Who is right?

Having a problem with performance doing video transcoding. As part of my
research I found out that Windows 10 uses WDDM 2.n (depending on release
version), while Specy tells my that my Graphics Adapter (AMD Radeon HD
7660D [part of my AMD A10-5800K processor]) is using WDDM 1.3.

My question is, is Windows 10 going to use WDDM 2.n regardless of what my
graphics adapter says it has, or is the adapter going to use WDDM 1.3
regardless?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tim wrote:

AMD Radeon HD 7660D

https://www.amd.com/en/support/apu/a...adeon-hd-7660d

Do you have the latest Crimson driver package? You could check if a
latter version of WDDM was supported by the latest driver. The OS still
has to communicate to the hardware using the driver, so no matter what
improvements the OS might make it cannot surpass the functionality built
into the interface (driver). Also, the OS handling a later version of a
library does not mean the hardware will.

https://community.amd.com/docs/DOC-1312

According that that list, the A10 supports WDDM 2.0; however, it also
lists the A10 under the WDDM 1.3 support section. My guess from that
list is the A10-5800K would be part of the "A10-5000 Series APUs" listed
under the WDDM 1.3 section.

Since the AMD A10-5800K was introduced back in 2012 and long before
Windows 10 got released, could be you won't find newer drivers than
those listed at the above web page that get beyond WDDM 1.3.

Using old hardware can run into problems with a new OS. See here about
users having driver issues with the AMD:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedMic..._twice_before/

That forum thread is 3 years old, which is the same age for the Catalyst
drivers listed at AMD's site. The Crimson driver that is newer is noted
as beta release. I couldn't find the release notes on those 2 drivers
to see which WDDM version they specify as supported.

AMD doesn't seem to be Microsoft's focus for CPU/APU/GPU support.
Wasn't too long ago that an MS update ended up bricking AMDs:

https://betanews.com/2018/01/08/micr...ricks-amd-pcs/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-a...article/511747
https://www.techarp.com/articles/win...icking-amd-pc/
(Last article lists multiple MS updates bricking AMD hosts.)

As I recall, Microsoft's excuse was that AMD did not fully publish all
engineering specs for their products. The last bricking article said:

Microsoft is blaming documentation from AMD, stating that ´some AMD
chipsets do not conform to the documentation previously provided to
Microsoft to develop the Windows operating system mitigations to
protect against the chipset vulnerabilities known as Spectre and
Meltdown.´

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...and-windows-10

From that article about WDDM 2.0, what do you feel you are missing by
having to get stuck with a WDDM 1.3 driver? Do you have a Windows 10
host where the GPU is using WDDM 2.0 to know that you using WDDM 1.3
incurs a performance penalty? You're using really old hardware with the
latest OS version, so don't expect old on new to be as fast as new on
new. Apparently even if you get a driver that supports WDDM 2.0, it may
only actually support WDDM 1.3 because of the mix in hardware in your
setup; see:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/20865...52276583965463

What a mess of trying to figure out what gets used. That's for nVidia
users but I'm sure a similar decision matrix gets used by the AMD
driver. From what I've read, so far, WDDM 2.0 reduces load on the
kernel-mode driver by utilitizing new hardware functions; however, your
hardware is old. Another change for WDDM 2.0 is that part of the driver
runs in user-mode, so if there is a crash then the application crashes
instead of getting BSOD as would occur with a kernel-mode driver.

Even if AMD had a driver that was WDDM 2.0 compliant, it look like your
AMD A10-5800K instroduced back in October 2012 is too old for hardware
to support WDDM 2.0.

VanguardLH wrote in :

Tim wrote:

AMD Radeon HD 7660D

https://www.amd.com/en/support/apu/a...amd-a10-series
-apu-for-desktops/a10-5800k-radeon-hd-7660d

Do you have the latest Crimson driver package? You could check if a
latter version of WDDM was supported by the latest driver. The OS
still has to communicate to the hardware using the driver, so no
matter what improvements the OS might make it cannot surpass the
functionality built into the interface (driver). Also, the OS
handling a later version of a library does not mean the hardware will.

https://community.amd.com/docs/DOC-1312

According that that list, the A10 supports WDDM 2.0; however, it also
lists the A10 under the WDDM 1.3 support section. My guess from that
list is the A10-5800K would be part of the "A10-5000 Series APUs"
listed under the WDDM 1.3 section.

Since the AMD A10-5800K was introduced back in 2012 and long before
Windows 10 got released, could be you won't find newer drivers than
those listed at the above web page that get beyond WDDM 1.3.

