Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1

    Transcoding with AMD R7 240 - Fast Enough?


    I recently got into Blu-Rays. I've converted all of my Blu-Rays to DRM-free MKV files, but now they're taking up a lot of space on my hard drive. I'd like to be able to reduce the size of those MKV files. The CPU in my "ripping rig" isn't great (Intel Core 2 Duo). I know that Handbrake can use AMD GPUs in place of the CPU to speed up transcoding. I don't want to spend a lot on this, so I was hoping an inexpensive ($50-$65) AMD GPU would be able to speed up the transcoding time well enough.

    For example, it takes my "ripping rig" 5 hours to convert a 30 gigabyte MKV from a Blu-Ray to MP4 while my 2011 laptop would only take 2 hours and 15 minutes to do the same thing.

    Would an AMD R7 240 be able to transcode video as fast or faster than my laptop?

  2. #2
    Linux Guru Segfault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Acadiana
    Posts
    2,185
    MP4 is a container. And so is MKV. What takes time is video encoding, regardless of what container is used. Since it is Blueray you want H.265 encoding, I assume. There are some rather expensive nVidia cards which can do it in hardware. Last time I checked a couple of months ago the card with all required features cost $20k at Newegg. Not sure how well AMD can do it, Intel has some hardware coding routines in their new CPU's, still much slower than full hardware encoding.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Segfault View Post
    MP4 is a container. And so is MKV. What takes time is video encoding, regardless of what container is used. Since it is Blueray you want H.265 encoding, I assume. There are some rather expensive nVidia cards which can do it in hardware. Last time I checked a couple of months ago the card with all required features cost $20k at Newegg. Not sure how well AMD can do it, Intel has some hardware coding routines in their new CPU's, still much slower than full hardware encoding.
    Yeah, I know MP4 and MKV are containers. But I wouldn't want to convert to H.265 because I don't have anything that can play it. I would prefer to convert to H.264. Are there any AMD cards around $50-$60 that can convert MPEG-2 to H.264?

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #4
    Linux Guru Segfault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Acadiana
    Posts
    2,185
    I personally do not believe into hardware encoding using cheap encoders. They are meant for speed, like encoding live, in realtime, but their quality is subpar to software encoding. As I mentioned before there are cards which can do the job but you better open up a business then to make them pay back, shelling out $20k for home use is not feasible, IMO. Better get an Intel i7 and let it run day and night.

  6. #5
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Segfault View Post
    I personally do not believe into hardware encoding using cheap encoders.
    i don't understand this statement.
    maybe i just don't know what a "cheap encoder" is.

    anyhow:
    Quote Originally Posted by JMan07 View Post
    I wouldn't want to convert to H.265 because I don't have anything that can play it. I would prefer to convert to H.264.
    i concur.
    and i know that a well adjusted h264 encoding is just as good quality as h265, and only slightly larger.
    but "well adjust" likely means that it takes very long.

  7. #6
    Linux Guru Segfault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Acadiana
    Posts
    2,185
    -->
    nihili,

    I was interested in subject some time ago and did my homework. Cheap hardware encoders can certainly speed up encoding. However, there seems to be consensus among video enthusiasts their output quality is not very good. These encoders lack many features software encoders have. Unless you go for expensive hardware which is not justified for home use.
    I would not use a cheap hardware encoder to back up my precious HD videos. Furthermore, H.265 will give significantly smaller files when encoding HD video. It was designed for HD.
    But that's just me. Even USA is still somewhat free country, do what pleases you.

    Edit: I was just encoding SD video. For comparison I used also H.264 with same settings. Constant Quality, Rate Factor 23.
    The H.265 video size is only 2/3 of H.264 video size (68.47%).
    With HD video the difference is even bigger.
    Last edited by Segfault; 12-31-2017 at 01:55 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •