Did Intel's QuickSync Technology Kill CUDA/APP?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-5.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...00k,2833-5.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com//dht/auto/1297460366.usr1.png" /></p><p>Take a look at that image above. It's from an <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-5.html" target="_blank">article on Tom's Hardware</a> that talks about how <a href="http://www.intel.com/technology/quicksynch/index.htm" target="_blank">Intel's QuickSync technology</a> - which is part of the Sandy Bridge platform - stacks up against GPU acceleration from NVIDIA's CUDA and AMD's APP (formerly Stream) technologies. The numbers above are simply shocking: GPU acceleration using CUDA or APP gives an almost 2x performance increase in HD video trascoding...yet, amazingly, Intel's QuickSync manages to get the same job done 5x faster than CUDA or APP. And let's be clear about something: it's able to do that with an integrated GPU that's part of the overall CPU, not with a beefy, power-sucking, loud graphics card that costs $300+. <MORE /></p><p>I first heard about this at CES: I was meeting with a software development company who specialized in video editing applications and were well-known for utilizing every possible CPU/GPU trick in the book to get superior transcoding speeds. They told me that, based on their initial tests using Intel Sandy Bridge CPUs, there would be no need for CUDA or APP in the future for transcoding videos - the Intel technology was so dramatically superior that it was what they'd be focusing on moving forward. They wouldn't be dropping CUDA/APP support in their products, but if a customer was using their software on a Sandy Bridge-equipped system, their software wouldn't even touch the dedicated GPU.</p><p>This is <em>stunning</em>. This means that someone using a Sandy Bridge-based laptop could easily transcode HD video much faster than someone on a desktop PC with a similarly-clocked CPU and a monster video card. As someone who's been eagerly waiting for a laptop that can encode HD video with impunity, I'm thrilled by this - the Intel HD 3000 isn't going to replace a dedicated GPU from a gaming perspective, but when it comes to encoding HD video, it looks like CUDA and APP are seriously out-classed.</p>

[ptyork]

This is seriously impressive stuff! Thanks for sharing, Jason! Once they get the whole SATA fiasco sorted out, I'm going to think hard about an upgrade from my Core 2 duo + Radeon 4850.

BUT, a part of me still wants to wait for a hardware-based solution for dynamic GPU switching. I want the best of both worlds, of course. The low power (and low noise) of the HD 3000 98% of the time and the 3D gaming performance of a separate card the other 2%.

I've found LucidLogix' Virtua product that does this in software, but it doesn't completely shut down the GPU. A Radeon 6000 series is pretty amazing in terms of idle draw at < 20W, but that's infinity percent more than 0 and represents more than $20 per year in power assuming an always on PC (good assumption for me, sadly). Not a big deal, but still...

Anyone heard anything about this kind of tech making it's way on to desktop silicon??

[Jason Dunn]

Anyone heard anything about this kind of tech making it's way on to desktop silicon??

I'm kind of confused about how QuickSync will work if there's a dedicated GPU - I've heard it will be disabled, but that would seem to be somewhat crazy if there's hardware that that a software developer could leverage to gain awesome speed. It would be weird to have laptop X with integrated graphics for $500 and laptop Y with dedicated graphics for $600 and have laptop X outperform laptop Y. The laptop OEMs wouldn't want to see that happen.

I'm also not clear on whether QuickSync is only available if you go with the chipset that includes the GPU, and if you go with the enthusiast chipset that lacks the Intel GPU, you lose this benefit.

Basically there's a lot about Sandy Bridge that I still don't know. :o

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I'm also not clear on whether QuickSync is only available if you go with the chipset that includes the GPU, and if you go with the enthusiast chipset that lacks the Intel GPU, you lose this benefit.



Just silly. Why wouldn't we want that too? If nothing, it's good for a backup when the dedicated GPU breaks down and needs repair...

[Jason Dunn]

Just silly. Why wouldn't we want that too? If nothing, it's good for a backup when the dedicated GPU breaks down and needs repair...

Agreed 100%. It doesn't make sense to me, but I believe that's what I read on another site when they were describing how Sandy Bridge was going to be implemented.

I need to find out more! :)

[Jonathon Watkins]

I need to find out more! :)

Please do. :-) I wondered about that as well.