Hardware transcode not possible with x72XT?

[aarbee]

I have an interest in the x72XT series. But I am doubting if it will help me with Plex / Emby transcoding.
https://nascompares.com/2019/01/06/qnap ... and-h-265/

I read these senteces:

What makes transcoding with Plex different to ordinary transcoding is that often, the NAS (in this case, the QNAP TVS-872XT) will not let the plex use the transcoding engine inside. This is not the end of the world, as it will use raw system power instead. The result is that where a regular transcode outside of plex will use 20-30%, in plex it could go as high as 70-80%.

Do I read there that the 872XT does not support hardware transcoding, using the QuickSync?
And is this specific for this model, or is it all (Intel) models?

[dolbyman]

afaik all intel models with quick sync can utilize it (with plex pass)

[gggplaya]

It should, I'm not sure why that guy was having trouble. It's just a standard i5 8400T with a UHD630 graphics core. Though that guy was transcoding from 4k 10 bit 90mbps down to a measly 1.5mbps 480p stream which seems like a dumb test, not really a valid use case. He should have transcoded to 12mbps or 20mbps 1080p to push the NAS. Decoding doesn't use much CPU power, since the 630 has a hardware decoder for h.265. It's the encoding to 1080p where the NAS's begins to struggle.

CPU usage will always be high when software transcoding with plex because it likes to create a video buffer so the end user gets a smooth stream. I have my plex set to buffer 6 minutes ahead. So it'll work as hard as it can at 100% cpu usage to transcode 6 minutes ahead then throttle the transcode down and let the stream catch up a little. Then throttle at 100% to buffer transcode some more video, then throttle down again etc..... You can see the CPU fluctuate when this is happening, and you can use the PlexPy/Tautulli plex addon to see how fast your NAS can transcode up to. My NAS can transcode 12mbps 1080p at over 2x speed. That's why I know the guy in your link doesn't know what he's talking about, viewing NAS cpu usage without more context shown in PlexPY to show the transcode speed is dumb. THe 8400T can probably transcode at 4-5x speed 12mbps 1080p. Either way, my NAS or the 8400T NAS will be at 100%cpu load when it transcodes because that's what plex does. Do you understand??

CPU software transcoding looks much better in Plex, since the 8400T is such a beefy CPU, I'd use CPU transcoding if I could. It especially looks much cleaner at lower bitrates if you plan on watching plex outside your home, and have limited upload bandwidth. The i58400t can handle four 1080p transcode streams without issue.

If using hardware transcoding, An i5 8400T won't really perform any better than a celeron using the same UHD630 graphics core since the ASIC built into the graphics core is identical and will give identical transcode performance.

[aarbee]

Thank you for the reply. I really could not believe it. And I was previously doubting between 882/877, but did not buy due to the price. This x72xt is still expensive, but if I look at the Passmark, it is just below the 6700 and 7700, which would mean a good cpu.
I use the nas mainly for storage, have 1 permanent VM running for an automated task. And then Plex. Where are I am even thinking about changing to Emby. Which is practically the same tool, only a bit different in looks an behaviour.

And I could exchange the 8400t with an 8700t. But only after the guarantee is gone.
I even think that the 8100T in the 672xt is sufficient. Having maximum of 3 transcoding. Mostly 1. But that 6 minute buffer might be a splendid idea.

[gggplaya]

Yea, I have 2 people watching Plex outside my home, as well as myself when I travel. My bandwidth is limited to 6mbps. So it's important that I use software transcoding since hardware transcoding at 3-6mbps has too much macroblocking during fast moving action. That buffer is awesome for keeping my streams very smooth. I actually lied though, I just checked it now under Settings-->Transcoder in Plex. I have "Transcoder Default Throttle Buffer" set to 900 seconds which is actually 15 minutes of buffer.

If using hardware transcoding, the 8100T, 8400T, and 8700T will look and perform identically since they have the same graphics core.

[aarbee]

What you wrote about hardware transcoding and bad quality is very old. Even during the 386/486 with capture cards. Those that specific hardware on board, where much faster, but the quality was lessor then the software capturecards,
Maybe it is too fast?

Back to the nas. I think that the 672 or the 872 is really sufficient. And I wonder what the 882/1282 offer more over the 72 series, if you do not look to the 2.5" drives? Perhaps a tidbit faster?