Using old hardware can run into problems with a new OS. See here
about users having driver issues with the AMD:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedMic...e651/psa_if_yo
u_have_an_apu_think_twice_before/

That forum thread is 3 years old, which is the same age for the
Catalyst drivers listed at AMD's site. The Crimson driver that is
newer is noted as beta release. I couldn't find the release notes on
those 2 drivers to see which WDDM version they specify as supported.

AMD doesn't seem to be Microsoft's focus for CPU/APU/GPU support.
Wasn't too long ago that an MS update ended up bricking AMDs:

https://betanews.com/2018/01/08/micr...e-patch-bricks
-amd-pcs/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-a.../microsoft-wit
hdraws-meltdown-spectre-patch-after-bricking-amd-pcs/article/511747
https://www.techarp.com/articles/win...icking-amd-pc/
(Last article lists multiple MS updates bricking AMD hosts.)

As I recall, Microsoft's excuse was that AMD did not fully publish all
engineering specs for their products. The last bricking article said:

Microsoft is blaming documentation from AMD, stating that ´some AMD
chipsets do not conform to the documentation previously provided to
Microsoft to develop the Windows operating system mitigations to
protect against the chipset vulnerabilities known as Spectre and
Meltdown.´

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win.../display/wddm-
2-0-and-windows-10

From that article about WDDM 2.0, what do you feel you are missing by
having to get stuck with a WDDM 1.3 driver? Do you have a Windows 10
host where the GPU is using WDDM 2.0 to know that you using WDDM 1.3
incurs a performance penalty? You're using really old hardware with
the latest OS version, so don't expect old on new to be as fast as new
on new. Apparently even if you get a driver that supports WDDM 2.0,
it may only actually support WDDM 1.3 because of the mix in hardware
in your setup; see:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/20865...1589910594469/
#c535152276583965463

What a mess of trying to figure out what gets used. That's for nVidia
users but I'm sure a similar decision matrix gets used by the AMD
driver. From what I've read, so far, WDDM 2.0 reduces load on the
kernel-mode driver by utilitizing new hardware functions; however,
your hardware is old. Another change for WDDM 2.0 is that part of the
driver runs in user-mode, so if there is a crash then the application
crashes instead of getting BSOD as would occur with a kernel-mode
driver.

Even if AMD had a driver that was WDDM 2.0 compliant, it look like
your AMD A10-5800K instroduced back in October 2012 is too old for
hardware to support WDDM 2.0.

I have a great many video files that are currently encoded in H.264. Some
are in 1020p format, the rest are 780P or less. They take up a
significant amount of file space. I have found that if I transcode them
to H.265 I can save up to 75% of that file space per file. I had been
using WinX HD to do the transcoding, but when Digiarty came out with
their redesign/upgrade VideoProc, claiming great speed increases I
decided to try it. So far, I am still seeing the reduction in file space,
but it is still taking roughly the same amount of time to do the
transcoding. As an example, I am currently transcoding a 1.8gB file in
780p format to H.265. It is about 50% finished, and shows a time
remaining of five hours, which would give it a total elapsed time of
about 10 hrs. I had hoped that VideoProc would live up to its hype and
cut that time down, but it appears that their main speed increase comes
from the use of WDDM 2.n, and my hardware is locked into WDDM 1.3. I am
still going to keep VideoPro because it creates much smaller output files
than WinX HD does when transcoding to H.265. Currently Digiarty
development is looking into my question, but who knows when/if I will get
an answer.

Thanks for the comprehensive response.

Tim wrote in
. 28:

Having a problem with performance doing video transcoding. As part of
my research I found out that Windows 10 uses WDDM 2.n (depending on
release version), while Specy tells my that my Graphics Adapter (AMD
Radeon HD 7660D [part of my AMD A10-5800K processor]) is using WDDM
1.3.

My question is, is Windows 10 going to use WDDM 2.n regardless of what
my graphics adapter says it has, or is the adapter going to use WDDM
1.3 regardless?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In light of the other discussion on my current GPU shortcomings, I was
starting to think about a new motherboard/cpu upgrade. Then the thought hit
me, if I just add an external video board and make it my primary one, would
the software automatically switch to use this board rather than the on-
board GPU?

Current system is a home-built one with an AMD A10-5800K APU chip as
processor and gpu. I built it in 2013, so as was pointed out, the AMD A10
is sadly outdated. I haven't started looking yet, so it may turn out that
it would be cheaper to get a new motherboard/cpu combo instead of an
outboard video card, so we'll see.

