Intel QSV VS Nvidia CUDA

[BlurayHD]

I don´t know if help to you but, so far I use Nvidia NVenc from 710 GT for encoding the video and when I tried on tv was excelent, anyway I hope you could clear me all from last post )thank you buddy)

What type of encoding settings are you using? I would think x264 would still produce a more transparent encode at about the same bitrate as a hardware-accelerated H265 encode. I've noticed that even the fastest x264/x265 encodes still manage to do a better job than the hardware-accelerated ones.

Thank You Stone for helping me, I know and I tell you, I tried several encodes with x264 as software without hardware and it takes more than 24hours, If I encode with hardware mode it takes almost 1 hour and the video quality result on my tv is excelent just for that I choose the hardware mode and for that I use NVenc, a week ago my graphic card 710 GT no works anymore and I currently use the IGPU from Intel i3 7100 the QSV mode that people here says to me this QSV is better than that card

I have the posibility to buy an GT 1030 in the spect says CUDA 384, but I still don´t know if that card 1030 still better than QSV from i3 7100 or QSV still better than 1030 ?

If you don´t understand me feel free to tell me and I will to tray explain more detailed

[gta5]

I think both are going to be fine on similar settings. I think it might be worth it to save up for an RTX 20 series or RTX 30 series GPU if you're really serious about hardware-based encodes. Otherwise the software ones like x264 and x265 are going to produce better quality.

doesn't need to be a RTX 20, the Turing encoder starts with the 1650 Super/1660/Super

gtx 10 series vs 20 vs 30

do you have any data how much improvement these gain

[butterw]

new NVDEC and NVENC codec support table: https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-and-decode-gpu-support-matrix-new

[stonesfan187]

I don´t know if help to you but, so far I use Nvidia NVenc from 710 GT for encoding the video and when I tried on tv was excelent, anyway I hope you could clear me all from last post )thank you buddy)

What type of encoding settings are you using? I would think x264 would still produce a more transparent encode at about the same bitrate as a hardware-accelerated H265 encode. I've noticed that even the fastest x264/x265 encodes still manage to do a better job than the hardware-accelerated ones.

Thank You Stone for helping me, I know and I tell you, I tried several encodes with x264 as software without hardware and it takes more than 24hours, If I encode with hardware mode it takes almost 1 hour and the video quality result on my tv is excelent just for that I choose the hardware mode and for that I use NVenc, a week ago my graphic card 710 GT no works anymore and I currently use the IGPU from Intel i3 7100 the QSV mode that people here says to me this QSV is better than that card

I have the posibility to buy an GT 1030 in the spect says CUDA 384, but I still don´t know if that card 1030 still better than QSV from i3 7100 or QSV still better than 1030 ?

If you don´t understand me feel free to tell me and I will to tray explain more detailed

Even on my 8C/16T AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, doing a feature film through x264 on the default settings (Medium preset at CRF 20) takes about 60-90 minutes depending on the content. With a lot of things to compress, this is very time-consuming.

I did a bunch of testing to find what looked acceptable to me. I settled for NVENC H265 through VidCoder. It may not look as good as the default x264 settings, but it saves time and looks good enough for my needs. I settled for Constant Quality 24. You can see where there is some softness but it's not really noticeable most of the time. At Constant Quality 26, I got smaller file sizes but I could see where the compression was causing artifacts.

The nice thing is that these files are nice and compact. My Roku Ultra and Xbox One S can both Direct Stream these through Plex without any transcoding. I don't really even buy Blu-rays anymore, favoring Vudu these days. I just took a step back and asked if it was really worth my time spending literally months compressing things through x264 and I just don't think it's really worth it considering how much faster NVENC or QSV are. The nice thing about Intel Quick Sync is you can get a laptop with an i3 or something and compress stuff in a fraction of the time versus x264 or x265.

Good enough


By the way, I'd say that QSV on the newest Intel CPUs is going to be better than Pascal or older NVIDIA cards but I think the NVIDIA Turing cards are supposed to be best for GPU encoding.

[Zero-11]

I think both are going to be fine on similar settings. I think it might be worth it to save up for an RTX 20 series or RTX 30 series GPU if you're really serious about hardware-based encodes. Otherwise the software ones like x264 and x265 are going to produce better quality.

doesn't need to be a RTX 20, the Turing encoder starts with the 1650 Super/1660/Super

gtx 10 series vs 20 vs 30

do you have any data how much improvement these gain

20 series has the same encoder as the 30 series
not sure how much the gain is from 10 series to 20 but it isn't a small one