Separate headless BlueIris server - does GPU help

[Ferguson]

I have a windows 10 system running in a closet which is running BlueIris as a service.

When I connect I use either RDP or UI3. My main emphasis is on review speed, ability to scrub.

I am recording direct to disk. Normal CPU is about 13%, even with BI's GUI running in RDP. If I start scrubbing on that UI though it is easy to saturate the CPU.

That system has only the on-motherboard video controller (Intel HD 4000) which I do not see indication is doing anything for Blue Iris. Note this system does not even have a video monitor attached. I've installed Intel's latest driver.

If I bought a GPU for that server, will BI use it? Despite no local login (other than RDP) and no monitor?

I've got no problem adding a medium capacity GPU cost wise, I just hate to buy one and find it does nothing at all because of the setup.

Conversely, might I need to set something differently to make it use the Intel device? I am set on Intel + VideoPostProc in the global settings and "Default" on the video page of each camera.

[HeneryH]

Can you try a test where you plug a monitor in? I remember something about intel quick sync not working with headless systems. Not sure if I am remembering correctly though.

[Ferguson]

Can you try a test where you plug a monitor in? I remember something about intel quick sync not working with headless systems. Not sure if I am remembering correctly though.

I'll arrange something; is that the best thing to use vs NVidia (if I had a suitable card of course). Does BI work better with one than the other, if I am buying something? Notably might it work better with Nvidia headless?

[HeneryH]

BI works best with intel CPUs with integrated graphics so that it can use QuickSync hardware acceleration.

People have had some success (once they max out their CPU+IntelGPU) power with adding a separate video card.

But the add-on video card does not give the bang for the buck that intel does. In a pinch, it can add some processing horsepower.

[Ferguson]

BI works best with intel CPUs with integrated graphics so that it can use QuickSync hardware acceleration.

People have had some success (once they max out their CPU+IntelGPU) power with adding a separate video card.

But the add-on video card does not give the bang for the buck that intel does. In a pinch, it can add some processing horsepower.

Interesting. Sadly that means you are stuck mostly with the one on the original system; mine is quite old, I recycle my home built desktops to the network closet for these tasks. The HD 4000 built in is really wimpy compared to what you can get now discrete fairly cheap.

I did find that the camera status shows the "#" sign that is supposed to indicate it is using the GPU, even though task manager doesn't show it. Haven't gotten a chance to figure a way to get a monitor onto it, it's tight in the close for the big monitor/keyboard I have, and I need to reroute the VLANs to get everything where I could wheel it into my office. Not difficult just haven't found time.

But it sounds like you are saying it is moot -- if for example I replaced my GTX 970 in my desktop freeing it up for this one, it really won't help? I.e. it will stick max out the CPU (not just the GPU) first?

[Ferguson]

So I did some experimenting.

First, I found GPU-Z which would show activity of the intel GPU even though task manager would not. I could see it being used, but its load was small, in the 10-20% range. It would go up a bit if Is scrubbed on the timeline (the CPU would go to 100%), but not much. I tried with and without the postproc and could see no real difference.

First I pulled the server in where I could put a head on it, and ran it again. Running locally (instead of RDP) it ran a bit faster, but not all that much, and I could see no real difference in the GPU utilization. Also, the Task Manager still did not show it, but GPU-Z did. I could not get the utilization of the GPU over 20%.

Then I tried an old, old GTX 650 I had lying around. Windows saw it, and I made sure it had the latest drivers, and it showed in Task Manager. I switched BI to NVidia, and... it became basically unusable. I finally got it to display, but only 4 of 6 cameras came up, and then the UI just hung. Restarting the service worked a couple times, but then it hung. The only way I got things running again was to take the GTX out of the box, so BI then did not use it, and it was back to normal.

I doubt this is really a BI problem, that GTX is really old, it may not even support the appropriate API. I really should throw it away. Note I could not try it "headed" because I actually no longer had a DVI cable to use, at least not one I wanted to disconnect. But I doubt that really made a difference.

Short version: I have no idea if a new NVidia card would work, but everything I read of other people trying (I've been searching further) seems to say "will not be better and takes a lot more power". Maybe I'll give it another go when I free up the 970 I have in use on my desktop -- it's about time to replace the desktop anyway.

[HeneryH]

Are you using H265 or H264 encoding from your cameras?

BI QuickSync doesn't work on H265 last time I looked into it. Hmmm but that gives a black screen.

There must be something configured wrong as you are not using hardware acceleration. Demo version of software?

[Ferguson]

Are you using H265 or H264 encoding from your cameras?

BI QuickSync doesn't work on H265 last time I looked into it. Hmmm but that gives a black screen.

There must be something configured wrong as you are not using hardware acceleration. Demo version of software?

H264 only.

I think it is working, at least I do get some GPU utilization. Or are you saying the saturated CPU while scrubbing means it is not working properly?

It's a registered version, current version. 6 cameras, 4k cameras, each at 4 FPS, direct to disk. CPU in the low teens normally, mid-teens if UI is up showing live view, but it's easy scrubbing back and forth on the time line to saturate the CPU. That may be expected -- I'm not complaining about it, just wondering if anything with the GPU might make it better, since the GPU is lightly used at that time.

The failure I had with the NVidia I am not worried about. That card is really, really, really old, and I would have been perhaps more surprised if it worked well. That it hung and failed -- let's pretend I didn't even try it.

The only aspect where it's relevant is if I did buy a higher end video card, like a 1060 or 2060 or whatever, could I expect better? What I'm reading from other posters is "no". Am I interpreting correctly?

[Thixotropic]

It seems to me that the only way to really test this is with a higher end card. Everything else is, I think, speculation.

So...you could buy a higher end video card from Amazon, test it, and if it really doesn't make a substantive difference, return it or resell it.

The only aspect where it's relevant is if I did buy a higher end video card, like a 1060 or 2060 or whatever, could I expect better? What I'm reading from other posters is "no". Am I interpreting correctly?

[HeneryH]

I disagree a bit. I would spend zero money on a video card until we can confirm the intel on-board GPU is maxed out.

Getting to the root of that problem seems to be the first point. I'll grab a screen shot of my older intel cpu and its load using three 2mp cameras... [edit - sorry, forgot, I chose to use H265 to save disk at the expense of CPU so my data is not relevant.]