@gggplaya if you pull the line a bit further, and find a story from Trexx in which he stated that the 877 was the fastest nas of all, I much probably say he is right, as long as you do not count in hardware transcoding. I am convinced to go software. transcoding.
Is there anything the x72 is better in then the 1277? Perhaps prize and energy economy? And I think the possibilty of a graphicscard in the Ryzen?

[gggplaya]

What you wrote about hardware transcoding and bad quality is very old. Even during the 386/486 with capture cards. Those that specific hardware on board, where much faster, but the quality was lessor then the software capturecards,
Maybe it is too fast?

Hardware transcoding, regardless of it being Intel, Nvidia, or AMD all use some form of MACROBLOCKING (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/h264avc- ... c-clement/) which in a nutshell splits the video frame into a grid of blocks. If a block in the next frame is identical to the previous block, it will simply copy it over, but if the block in the next frame is different, it will render the new block. During a drama with slow moving characters and slow camera panning, you won't notice this. But during fast action, you'll see a blockiness to some characters or even the whole frame if the camera is panning fast. THe higher the bitrate, the less noticeable it is. Nvidia probably does the best job with their latest encoding algorithms of smoothing the macroblocking, but yo can still see it at low bitrates. AMD is probably in the middle and Intel Quicksync has the worst macroblocking. With software encoding, you can still do the macroblocking technique, or you can just render every single frame in it's entirety. It's up to the programmer to decide what settings to use to speed up transcoding. In Plex, there are multiple settings for quality, but I've noticed that software transcoding will always look much better than Intel's Quicksync transcoding in plex. I haven't noticed any macroblocking at low bitrates with software transcoding, even at plex's worst transcode setting for performance. At work, I have to play my video's at 1mbps 480p due to limited network bandwidth in the office, and it looks smooth. But if I enable hardware transcoding, it looks like trash, a blocky mess.

Like I said, an nvidia card in the NAS may look better, but I'm not well versed in using PCIe cards in the NAS, and even if that'll allow plex to hardware transcode or not. Someone else will need to chime in on that.

Back to the nas. I think that the 672 or the 872 is really sufficient. And I wonder what the 882/1282 offer more over the 72 series, if you do not look to the 2.5" drives? Perhaps a tidbit faster?

@gggplaya if you pull the line a bit further, and find a story from Trexx in which he stated that the 877 was the fastest nas of all, I much probably say he is right, as long as you do not count in hardware transcoding. I am convinced to go software. transcoding.
Is there anything the x72 is better in then the 1277? Perhaps prize and energy economy? And I think the possibilty of a graphicscard in the Ryzen?

I use a Ryzen 1600 desktop, I can't wait until the new Zen 2 processors release this July, but so far I love my Ryzen processor. I haven't had any compatibility issues in windows yet, but the NAS may be a different story with some apps that may or may not have issues. But if you want a software transcoding beast, the Ryzen may be the better bet. It will for sure be a power hog and if you needed this beefy processor just for plex, then I'd actually recommend buy a cheaper lower power NAS and building a separate PC to use for Plex which is what I did. You can build a ryzen PC or 6 core intel very cheaply these days. Just make sure the motherboard bios has a "auto resume on power failure" option in there, to turn the plex server back on in case the power goes out. A dedicated PLEX PC and energy efficient NAS is the way to go for me.

[aarbee]

It is a pitty that Qnap does not support ryzen gen2 in their systesm.
But if I look at the x77 and x82 series, then I really wonder what I should do with the 2.5" bays.
SSD is simply to expensive,, and with what I think I will need is a maximum of 4-6TB.

I have the 673 and it is a nice device. Got a new from Qnap as the previous one had issues with the backplate. So that model does not "feel" right. Maybe it was my fault, because I put a lot of 250gb disks in it in the beginning and upgraded to bigger when needed. (had a bunch of notebook disks, and it worked...)And that changing disks is not good for the backplate. But if I listen to others, then they use that system form backups. Put everyday a new disk in it, and they have after 3 years never an issue, I have an issue after 4 times. That on a sidenote.
I am satisfied with the 673, just falls a bit short. Something heavier would do good. The 673 with 4* 2.5" WD red consumes 50-60 watts, which is about equal to what the 877 or 872 would consume.
I might wait a bit longer and see if Ryzen gen 2 comes in a desktop version. Or the 8700t will be available and I might buy it, in case I buy the 872 and hold it back until the guarantee is gone. But like you say, there goes nothing beyond the Ryzens yet. But this 2.5 is something I never use, but you pay for it, like Thunderbold 3. I do not use it, but pay for it.