Tim wrote:

I have a great many video files that are currently encoded in H.264. Some
are in 1020p format, the rest are 780P or less. They take up a
significant amount of file space. I have found that if I transcode them
to H.265 I can save up to 75% of that file space per file. I had been
using WinX HD to do the transcoding, but when Digiarty came out with
their redesign/upgrade VideoProc, claiming great speed increases I
decided to try it. So far, I am still seeing the reduction in file space,
but it is still taking roughly the same amount of time to do the
transcoding. As an example, I am currently transcoding a 1.8gB file in
780p format to H.265. It is about 50% finished, and shows a time
remaining of five hours, which would give it a total elapsed time of
about 10 hrs. I had hoped that VideoProc would live up to its hype and
cut that time down, but it appears that their main speed increase comes
from the use of WDDM 2.n, and my hardware is locked into WDDM 1.3. I am
still going to keep VideoPro because it creates much smaller output files
than WinX HD does when transcoding to H.265. Currently Digiarty
development is looking into my question, but who knows when/if I will get
an answer.

Thanks for the comprehensive response.

Video encode is in QuickSync, NVenc, and AMD VCE.

Each generation of hardware, has a different encoder version
in the respective-named encoders.

WDDM doesn't necessarily imply just encoder-block behavior,
and might have something to do with DirectX3D for gaming
as much as anything else. It might cover how video memory
is managed.

For a start, I would try not to get too fixated on the WDDM
thing, as it's possible the WDDM version number can be
bumped, without changing the AMD VCE characteristics.

You're going from H.264 to H.265. This implies decoding
could be accelerated, to convert the H.264 frames to
raw information, for the compression step. Newer video
hardware may be required to support H.265 encoding in hardware.
And even if H.265 *was* in hardware, discerning enthusiast
video people prefer two-pass encoding done by software
encoders. The hardware encoders can occasionally be
"too fast for their own good".

In the first two links here, you can see the features have
relatively recent dates. I think accelerated decoding
has been around longer than encoding. And acceleration
is generally only for "Hollywood formats", if you needed
a hint about how well obscure formats such as "Cinepak"
might be supported. It wouldn't be in hardware, that
one. FFMPEG has much wider support than these whizzy
GPU accelerators might ever have.

Encoding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_NVENC

Decoding (movie player support, decode before re-encode)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct...o_Acceleration

And I see now, they're separate. DXVA is for decoding.
The others for encoding. I'm pretty sure though, that
encoding existed before 2014, because there used to be
Anandtech articles about it while Anand still worked
there.

While DirectX "fills in the holes with software emulation",
to allow games to have uniform support, for things
like video encoding and decoding, there would hardly
be a point of pretending there was acceleration,
only to have the "acceleration" being done by
CPU software. These "numbered standards" only help
if they are exposing the actual hardware features.
A numbered standard which only seeks to backfill
missing hardware features, isn't really doing
a lot of good for video.

The video blocks in the GPU claim to be separate from the
general shaders. Back when DXVA first came out, the
word on the street was "only the clock rate matters"
on decode. You didn't have to spend $300 on a video
card, if an entry level $100 video card happened to
have a high clock (and few shaders). The high clock
value would make the "standard sized" video decoder
block run as well or better than an expensive card
that happened to use a lower clock for power reasons.

Encoding though, could be different. They can sometimes
save premium encoding features for the more expensive
SKUs, or in the same generation, have a mix of
VCE 2 cards and VCE 3 cards kicking around.
Usually, for "tick box compliance", the expensive
cards usually have 1 or more generations higher
support than the cheap cards. Sometimes the cheap
cards are "rebranded" more than once, making the
silicon as much as six years old. (Sometimes
they tweak the chip number or fiddle with geometry
shrink, to try to hide what they've done and make
it look in Wikipedia, like it was new hardware.)

The table isn't wide enough to show VCE or DXVA or
Purevideo or Avivo version numbers. Whatever the
subsystem names are this week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ocessing_units

Paul

Tim wrote:
Tim wrote in
. 28:

Having a problem with performance doing video transcoding. As part of
my research I found out that Windows 10 uses WDDM 2.n (depending on
release version), while Specy tells my that my Graphics Adapter (AMD
Radeon HD 7660D [part of my AMD A10-5800K processor]) is using WDDM
1.3.

My question is, is Windows 10 going to use WDDM 2.n regardless of what
my graphics adapter says it has, or is the adapter going to use WDDM
1.3 regardless?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In light of the other discussion on my current GPU shortcomings, I was
starting to think about a new motherboard/cpu upgrade. Then the thought hit
me, if I just add an external video board and make it my primary one, would
the software automatically switch to use this board rather than the on-
board GPU?

Current system is a home-built one with an AMD A10-5800K APU chip as
processor and gpu. I built it in 2013, so as was pointed out, the AMD A10
is sadly outdated. I haven't started looking yet, so it may turn out that
it would be cheaper to get a new motherboard/cpu combo instead of an
outboard video card, so we'll see.

