Restore CUDA in the latest nVIDIA Drivers 34x.xx

For some weird reason, nVIDIA has disabled support for CUDA in their latest drivers from version 340.xx onwards!

Don't worry, all you need to download is nVIDIA Cuda DLL files from the below link (Taken from driver version 337.94), extract the folders and copy them to your C:\Windows directory

After you copy them to the above directory, simply reboot and your CUDA will be working. You can test it with any Video converter that supports GPU acceleration for conversion of video files.

 

I haven't tried CUDA rendering in a while, but GPU-Z says I have CUDA enabled. I'll see if I am unable to use it soon; if I am, I'll use this. Thanks XD

 

It's CUDA in 3rd party apps that is deprecated.

 

So does mine, and so does MPC-HC's LAV decoder when I choose CUVID it says ACTIVE

but the encoding is a different story

 

why the heck did nVIDIA do this since v340.xx

doesn't make any sense! that's one major reason I always went for nVIDIA GPUs over Radeon

 

Nvidia is pushing for NVENC to replace CUDA in some 3rd party apps. If your app isn't updated to reflect these changes, either do the fix you posted or you're SOL.

 

yeah but I don't know of any video converter that uses their new NVENC so I have to enable CUDA

 

I thought CUDA library/runtime was a separate installer, not part of the graphic driver installer.
They started doing that since the Fermi / Kepler transition, let just say something broke and money spent.

 

kinda op but a rendering related question- isnt quicksync a much better rendering engine than cuda?

 

Last I checked CUDA is open and Quick Sync is proprietary...

 

cuda has been working partially on my real time previews in adobe premiere pro. it used to work way better. it's not being used at all on the final export. kinda weird

 

don't use mpc hc

use KCP: http://haruhichan.com/forum/showthread.php?7545-KCP-Kawaii-Codec-Pack

it's a pre-modded mpc be with new settings etc, it has an option to use reclock (perfect audio sync) and madVR, which is superior to any of the decoders that MPC vanilla has


only cons is that the video decoder and audio decoder will override any similar process in the bg

 

I'm sorry... but I know from the old school days... *NEVER* use a codec pack... Never, ever, ever, ever. Figure out what codec you need and get it from the manufacturer but the mess that having the incorrect codec version on your system... and I used to use the oldschool Kazaa codec packs... is an absolute nightmare to fix.

Use VLC...

 

VLC stands no chance when it comes to quality compared to MPC-HC + LAV (CUDA) + SVP (smooth video project) for playing movies @ 60 FPS, once you get used to watching movies @ 60 FPS, you will never be able to watch 29 FPS movies again.

 

That's all fine and dandy but if you're going to link to a codec pack I'm going to speak up about it, that garbage breaks systems. As a mod, I have to at least put up a disclaimer about it.

 

Sure and I hate the idea of codec packs, before getting to get SVP to work, you need to install the following:

MPC-HC
AVISYNTH
FFDSHOW
madVR (optional)
SVP

I then switched toe Splash Player which is an amazing player that plays videos also @ 60 FPS without the need for any codecs, sort of like VLC but with enhanced quality and 60 FPS playback, unfortunately, the project is abandoned and no development is going on. It cannot even play 4K videos so I was forced to use SVP.

PS: I didn't post any links

 

afaik they are now both open source. obs uses quicksync tech.

 

What am I missing? Seems MPC HC has decoder options out of the box?

You can post links, just not to codec packs that might break someone's system lol.

Thank you for providing exactly what you need to get going.

 

Yep, no need for reclock, no need for madvr - it's all optional. All you need is a player (MPC, PotPlayer etc), Avisynth+FFdshow and SVP.

Speaking about CUDA encoder, it is way better than QuickSync... at least used to be.
P.S. And CUDA encoder is not the same what just CUDA is.

 

Yes nothing beats CUDA if you have an nVIDIA Graphics Card as it renders everything using the GPU leaving your CPU free for other tasks.

CUDA FTW

 

quality wise and speed wise though quicksync is much better, but i guess if you want to multitask then i can see the value of cuda.

 

How can Quick Sync which is CPU based be better than CUDA which is GPU based quality wise? When I use Quick Sync I can feel it's super jerky in motion and the quality was as if you were playing a game using software rendering.

just my 2 cents

 

When I googled Cuda vs Quicksync I found old article where CUDA encoder was way better than Quicksync. Not a surprise because by that time QuickSync was new and CUDA use much more powerfull GPUs than Intel's iGPUs (by that time and now is the same, though gap may be shortened).
Speaking about Decoder (in player), I would certainly use CUDA, then DXVA, then QuickSync. Perhaps QuickSync could be moved to 2nd place for experiments. But Nvidia is first for sure.
As about CUDA as analog of OpenCL (graphic's card calculations) I would use AMD's OpenCL (but I don't have AMD ) then CUDA and then... CPU ITSELF. I would be VERY causious about using iGPU as OpenCL device because it might be slower than using your CPU only and also you don't get bugs with CPU at all while with Intel's iGPU... well...

 

you can just do a normal google search to see how much better quicksync is. but here are a few links to help you out:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/9




im surprised you guys dont know this. this is actually basic knowledge for anyone who does any form of frequent video encoding. nvidia has a good playback transcoder in purevideo but its cuda renderer isnt that great, even before quicksync, people using the likes of adobe premiere pro 5 preferred cpu/adobe media encoder because it produced less blocky results.

well just sharing some info i knew since the advent of sandybridge. not looking to debate as it is a fact. if you want to believe otherwise, well, good luck.

