VideoProc on iMacs

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
I have an iMac Core i5 3.7 GHz with a Vega 48 and I tried lately VideoProc on it. The company developing it says that it supports almost all the newer GPUs for hardware acceleration. However, in this particular iMac model it detects only the Intel HD graphics, completely ignoring the Vega 48.

Could you (iMac and iMac Pro users) please install this multi-purpose video converter and check what does it report in the hardware acceleration settings? Does it see and report correctly your GPU? The trial version has some limitations but it will let you check the settings and even do conversions of short videos.

Thanks! :)
 
Last edited:

kohlson

macrumors 68020
Apr 23, 2010
2,367
701
Have you tried doing something video-ey while using Apps-Utilities-Activity Monitor? GPU History (essentially a rolling bar graph of GPU activity ) is Cmd+4. You should see two graphs: Intel Pro Graphics and Vega 48.
 

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
Have you tried doing something video-ey while using Apps-Utilities-Activity Monitor? GPU History (essentially a rolling bar graph of GPU activity ) is Cmd+4. You should see two graphs: Intel Pro Graphics and Vega 48.
Activity Monitor shows only the Vega 48. iStat Menus show both Intel graphics and Vega 48, if this is what you mean.

I have tried video players and I have already seen (through iStat Menus) both Intel and AMD graphics been used in video decoding through these players. However, VideoProc relies exclusively on the Intel graphics. I have done some conversions with it and I saw it using only the Intel HD graphics, in accordance to what it reports in the settings.

Therefore, despite the assertion that it supports everything from AMD Radeon HD 7700 series and up, it completely ignores the Vega 48. I am very curious to see what it does detect on iMac Pro that does not have Intel graphics. Or in any iMac for that matter.
 

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
In FCPX, both of them do work - along with the CPU, of course, at various times.
This is why I am asking about VideoProc. From what they say in their website, one would expect that it is able to use both Intel and AMD graphics. However, in my case it uses only the Intel graphics, while as I mentioned previously there are video players using both Intel and AMD at the same time for video playback. Therefore there is no technical hurdle to this.

A possible explanation would be development based on Videotoolbox, as explained here. But I am not a developer to tell for sure.

Hence my question, how does VideoProc work in other iMac models? Does it see a discrete GPU when the iMac has one?
 

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
Well? Still no one with VideoProc on an iMac, normal or Pro?
 

priitv8

macrumors 68040
Jan 13, 2011
3,648
483
Estonia
On macOS it uses only Intel and I think it is because the videotoolbox.
I've come to understand from HandBrake forums, that on macOS the only way to access Intel QuickSync technology is via the Videotoolbox api.
I have no idea, if switching from Intel QS to AMD-s similar encoder would bring any real benefit.
They might be useable in parallel to encode 2 clips simultaneously, in parallel.
Screenshot 2019-08-31 at 01.48.09.png Screenshot 2019-08-31 at 01.47.59.png
 

kohlson

macrumors 68020
Apr 23, 2010
2,367
701
bring any real benefit.
In Handbrake, using VideoToolBox to encode on an VTB-enabled RX580 in my cMP is 2x faster. Example. A GoPro clip did 36fps with default settings, and 88fps when selecting the VTB as the encoder.
 

priitv8

macrumors 68040
Jan 13, 2011
3,648
483
Estonia
In Handbrake, using VideoToolBox to encode on an VTB-enabled RX580 in my cMP is 2x faster. Example. A GoPro clip did 36fps with default settings, and 88fps when selecting the VTB as the encoder.
That is true.
I am not disputing the benefit of hardware acceleration.
I question whether AMD’s implementation of HW encoder and accompanying drivers is any different/better from Intel’s?
I mean, if macOS takes advantage of Intel QS tech, why should Apple bother to implement a similar solution just from another vendor?
 

kohlson

macrumors 68020
Apr 23, 2010
2,367
701
I mean, if macOS takes advantage of Intel QS tech, why should Apple bother to implement a similar solution just from another vendor?
If I understand the situation correctly, Apple would probably choose QS over anything else. But the issue is the iMac Pro, which uses a Xeon cpu, which does not have QS. That has been a benefit for those of us with cMP. But everyone else probably doesn't care. I'm not aware of any Mac OS configurations where there is an option to choose AMD or QS.
 

