In my server I currently have an Intel i7 9th gen CPU with integrated Intel video.

I don’t use or need A.I. or LLM stuff, but we use jellyfin extensively in the family.

So far jellyfin worked always perfectly fine, but I could add (for free) an NVIDIA 2060 or a 1060. Would it be worth it?

And as power consumption, will the increase be noticeable? Should I do it or pass?

  • exu@feditown.comEnglish
    24·
    2 years ago

    QuickSync is usually plenty to transcode. You will get more performance with a dedicated GPU, but the power consumption will increase massively.

    Nvidia also has a limit how many streams can be transcoded at the same time. There are driver hacks to circumvent that.

  • kevincox@lemmy.mlEnglish
    18·
    2 years ago

    Most Intel GPUs are great at transcoding. Reliable, widely supported and quite a bit of transcoding power for very little electrical power.

    I think the main thing I would check is what formats are supported. If the other GPU can support newer formats like AV1 it may be worth it (if you want to store your videos in these more efficient formats or you have clients who can consume these formats and will appreciate the reduced bandwidth).

    But overall I would say if you aren’t having any problems no need to bother. The onboard graphics are simple and efficient.

  • Eskuero@lemmy.fromshado.wsEnglish
    8·
    2 years ago

    For an old nvidia it might be too much energy drain.

    I was also using the integrated intel for video re-encodes and I got an Arc310 for 80 bucks which is the cheapest you will get a new card with AV1 support.

      • Eskuero@lemmy.fromshado.wsEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        Is x266 actually taking off? With all the members of AOmedia that control graphics hardware (AMD, Intel, Nvidia) together it feels like mpeg will need to gain a big partner to stay relevant.

        • InverseParallaxEnglish
          2·
          2 years ago

          Google is pushing av1 because of patents, but 266 is just plain better tech, even if it’s harder to encode.

          This same shit happened with 265 and vp9, and before that, and before that with vorbis/opus/aac.

          They’ll come back because it’s a standard, and has higher quality.

          Maybe this is the one time somehow av1 wins out on patents, but I’m encoding av1 and I’m really not impressed, it’s literally just dressed up hevc, maybe a 10% improvement max.

          I’ve seen vvc and it’s really flexible, it shifts gears on a dime between high motion and deep detail, which is basically what your brain sees most, while av1 is actually kind of worse than hevc at that to me, it’s sluggish at the shifts, even if it is better overall.

  • InverseParallaxEnglish
    7·
    2 years ago

    Intel has excellent transcode, even in their igpus.

    I use an arc750 specifically for transcode, av1 runs at ludicrous speeds, but don’t do an Nvidia, they kind of suck because they dont support vaapi, only nvenc/nvdec and vdpau.

  • monkeyman512English
    5·
    2 years ago

    If the iGPU is getting the job done, I would leave that alone. You could add a GPU and pass it through to a gaming VM. But that is an entirely different project.

  • precarious_primes@lemmy.mlEnglish
    5·
    2 years ago

    I ran a 1650 super for a while. At idle it added about 10W and would draw 30-40W while transcoding. I ended up taking it out because the increased power wasn’t worth the slight performance increase for me.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    2 years ago

    I only have a GPU because my CPU doesn’t have any graphics. I don’t use the graphics anyway, but I need it to boot. So I put our crappiest spare GPU in (GTX 750 Ti) and call it good.

    I wouldn’t bother. If you end up needing it, it’ll take like 15 min to get it installed and drivers set up and everything. No need to bother until you actually need it.