 

Quick sync is pretty good.

 

Lets stop here for a moment. Everyone who does transcoding seriously would never know this unless he would specifically try to dig deep into this because the best quality per bitrate encoders are software ones like x264 and others.
Maybe for quick encode for quick watch on smartphone hardware decoders are OK but if you want to transcode something for your video library then please, no one would use either Quick Sync or CUDA Unless on slow hardware perhaps.

Well, looks like you are correct, Intel Quick Sync really improved over time. Although it's not those links which convinced me but rather this latter one from Anand. I couldn't care less about encode time but quality and it looks like its pretty descent with Quick Sync.
+rep from me. It's not so often nowadays that someone teach me something really new which I've already googled not so long time ago.

 

just an fyi. if you read the article you linked closely, you will note that quicksync has been that good since it was first introduced.
also, i was just comparing cuda to quicksync. the aforementioned adobe media player is a purely cpu based software x264 encoder, which is still the best quality wise.
the main use of a (nvidia) gpu in video editing is to accelerate scrubbing and various video effects and transitions during the post process with an nle. but its never really used for the render itself.
again, not trying to be confrontational or to debate (those that prefer cuda), just trying to share info here. cheers.

 

RLY? You see, your phrase "as good" I read as "as mediocre" because how quality is, that's first. If you don't believe, encode to 1GB movie by x264 slowest preset with 16 B-frames (2.5 hours on i7 @2.7GHz) and your definition of "good" will be moved quite a bit but as I see you do believe this.
And here is that article I read i told before. Just read and look yourself. I don't know why results are so different to another article.

Spoiler: Intel QuickSync on the left, Nvidia CUDA on the right

 

lol you didnt read my post. quicksync as mentioned by the anand article you linked to had the same quality it had since it was introduced via snadybridge. it did not 'improve over time'. in fact it may have gotten worse with haswell, but im not certain of this. i did mention that a purely cpu based software encoder still produces the best quality, you missed that.

 

Yes but did you read that article I linked to? That's the one I told before. Intel QS looks horrible in it even compared to AMD and cuvid.

 

Yes I did. But like you said everyone else 's findings contradict it. Amd is a much better hw encoder than both and this has been mentioned in both the Anand articles we linked. Unfortunately, it has little to no support.
Nvenc is the new implementation of the Nvidia encoder (gpus don't use cuvid anymore). Cuda is the programming language used to call in the functions of Nvenc and other gpgpu processes.
The bottom line is qs is better than Nvidia encoding (Nvenc, cuda) in speed and quality. But cpu software encoding is still better than hw encoding.

 

By everyone else you mean lone AnandTech or there is any other source which would claim that QS gives better quality? I don't care about time at all.

I decided to do my own experiment, took that arcsoft media converter and did it myself with both Intel QS and Nvidia nvcuvid aka old CUDA. Encoded movie into AVC profile at 480p. Time it took was about the same,: 9 minutes for CUDA, 10 minutes for QS.
As about quality then QS kept slightly more grain while Nvidia CUDA slightly softened it keeping sharper edges. After long frame comparison I would say that QS gave slightly better picture however it is tough to judge. Also Intel QS gave bigger size: 3.6GB vs 2,92GB and created file with only 1 reference frame while Nvidia CUDA with 2.
I am not 100% sure that Media converter use nvcuvid dlls or nvenc though. But this software... I wouldn't pay money for this for sure.

EDIT: created files with same size. Will post comparison later.

 

by everyone i mean every online article, real life video enthusiast or pro, forum posts who have basically compared the two came out with the conclusion quicksync is better in speed and quality to cuda other than that lone article you posted.
granted that paid, enthusiast or pro level nle's may have better implementation of the quicksync codec compared to free alternatives, its just generally accepted that quicksync is much better than cuda in all aspects despite the improvements to cuda speed in the past year or so. again im not here to debate, its just plain fact. if you want to insist otherwise, and if youre happy with cuda, well good luck.

edit:
btw arcsoft media converter has no cuda support. so you basically compared quicksync to a cpu software encode. and by your own words, there was hardly any difference. cheers.

 

Do you need me to post info of English version or it's fine like this? It's by my own words, I will post comparison pictures right now. And MC uses NVENC on my laptop unless it keeps own nvcuvid.dll files in its folder. I deleted nvcuvid files in syswow64 and it still worked.

Here is another lone article I would like to post: 30-th of July techreport.com where they provide pictures. They say CUDA is better. I don't see big difference but AMD's is surely worst there.
And I didn't pick it, it's just that link which came googled " arcsoft media converter nvenc or nvcuvid"

 

I am just basically compared QS vs CUDA by Arcsoft MC and I say that Intel QS sucks big time over CUDA. Really BIG. Intel QS looks very promising with better edges but it is just a PS-RDO that brings that. Because on every fast or medium action scene Intel QS just destroys the picture totally be that faces or anything else.

Just plain fact: due to just 1 ref frame Intel QS sucks a lot at equal bitrate. But looks tiny better on stull image. But if you want to insist otherwise, and if youre happy with Intel QS, well good luck.
P.S. Also look at the 3-rd nd 4-th frame of "guys near the car" scene. There is a duplicated frame in the source. Look how CUDA transcoded it and how QS did. CUDA brought equal frame while QS broght different due to its PS-RDO stuff and just 1 ref frame.

Spoiler: Picture comparison QS vs NVENC

 

QuickSync uses the iGPU of an Intel CPU