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
I mean, if macOS takes advantage of Intel QS tech, why should Apple bother to implement a similar solution just from another vendor?
Because discrete GPUs can be much more powerful than Intel's integrated ones? Besides, I hear that Final Cut Pro is heavily optimised to fully use discrete GPUS.

But my point initially was somewhat different. I would like to know what exactly VideoProc does. The company behind it says that it can use basically any modern discrete GPU and Intel graphics, but as I said I found out that it completely ignores the Vega 48 in recent iMacs. So I should perhaps rephrase my initial statement to include not only iMacs Pro that do not have the QuickSync technology but any Mac without QuickSync. In particular I would like to see if the developer's claim is true and if yes, why VideoProc does not see the Vega 48.
 

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
I question whether AMD’s implementation of HW encoder and accompanying drivers is any different/better from Intel’s?
The question is more about the claim of VideoProc developers. What will it do on an iMac Pro without QuickSync? They say in their website:

Supported GPUs for Hardware Acceleration Tech

NVIDIA
NVIDIA® GeForce GT 630 or higher
Intel Intel® HD Graphics 2000 or higher
AMD AMD Radeon HD 7700 series (VCE 1.0) or higher

So, why VideoProc does not see the Vega 48? I asked them about it. They never replied. But if someone is willing to test VideoProc on their Mac, then we will have some answers. Let me repeat that it is free to download and test it, and the demo version shows in the settings what GPU is detected.
 

priitv8

macrumors 68040
Jan 13, 2011
3,648
483
Estonia
Supported GPUs for Hardware Acceleration Tech
But they do not specify exactly, whether and what is used for decoding and what is being used for encoding.
These are 2 completely different tasks.
HW-assisted decoding is noting special.
I am interested in HW-assisted H.265 aka HEVC encoding. That is where real time savings are buried.
 

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
But they do not specify exactly, whether and what is used for decoding and what is being used for encoding.
These are 2 completely different tasks.
HW-assisted decoding is noting special.
No. They explain here what they mean.

But it does not really matter. Decoding or encoding, VideoProc ignores completely the Vega 48 while it should report it in the settings according to the company's notes (as it does for Intel graphics). I guess you have not tried to install it yet. You can see in this figure what the options look like: VideoProc.png

I am interested in HW-assisted H.265 aka HEVC encoding. That is where real time savings are buried.
VideoProc can do HEVC encoding and for that it can use the GPU. For example, this video


is 880 MB. Converting it to MP4-HEVC video with hardware acceleration on (Intel graphics in my case), is about 5 times faster than using exclusively the CPU with hardware acceleration off (60 vs. 12 fps in my system). The difference is overwhelming. On top of that, the CPU usage while offloading to the GPU is really small, which lets the machine to stay cool. And how knows, perhaps the acceleration would be even higher if the Vega 48 would be used for that.
 

priitv8

macrumors 68040
Jan 13, 2011
3,648
483
Estonia
I guess you have not tried to install it yet. You can see in this figure what the options look like:
I have, see my post #7 above.
And how knows, perhaps the acceleration would be even higher if the Vega 48 would be used for that.
That is good question.
If this post is to be believed, then it is irrelevant, as it does not even support 10-bit HEVC. Intel Coffe Lake does.
 

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
I have, see my post #7 above.
Sorry, I somehow missed the screenshots. So, it is the same on the i9 iMac too. I am genuinely curious to see what it gives on the iMac Pro with the Vega 56/64/64X but without QuickSync.

That is good question.
If this post is to be believed, then it is irrelevant, as it does not even support 10-bit HEVC. Intel Coffe Lake does.
I am not sure that VideoProc can process 10-bit HEVC. Unless 10-bit is well understood in HEVC?
 

priitv8

macrumors 68040
Jan 13, 2011
3,648
483
Estonia
I am not sure that VideoProc can process 10-bit HEVC. Unless 10-bit is well understood in HEVC?
10-bit is very well understood in HEVC, because it is a must for HDR10 and HLG encodes.
Screenshot 2019-09-03 at 08.02.41.png
Dolby Vision is 12-bit (but via additional data, so video stream is still encoded in 10 bits) but there are no tools for the people that could do it, so again - irrelevant. At this very moment.
 
Last edited:

PBMB

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
231
38
I installed in the meantime VideoProc on a MBP i7 from 2014. The options screen now is this:

VideoProc_MBP.png

This machine is equipped with Intel graphics only, so no surprise here. It is normal I suppose to not have HEVC in this case.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.