About Handbrake, Intel QSV and nvidia NVenc

[BlurayHD]

Hi guys the thing is I currently encode some Bluray movies that I have on my collection in MKV just for put it on external hard disc and connect it to a usb port, I wonder what is better for encode? or it is the same quality?

I mean, on my desktop pc I can choose Nvenc and the quality on my tv led is just great, but I could do the encode with my laptop that have Intel QSV and I so need to ask you if I use Intel QSV or NVenc is just the same? I´ll get the same quality?

If I´ll get the same quality no matters what I use obviously I preffer laptop but because that I so like see what you say or think?

Thank You in advance

[sophisticles]

Hi guys the thing is I currently encode some Bluray movies that I have on my collection in MKV just for put it on external hard disc and connect it to a usb port, I wonder what is better for encode? or it is the same quality?

I mean, on my desktop pc I can choose Nvenc and the quality on my tv led is just great, but I could do the encode with my laptop that have Intel QSV and I so need to ask you if I use Intel QSV or NVenc is just the same? I´ll get the same quality?

If I´ll get the same quality no matters what I use obviously I preffer laptop but because that I so like see what you say or think?

Thank You in advance

Loaded question, most people say that QSV is slightly better than NVENC, but it greatly depends on which version of QSV and which specific codec we are talking about; I am not too crazy about QSV AVC, however I find QSV HEVC 10-bit to be excellent and I also like VAAPI VP9 (only accessible from Linux, possibly BSD).

It also depends on which version of NVENC we are talking about, Turing is supposed to have improved substantially over Pascal and with regards to QSV Intel is claiming that the new Comet Lake processors QSV implementation is able to beat x265+medium, not a typo, they were talking hevc not avc.

In all honesty, with enough bit rate, the differences between all encoders becomes negligible.

[BlurayHD]

Hi guys the thing is I currently encode some Bluray movies that I have on my collection in MKV just for put it on external hard disc and connect it to a usb port, I wonder what is better for encode? or it is the same quality?

I mean, on my desktop pc I can choose Nvenc and the quality on my tv led is just great, but I could do the encode with my laptop that have Intel QSV and I so need to ask you if I use Intel QSV or NVenc is just the same? I´ll get the same quality?

If I´ll get the same quality no matters what I use obviously I preffer laptop but because that I so like see what you say or think?

Thank You in advance

Loaded question, most people say that QSV is slightly better than NVENC, but it greatly depends on which version of QSV and which specific codec we are talking about; I am not too crazy about QSV AVC, however I find QSV HEVC 10-bit to be excellent and I also like VAAPI VP9 (only accessible from Linux, possibly BSD).

It also depends on which version of NVENC we are talking about, Turing is supposed to have improved substantially over Pascal and with regards to QSV Intel is claiming that the new Comet Lake processors QSV implementation is able to beat x265+medium, not a typo, they were talking hevc not avc.

In all honesty, with enough bit rate, the differences between all encoders becomes negligible.

I did not knew there´s another version of this... driver? I though that comes with my video integrated card intel, if I get you right thre´s maybe a more recently version to download? where?

And I watch a video comparision and accordinar to video, the difference is the encoding time, I dont know

Intel QSV is like Nvidia, a mean, have drivers to download frecuently? if this is correct could you give me a link?

Thank You advance!!

[babygdav]

https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/Hardware-Based-Tra...tors_selection

https://unrealaussies.com/tech/nvenc-x264-quicksync-qsv-vp9-av1/6/

There are minor differences between encoders (CPU, Quicksync, Nvidia) depending on many factors - tuning/settings, KB/Sec given to the encode, hardware generation used.
All are made up by simply giving the encoder a few more KB/MB per second, so unless absolute mininum file size is what you're after (along with slow CPU encodes), then you can benefit from 5x+ faster 150+ FPS quicksync/nvidia encodes.

Quality-wise, any encode of a bluray will degrade the quality more - you're trying to stuff a 50GB discs into something smaller. But visually, for most people, either Quicksync or Nvidia encodes will give you a very good image that plays well either way.

There's always the possibility of differences in encode quality as the links show, but decode-wise, it should look the same given that the nature of the algorithms for H.264/H.265 should not give you different images depending on the hardware used (think of it like solving a math equation. 1+1 should always output 2). I'm sure someone will find the exceptions, but in reality, people watch heavily compressed videos (eg. Netflix streams) all day long and they think the quaility is fine.

You can always compare frame-by-frame for test videos yourself encoded all three ways, but it's not a modern issue IMO.

...

Quicksync - built into almost all Intel CPUs from the 2nd generation on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video

No need to download drivers all the time - simply have a Intel graphics driver installed and it usually just works - no need for a seperate piece of software to install quicksync.

eg. Install Handbrake.
Preferences -> check the boxes for Quicksync and Nvidia encode accelleration.
drop in any video to test
In the VIDEO settings tab, simply select H.264 QSV instead of the default to try out a Quicksync encode (similar for Nvidia).

On some systems with a Nvidia GPU that overrides and shuts off the Intel video, you may need to enable the Intel GPU in the BIOS, install an Intel driver, or disable the Nvidia GPU before you can access Intel Quicksync.