News 64-Core AMD EPYC Rome Achieves World's First Real-Time 8K HEVC Encoding

[Admin]

On Friday, Beamr Imaging claims to have achieved the world's first real-time 8K HEVC encoding by using a single EPYC 7742, AMD's flagship server CPU based on its new Rome architecture.

64-Core AMD EPYC Rome Achieves World's First Real-Time 8K HEVC Encoding : Read more

 

[zimm007g]

ooooooof. where you at intel

 

[bit_user]

You're just talking about CPU-based encoding, right? I have some difficulty believing no ASIC or GPU has previously managed this feat.

Nvidia GPUs support HEVC/H.265 encoding 10-bit at up to 8k x 8k (whereas normal 8k is approximately 8k x 4k):

https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-video-codec-sdk

However, they don't say at what framerate it can manage this.

 

[thGe17]

What's all the fuss about? And how and why is "real-time" related to AMD?
8K HEVC HDR 10 Bit with 79 fps also means , that every single socket Xeon Platinum (28 C, maybe even 26 and 24 C) is able to render in real-time, because 79 fps is more than twice (or even triple) the number of necessary frames per second. The 7742 delivers more absolute Fps, naturally, because it delivers more than twice the number of CPU cores per socket compared to Intels regular setup.
Looks like (or at least feels to be) an AMD sponsored news.
A better title would be something like "Beamr Imaging demonstrates incredibly fast 79 fps CPU-based 8K HEVC encoding" or something similar.

(Or did I missed something and 60 Hz (full frames) is now the new default for television and film?)

 

[sonichedgehog360]

Software-based encoding is far superior which applies especially in the industry where live mastering with compression (even in broadcast--and I am not speaking of YouTube media influencers and game streamers who could care less) requires unyielding fidelity, not raw speed and passable quality. In this regard, Intel Quick Sync and Nvidia's NVENC are both non-starters since they exhibit clear signs of pixelization, noise, and smearing compared to the software solutions at comparable bitrates and quality levels.

 

[kinggremlin]

What's all the fuss about? And how and why is "real-time" related to AMD?
8K HEVC HDR 10 Bit with 79 fps also means , that every single socket Xeon Platinum (28 C, maybe even 26 and 24 C) is able to render in real-time, because 79 fps is more than twice (or even triple) the number of necessary frames per second. The 7742 delivers more absolute Fps, naturally, because it delivers more than twice the number of CPU cores per socket compared to Intels regular setup.
Looks like (or at least feels to be) an AMD sponsored news.
A better title would be something like "Beamr Imaging demonstrates incredibly fast 79 fps CPU-based 8K HEVC encoding" or something similar.

(Or did I missed something and 60 Hz (full frames) is now the new default for television and film?)

Agreed. 79fps is a mighty impressive accomplishment. However, with film typically 24fps and broadcast tv topping out at 29.97 fps, in the US, the claim of first real time encoding seems a bit dubious. There are multiple Intel and probably previous gen AMD CPU's that can exceed 30 fps.

 

[sunk818]

Agreed. 79fps is a mighty impressive accomplishment. However, with film typically 24fps and broadcast tv topping out at 29.97 fps, in the US, the claim of first real time encoding seems a bit dubious. There are multiple Intel and probably previous gen AMD CPU's that can exceed 30 fps.

Sports like mixed martial arts (MMA), boxing, racing, etc that sees a lot of changes between frames benefit from higher fps. Sky Sports is showing many events at 60 FPS, so having a server being able to render in real-time is useful. If you render at 24fps or 30fps, then you can potentially provide 2-3 real-time streams using one server.

Besides video rendering, this is also a boon to server licensing costs. Some licenses charge per server, so having one server instead of 2-3 do the same job saves money on licensing fees. If you colocate, you just pay for less space on the rack and potentially less electricity use if you compare performance with Xeon Gold.

 

[B-Bob]

What's all the fuss about? And how and why is "real-time" related to AMD?
8K HEVC HDR 10 Bit with 79 fps also means , that every single socket Xeon Platinum (28 C, maybe even 26 and 24 C) is able to render in real-time, because 79 fps is more than twice (or even triple) the number of necessary frames per second. The 7742 delivers more absolute Fps, naturally, because it delivers more than twice the number of CPU cores per socket compared to Intels regular setup.
Looks like (or at least feels to be) an AMD sponsored news.
A better title would be something like "Beamr Imaging demonstrates incredibly fast 79 fps CPU-based 8K HEVC encoding" or something similar.

(Or did I missed something and 60 Hz (full frames) is now the new default for television and film?)

60p is appears to be a reasonable minimum for 8K. As the resolution grows, low framerates become more noticeable to eye. They broadcast 8K in Japan at 60p.

That said, I would be very cautious about the news. Is 79 fps the average speed achieved? For what content? Can they encode any content, like white noise, above 60p? I bet they can't. They have just run their software on a that CPU with a test clip and spread the news as a mean of company promotion.

 

[Alex/AT]

You're just talking about CPU-based encoding, right? I have some difficulty believing no ASIC or GPU has previously managed this feat.

GPU could, but the quality of GPU optimized encoders nowadays is totally bad. Just because some things cannot be optimized easily and were simplified / thrown out.

Using specialized ASICs OTOH can totally be feasible in terms of quality, but will cost few times more per platform, and will require to be replaced once codecs change or evolve.

 

[kinggremlin]

Sports like mixed martial arts (MMA), boxing, racing, etc that sees a lot of changes between frames benefit from higher fps. Sky Sports is showing many events at 60 FPS, so having a server being able to render in real-time is useful. If you render at 24fps or 30fps, then you can potentially provide 2-3 real-time streams using one server.

