Dante80 posted:

How do you mean? The scheduling is the same that the consoles have, so it was pretty easy for AMD to do the same (it also makes logical sense due to the way the Uarch is arranged on both dies).

Microsoft and game engines on PC have different scheduling, and one of the jobs needed to port the game into PC from the newest consoles is to change said scheduling from what Jaguar does to what Intel does (AMD never had SMT before, so there was no need to do otherwise in the past).

Thus, without proper patches to Windows and the games themselves, we see Ryzen performance getting worse when SMT is enabled. Which also speaks a lot about how loving clown-ish and rushed the launch was...AMD stock has lost more than $1.5bn in two days due to their PR department lol.

Truga posted:

Are we reading the same thread?

"mse" is mean square error, i.e. "how much of this video is different from the lossless one"

x264 is noticeably better in general, and copes far better with high motion games like 1st/3rd person games, which I stream.

Malcolm XML posted:

There's also still the APUs, which apparently a person interested in game performance on mobile platforms is salivating over.

Maxwell Adams posted:

Any info on AMD's hardware encoding? OBS Studio just had an update that expanded support for it.

Platystemon posted:

This is a tangentially related question, but I don't know of a thread it fits in better and we're on the subject anyway:

What hardware do commercial video streaming services use for encoding?

NewFatMike posted:

Gotta keep that 1080p30 pipe dream for laptops. Fingers crossed a brave OEM will license out for TB3 ports. Lisa Su pls.

I think a clip from the level one show summed it up nicely, framing the R7s as server chips in a desktop platform. I'm interested in doing some home server experimentation with a rig based on that, although the I/O limitations on AM4 may be a limiting factor there.

FuturePastNow posted:

laptop makers segregate AMD APUs to a ghetto of flimsy plastic laptops with bad screens and poo poo batteries, and Zen probably won't change that

FuturePastNow posted:

laptop makers segregate AMD APUs to a ghetto of flimsy plastic laptops with bad screens and poo poo batteries, and Zen probably won't change that

ConanTheLibrarian posted:

AMD is still a loss making company. Cash flow problems could have dictated that they release Ryzen as soon as they could.

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

drat I know they've got cash flow problems for years but do you believe it was that bad? I mean if the company was gonna fail without a few months of stock boosting/CPU sales RIGHT now bad? Because to me that is the only way that would make sense but I've never been in that sort of position anywhere much less at AMD.

I vaugely remember some stock guy saying AMD would fail by 2018 or so if they didn't turn things around but that was almost 2yr ago now I believe.

FuturePastNow posted:

laptop makers segregate AMD APUs to a ghetto of flimsy plastic laptops with bad screens and poo poo batteries, and Zen probably won't change that

quote:

For any questions regarding discrepancies with benchmarking, some progressing evidence: https://goo.gl/Kqkfvm

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

drat I know they've got cash flow problems for years but do you believe it was that bad? I mean if the company was gonna fail without a few months of stock boosting/CPU sales RIGHT now bad? Because to me that is the only way that would make sense but I've never been in that sort of position anywhere much less at AMD.

Cardboard Box A posted:

This is not borne out by the OBS tests https://obsproject.com/forum/threads/comparison-of-x264-nvenc-quicksync-vce.57358/

Watermelon Daiquiri posted:

how would a qualitative measure of how close a compressed file compares to the lossless original not imply how good it is? I mean, i'm sure you could cheat it if theres like a repeating pixel pattern or something as the only difference, but for the most part it'd be accurate especially if you keep file size into account.

Combat Pretzel posted:

Numerical evaluation by a computer program means poo poo, just like looking at a FFT doesn't tell you whether a MP3/AAC file sounds good or not. How it looks when played back is what matters.

quote:

BAD TESTING IS WORSE THAN NO TESTING: The great thing about the web is you can post something and share it with a very large number of people. If it's something that's obviously subjective such as a favorite restaurant, those reading your review know their tastes might be different that yours. But if something appears factual, and the author seems to know what they're talking about, that's very different. But what if it's really wrong or misleading? Because so few people are in a position to verify the results, and the few who can likely won't take the time, the bad data is very likely to go unchallenged. So it just hangs out there on the web to potentially mislead anyone who happens to find it. This happens more than you might think!

VIRAL TEST RESULTS: There are many examples where someone posts their test results for some piece of new gear and the numbers look great, they rave about it, and soon others run out and buy the same gear and post their own glowing subjective reviews, and before you know it the product has an almost cult-like following of fans on the web. But if you trace some of these back to their source, there's sometimes only a single set of sketchy results that helped start it all. And it can be a long time before anyone tries to verify the results—if ever. All the rest of the glowing reviews are often purely subjective--i.e. people's personal opinions. And those are biased from all the other positive comments and other influences.
...
TEST CONDITIONS MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE: If I publish a Ford Mustang can go from 0-60 MPH in 5.5 seconds that sounds fairly impressive. But is that on perfectly flat ground or was it down hill? Was there a head or tail wind? How much extra weight was in the car? How accurately was it timed? Was it some guy in the passenger seat with a wristwatch or with professional timing equipment? Was the road wet with lots of wheelspin or dry with good traction? All of these things will significantly change a car's 0-60 time--sometimes dramatically.