Your suggestion is build a ryzen pc and use that one for Plex-servings, is something I have been thinking about to.
But with electricity prices going 30 ct per kilowatt, over here, it is not something I am wanting to have.

[gggplaya]

Holy snikes, 30 cents per kwh??? I only pay 12cents and am still trying to conserve power. For my plex server, I bought a used Lenovo M73 ultra small PC with a core i5 4570t. It had a passmark of about 4600 but handles two 1080p high bitrate cpu transcodes just fine. Doesnt handle 4k but I have alot of 12+gb high bitrate movies that it does no problem. It only uses 14 watts at idle and my NAS uses about 20watts at idle. So my electric bill for those is like $3 per month. If u want to save power, get an ARM NAS or celeron NAS and get a server with a T series intel processor. I dont think we’ll have low wattage ryzens until the 7nm ones come out later this year.

But actually I see that u have a shield tv, which can now act as a plex server. The shield has samba built in now so it should be able tonpick up the NAS as a source and is better hardware transcoding than intel. I believe it only uses 3 watts at idle. You should play around with that first before upgrading your NAS.
https://support.plex.tv/articles/220391 ... ia-shield/

[aarbee]

Ok, you win
Actually I was under the impression that we allready paid 25 ct per kwh. It is including tax and vat 23,3 cents. And I did read somewhere that the government wants to add another 5ct, so you might want to buy wome PVE panels earlier and isolate your house more. Hense the 30cts. 50% = tax.

I had bought the 500GB hdd version, which is getting a bit small.
Besides that I fell into a pit, where if the shield went into sleep mode, it would lose the connection to the Nas, and had to rebuild it all. There is a complete forum post about this issue in the Plex forums.
I had dismantled 2 servers I had before and an Atom Qnap (239). And bought the 673. Especially where Qnap said that the speed of the CPU was between an i5 and i7. They only forgot to tell it was a noteboot i5. And I did not rally check that.
In the end, would have been buying an x53a and a heavier pc for plex and Virtual Machines.

On this moment I have some issues with my old 219 (backup versioning only), and the 239 at a remote location, which are slowly deteorating. And I am looking into different options.
One is to keep the 673 and buy a 253be for the remote location so that overthere some movies can be pulled from there, or buying the x72/x77 and move the 673 to the remote location. But for the owner that 673 is too expensive in electricity.
And the third option is to put the 673 on the spot of the 219, and sell the 219 (bad power cable from the transformer to the nas) and buy a x72/x77.
Or simply wait another year and see what is next then. x72 seemed nice. But to much in the amount of drives, as 4 is allready sufficient.

[Trexx]

It is a pitty that Qnap does not support ryzen gen2 in their systesm.
But if I look at the x77 and x82 series, then I really wonder what I should do with the 2.5" bays.
SSD is simply to expensive,, and with what I think I will need is a maximum of 4-6TB.

SSD's too expensive?? In the US I recently saw WD Blue 2.5" 500GB SSD's below <$60US.

As for the x77, the CPU is fast enough to do SW transcoding just fine. The most recent Plex Pass beta releases have added preliminary HW transcoding support for Nvidia cards in QNAP x77. It works pretty good, but Plex still has an FFMPEG update to do to really take full advantage of it (doesn't support h.265/hevc, some 7.1 audio formats, etc.). For mainly h.264 stuff it works well.

[aarbee]

I was looking into 1 or 2 TB disks...

[Trexx]

2TB are going to be pricey still, but 1TB's are down to as low as $108 for no-name brand and $120-130 for decent (WD/Crucial/etc.) for 2.5"

[aarbee]

Thank you Paul.
Was looking into the SSD in case I run out of 2.5 hdd space. And then the 2TB, as the 2.5" are allready 1 TB each.
And 2 or 4 TB HDD probably overkill. And when I look into the powerconsumption an SSD might be a better solution.
When do I run out of space? maybe next year. I guess I will look then.

Thanks for the headsup anyway.