Port equivalent, which I now have on order.
From what I can make out the entire current Asus range of B460 and Z490 motherboards only supports HDMI 1.4; MSI is coy on the issue but I would guess it's the same. Possibly the assumption is that if you've got Display Port you don't need a fast HDMI connection, too?
Richard
Hi John
The Display Port Headless Ghost works fine. Just recording this in case anyone with a similar motherboard to mine has the same problem with an HDMI Headless Ghost (although I dare say the HG I have is an unusual example of the genre). Can't give details of its manufacturer/type - it's anonymous. Always a bad sign...
Richard