Yes :-)

A new video card could give you some features.

https://download.handbrake.fr/releas...64-Win_GUI.zip

Handbrake provides a way to check your setup.

Make sure you've installed the right bits and pieces first.

https://i.postimg.cc/PfwXzLDF/software-bits-first.gif

Then, enjoy.

https://i.postimg.cc/yNZQrzTB/handbrake.gif

One of the things that comes with "advanced" WDDM version,
is the GPU usage section of Task Manager. My old HD6450 card
(with suspended driver development), didn't show this on the
screen. This shows a slight improvement. I might consult
this display on a regular basis, to check for rogue coinminer
activity on the card...

https://i.postimg.cc/m2ScxdwH/Task-Manager.gif

The trick would be finding a handy table with
"speedup' info. I was hoping Handbrake has a handy
benchmark suite, but I'm still looking around for
that.

Another tool that is handy, and you could run now,
is GPU-Z.

The imaginative tick boxes at the bottom might show
you what subsystems are there today. Notice in the
example, there is a tick box for "CUDA" shader program
capability, but no "NVenc" tick box (where the NVenc
driver is a part of CUDA package).

https://www.techpowerup.com/download/techpowerup-gpu-z/

Hopefully, when an AMD part is present, the bottom
tick boxes will switch to AMD-branded terminology.

Paul

Paul wrote in news
Tim wrote:
Tim wrote in
. 28:

Having a problem with performance doing video transcoding. As part
of my research I found out that Windows 10 uses WDDM 2.n (depending
on release version), while Specy tells my that my Graphics Adapter
(AMD Radeon HD 7660D [part of my AMD A10-5800K processor]) is using
WDDM 1.3.

My question is, is Windows 10 going to use WDDM 2.n regardless of
what my graphics adapter says it has, or is the adapter going to use
WDDM 1.3 regardless?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In light of the other discussion on my current GPU shortcomings, I
was starting to think about a new motherboard/cpu upgrade. Then the
thought hit me, if I just add an external video board and make it my
primary one, would the software automatically switch to use this
board rather than the on- board GPU?

Current system is a home-built one with an AMD A10-5800K APU chip as
processor and gpu. I built it in 2013, so as was pointed out, the AMD
A10 is sadly outdated. I haven't started looking yet, so it may turn
out that it would be cheaper to get a new motherboard/cpu combo
instead of an outboard video card, so we'll see.

Yes :-)

A new video card could give you some features.

https://download.handbrake.fr/releas...2.0-x86_64-Win
_GUI.zip

Handbrake provides a way to check your setup.

Paul

I have used Handbrake in the past, but operation was more complex than
some of the other options. I wanted to run a side by side test, so I
downloaded the lastest version and did my best to set it up to transcode
with the same parameters as I used with VideoProc.

I took two MKV files I had that were both 3.6GB. One I transcoded with
VideoProc. It took twenty some hours, but cut the size down to 445MB. The
other I used Handbrake. It ran in about five hours, but only cut size
down to 2GB. I think that overnight I will convert the same file with
VideoProc and get a apples to apples comparison.

Paul wrote in news
Tim wrote:

I have a great many video files that are currently encoded in H.264.
Some are in 1020p format, the rest are 780P or less. They take up a
significant amount of file space. I have found that if I transcode
them to H.265 I can save up to 75% of that file space per file. I had
been using WinX HD to do the transcoding, but when Digiarty came out
with their redesign/upgrade VideoProc, claiming great speed increases
I decided to try it. So far, I am still seeing the reduction in file
space, but it is still taking roughly the same amount of time to do
the transcoding. As an example, I am currently transcoding a 1.8gB
file in 780p format to H.265. It is about 50% finished, and shows a
time remaining of five hours, which would give it a total elapsed
time of about 10 hrs. I had hoped that VideoProc would live up to its
hype and cut that time down, but it appears that their main speed
increase comes from the use of WDDM 2.n, and my hardware is locked
into WDDM 1.3. I am still going to keep VideoPro because it creates
much smaller output files than WinX HD does when transcoding to
H.265. Currently Digiarty development is looking into my question,
but who knows when/if I will get an answer.

Thanks for the comprehensive response.

Video encode is in QuickSync, NVenc, and AMD VCE.

Each generation of hardware, has a different encoder version
in the respective-named encoders.

WDDM doesn't necessarily imply just encoder-block behavior,
and might have something to do with DirectX3D for gaming
as much as anything else. It might cover how video memory
is managed.

I did notice that while VideoProc was running, it was taking almost no
CPU time, while ffmpeg was eating up the majority of the CPU.