Besides video rendering, this is also a boon to server licensing costs. Some licenses charge per server, so having one server instead of 2-3 do the same job saves money on licensing fees. If you colocate, you just pay for less space on the rack and potentially less electricity use if you compare performance with Xeon Gold.

Sky Sports broadcasts at 50fps, not 60fps. UHD currently uses about 15mbps to 25mbps. Fast motion 60fps 8k is estimated to need 80 to 100mbps per stream. TV providers are no where near being able to provide that type of bandwidth. We are years away from 8k 60 fps being a practical medium.

 

[bit_user]

And how and why is "real-time" related to AMD?

That's what they demo'd it on.

Looks like (or at least feels to be) an AMD sponsored news.

In a way, it is. There's a source link, at the top, which shows it's from the PR/Newswire. So, AMD and Beamr partnered on this project and issued a press release that (somewhat bizarrely) was first reported on Yahoo Finance and that was picked up by the author of this piece. I wonder why not source it straight from the newswire...

(Or did I missed something and 60 Hz (full frames) is now the new default for television and film?)

AFAIK, there are yet to be any 8k TV & film standards. Maybe some digital cinema projectors are already using 8k, but I assume most of that stuff is vendor-specific.

Anyway, 8k is so over-the-top for TV that why not also go for 60 Hz? Most TVs are using motion smoothing, and that stuff works even better (fewer artifacts) with higher-rate source material.

 

[bit_user]

Software-based encoding is far superior which applies especially in the industry where live mastering with compression

Well, Nvidia claims their H.264 is better than x264 (a popular software encoder), at comparable quality settings:

Turing H.264 Video Encoding Speed and Quality | NVIDIA Technical Blog

NVIDIA’s Tesla T4 offers improved video encoding compared to previous GPUs, with the same visual quality as libx264 with greater efficiency and performance.

devblogs.nvidia.com

They don't really address HEVC/H.265.

they exhibit clear signs of pixelization, noise, and smearing compared to the software solutions at comparable bitrates and quality levels.

Using what generation of hardware and what versions of software libraries & drivers?

 

[bit_user]

with film typically 24fps and broadcast tv topping out at 29.97 fps

It's common for ATSC 1080i broadcasts to have fields with different capture times. It deinterlaces directly to 59.94 fps, without any motion interpolation. This is most common for sports.

Probably some digital cable networks are using 1080p/60 on premium sports content.

As for "film", are digital cinemas all still using 24 fps? I remember hearing something about how the Hobbit 3D films were 48 Hz, and people found they didn't look as good on their home 3D TVs, because Blu Ray 3D was only capable of 24 Hz. So, at least some digital theaters can do more.

We are years away from 8k 60 fps being a practical medium.

IMO, there's nothing practical about it (leaving digital cinemas aside). For consumer TVs, it's simply ridiculous. We'd need wall-sized displays, first.

 

[kinggremlin]

AFAIK, there are yet to be any 8k TV & film standards. Maybe some digital cinema projectors are already using 8k, but I assume most of that stuff is vendor-specific.

Anyway, 8k is so over-the-top for TV that why not also go for 60 Hz? Most TVs are using motion smoothing, and that stuff works even better (fewer artifacts) with higher-rate source material.

I stand corrected. NHK in Japan is already broadcasting in 8k, as of December of last year, so there must be some sort of standard.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/01/8k-is-now-being-broadcast-in-japan/

All it takes is a dedicated satellite dish. A $2000 tuner, not mentioned in this article, and an 8k TV, which starts at over $4000 for a 65 in.

Fun fact, the recommended viewing distance for an 8k 65in display is 2 feet. That would make for a pretty cozy viewing experience. Your family of 4 crammed shoulder to shoulder trying to all sit 2 ft away from a 65in display.

As the article mentions, 8k broadcasts aren't leaving Japan any time soon. Just in case this whole thing didn't seem absurd enough, the 8k broadcast has 22.2 surround sound. If you're wondering what a 22.2 channel surround system looks like, here is a diagram:

Looks totally practical for a home setup. I'm going to start working on this for my living room so I am ready when it comes to the US.

 

[bit_user]

All it takes is a dedicated satellite dish. A $2000 tuner, not mentioned in this article, and an 8k TV, which starts at over $4000 for a 65 in.

That's better than I'd have assumed.

Fun fact, the recommended viewing distance for an 8k 65in display is 2 feet. That would make for a pretty cozy viewing experience. Your family of 4 crammed shoulder to shoulder trying to all sit 2 ft away from a 65in display.

...if you're going for the IMax experience, where it fills your field of vision. But, stuff has to be mastered for that, because most details near the edges will be missed. So, it's not like you could just watch existing movies like that.

Anyway, I'm thinking 65" is mainly for viewers. For a family, you'd need to go wall-sized.

As the article mentions, 8k broadcasts aren't leaving Japan any time soon.

The Japanese have always been way out ahead, on this sort of thing. They had analog HD broadcasts, as far back as the late 80's or early 90's. They were first to embrace widescreen, as well.

Just in case this whole thing didn't seem absurd enough, the 8k broadcast has 22.2 surround sound.

That's only a little more extreme than the Theater version of Dolby Atmos.

Looks totally practical for a home setup. I'm going to start working on this for my living room so I am ready when it comes to the US.

The thing to remember is that just because a sound is mixed so that it originates from a certain position doesn't mean that you need to have a real speaker there. I'm sure most setups will use far fewer speakers and fill in the rest with virtual surround techniques.

The other approach is just to give each sound a set of 3D coordinates, which is a lot more flexible in terms of how you reproduce it. However, it places more processing burden on the receiver and might be more difficult to properly setup.