MISLEADING INFORMATION: If I run a 0-60 test of a Mustang on dry pavement, and someone else does a 0-60 test on a fairly similar Chevy Camaro but does it in the rain, which one do you think will have the better result? Obviously the Mustang will get a lot more traction at the start and be the clear winner. But if you just saw the two numbers published on the web, with little explanation of how they were obtained, you might easily think the Mustang is a much faster car than the Camaro. This is exactly analogous to what happens when people test audio gear and post their results. While testing a car's acceleration in the rain is hopefully a bad idea to most people, many are not even aware they’re making similar mistakes during audio testing.

THE BEST TEST RESULTS CAN BE READILY COMPARED: What good are test results if you can't make valid comparisons to other results? That's why car magazines try to test cars under as controlled of conditions as possible. They correct for weight, wind, and even things like temperature which affects an engine's horsepower. So when they test a Mustang in January in Detroit and a Camaro in August in California, you can safely compare the results to each other. But most of the audio results being published on the web cannot be compared in similar ways because they're often measured under different or unknown conditions.

THE BEST TEST RESULTS ARE VERIFIED BY OTHERS: In the scientific and medical communities results that can't be verified are completely dismissed as invalid. But in audio many tend to take them as fact. When you conduct testing in a controlled way, it's much easier for others to verify your results. But if they don't know under what conditions the tests were made--what signal levels, loads, settings, with what equipment, etc.--they're almost impossible to verify. And without being able to verify the results, there's no way to know if they're reasonably accurate.

THE FINEST TESTING ADVERTISING WON'T BUY: There are certainly organizations out there with the equipment and knowledge to run proper tests. But, sadly, most of the consumer oriented magazines and sites tend to leave out, or gloss over, anything very negative for fear of losing their advertisers (which very often make the very gear they're testing). A classic example is even some relatively expensive (i.e. $1000) A/V receivers come nowhere close to their advertised power ratings under real world conditions. But tests on these receivers are often done in such a way to avoid revealing just how bad they really are). Why? Most likely because those same manufactures advertise with the same organization publishing the review.

Paul MaudDib posted:

At least with video encoder errors it's not going to blow your equipment up. But y'all should read NwAvGuy's blog because it has a lot of relevance to the Ryzen launch too.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/testing-methods.html

So honest question here... how many people here had even heard of Joker Productions before he became /r/AMD's last great hope for Ryzen? Cause I sure hadn't.

Dante80 posted:

I think this is another outlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAuZUJF68I

He also posted this.


That leads to this.

https://twitter.com/theoverclocker/status/837760151570403328

Which probably means that the guy is simply running a GPU bottlenecked bench and quoting someone else that does not provide details..just wants a clickbaity title to push his next magazine..

TheJeffers posted:

I looked into his methods and he's minimized CPU differences by testing with a lot of D3D12 titles. There's a point to be made there but it's hardly the best way to produce a CPU review.

Paul MaudDib posted:

At least with video encoder errors it's not going to blow your equipment up. But y'all should read NwAvGuy's blog because it has a lot of relevance to the Ryzen launch too.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/testing-methods.html

So honest question here... how many people here had even heard of Joker Productions before he became /r/AMD's last great hope for Ryzen? Cause I sure hadn't.

Paul MaudDib posted:

Mean squared error against a lossless source file would tell you whether the MP3 sounds good or not though.

Watermelon Daiquiri posted:

how would a qualitative measure of how close a compressed file compares to the lossless original not imply how good it is? I mean, i'm sure you could cheat it if theres like a repeating pixel pattern or something as the only difference, but for the most part it'd be accurate especially if you keep file size into account.

Paul MaudDib posted:

So yes, a computer actually can tell you whether it sounds good or not. At least, if your psychoacoustic model is a good one. No, they aren't perfect, yes, they usually are better than subjective reviewers. Ever read head-fi or some of the other "audiophile" forums to see what happens when you let subjective reviewers jerk themselves off?

