Will my 2600k encode better than GTX580 SLI

JasonKnights · 16 May 2011 at 19:36

Hi there I have a p67 motherboard with 2600k @ 4.5ghz and 2x GTX 580 twin frozr II running SLI. I have seen the Z68 chipsets which uses quick sync encoding from the built in intel gpu on my processor. And was wondering what's better? 1024 Cuda cores or the quick sync?

panyan · 16 May 2011 at 19:40

JasonKnights said:
Hi there I have a p67 motherboard with 2600k @ 4.5ghz and 2x GTX 580 twin frozr II running SLI. I have seen the Z68 chipsets which uses quick sync encoding from the built in intel gpu on my processor. And was wondering what's better? 1024 Cuda cores or the quick sync?

ummm, "better" is going to be a problem for us...

if by better you mean video quality, videophiles never use the gpu to encode as the final output is never as good as that with a cpu

if by better you mean faster, then i imagine the gpu will be a lot quicker

cmndr_andi · 16 May 2011 at 19:44

Hi there,

This is worth a read.

JasonKnights · 16 May 2011 at 19:44

Sorry I mean which will encode the quickest! The on chip gpu or the nvidia cards gpu's?

olivier renault · 16 May 2011 at 19:46

All my money is on the GPU.

EDIT : ... and now I'm broke.

JasonKnights · 16 May 2011 at 19:49

cmndr_andi said:
Hi there,

This is worth a read.

Thanks, it seems the quick sync is faster than the external gpu. But not enough to invest in the z68 board I don't think

stulid · 16 May 2011 at 20:12

If the progarm can use CUDA, then the nvidia card is (as long as its not a slow card such as a GT430 or less etc) faster.

JasonKnights · 16 May 2011 at 20:39

I have 2 580s

Ninja12 · 17 May 2011 at 16:15

From what i understand encoding is a mainly CPU intensive process, transcoding is done on the fly and used mainly in coverting media for other devices. I used transcoding to stream to my ps3 on formats is struggles with, even on 17gb 1080p files my C2D can breeze through it