Klyith posted:

Here's a good article about the limits of standard algorithms for judging quality of lossy video. (cached version, I can't get to the original right now.)

a) it's somewhat more valid in the case of images than audio. Our ears suck, eyes are slightly less easy to fool. Unlike with psycho-acoustic audio compression, you don't get totally inverted relationships between perceived quality and PSNR or whatever. The perceptual models of our hearing are more mature than our vision, and it was an easier problem in the first place. The next generation of video encoding will maybe start to incorporate models of eye-tracking, face recognition, and stuff like that.

b) for cartoons and other artificial images, PSNR and other "dumb" algorithms track much better to perceived quality than for video or real things. The CH animation results in the second set of charts show that. Where a video game falls on that spectrum I don't know -- I suspect something like DOTA is more animation-like, and a 1st/3rd person action game more "real-world".

quote:

No, in fact it does not. Optimizing MP3s for PSNR against the original is actively detrimental to sound quality. It's impossible to overstate how much our ears are "listening" to different things from the audio waveform.

And using the psychoacoustic model of a lossy algorithm to judge the results is dumb -- it's just going to grade itself as perfect. What you're trying to determine is the quality of the psychoacoustic model itself, which means scoring it by humans (in a proper experiment of course).

Platystemon posted:

A numerical comparison will never be better than a good, blind comparison made by actual human beings because you’re attempting to discern is human opinion.

As good as a computer model of a building might be, it will never more accurate than constructing the building and testing the real thing.

More convenient, definitely, but not more accurate.

Paul MaudDib posted:

I wasn't implying that MSE was the gold standard by any means. Does it tell you more than just looking at an encoded waveform with no reference waveform to compare against? Most definitely yes.


That's why you have multiple psychoacoustic models. Run the MP3 through the OGG Vorbis psychoacoustic model and see what it says. If all the (high-quality) models say it's good, it's more likely to be good than something they say is lovely.

Secondly, it's not like you encode something against a psychoacoustic/visual model and that means it has zero error. Let's say I encode a 16 kbps MP3, do you think that would sound perfect?

Finally - what we have here are two totally separate decoders. We can most definitely look at the psychovisual error between the two of them and say which one the model says is better.

I firmly reject the idea that psychoacoustic/visual models have absolutely nothing to tell us. As does the entire field of audiovisual compression, in fact. That's why we have the psychoacoustic/visual models.

Do the psychoacoustic/visual models have to be validated by actual people? Yes, of course, you win,

Paul MaudDib posted:

Paul MaudDib posted:

Again, the problem with this is clearly evident if you've ever been around audiophiles.

Blind testing is a lot more effort than most people will go to and/or can go to (depending on the field).

If you know which sample you're looking at, your opinion is meaningless as far as empirical results are concerned. This has been long-since established.

Also, you're explaining this to a guy who was blind-testing his family on DIVX and XVID codec settings back in ~2002, age 13

Klyith posted:

I am not sure what your original point was in that case, other than "I like to argue".

quote:

The sentence I quoted was definitively wrong. If the way you want to make it correct is to say that MSE/PSNR is better than no data at all, then sure.

Klyith posted:

Instead, you'd do what Netflix has done in that article I linked: build a second, unrelated, algorithm to judge quality based on a data set evaluated by humans (VMAF in this case). This is a perceptual model in itself, but it doesn't do the same thing as the ones in the codecs. They're not interchangeable. For a while the VMAF will give good results, but if the codecs start to incorporate VMAF's methods or tune themselves to it, the divergence between VMAF's results and real humans will increase.

quote:

"Reversing" a perceptual lossy product through other codecs is not something that anyone would do -- at least for audio, the models that each codec uses are extremely similar and the places that they are different are tuned for the particular idiosyncrasies of that codec. You would still be going down the wrong path if your method for finding the best 16kbps MP3 is by MSE/PSNR similarity to 128kbps Ogg Vorbis.

Klyith posted:

I mean if you want to argue with golden-ears audiophiles go to headfi or wherever they are. They're not hard to find! Don't argue with us by constructing imaginary positions we didn't say.


edit either that or you just have a really confrontational way of agreeing with people

Paul MaudDib posted:

OK now that you've gotten the point, please don't suggest that going to a forum thread with labelled samples is a good way to evaluate any sort of lossy compression codec.

Paul MaudDib posted:

You seem to be extra confrontational about that concept for some reason though.

See you understood perfectly well what I was referring to, that's why you brought up what Netflix did.

Klyith posted:

I suggest maybe going back a page or two and re-reading, maybe keeping notes on who said what, because that's important.

Dude, I made post about netflix and their evaluations of different ways of judging perceptual quality, and you fishmeched me. Of the people in this thread, you're the one interpreting anyone who quotes you as looking for a fight. People can say things about a topic without it being the opening salvo of a flamewar.

quote:

edit: I'd even suggest reading the OBS thread in question, because the guy has a chart of MSE results and then talks about how the nvidia encoder is worse by visual examination, and says that MSE is not good enough. He then encourages people to download his samples to look at them.