3 ms·

Quicksync is fine for real-time communication or streaming, not for files where you want maximal visual quality with minimal bits used.

• cm2187 10y ago
  It has this bad reputation but in my experience it gives a very decent quality. I may not have stretched the compression ratio too. But at the age of 8TB consumer hard drives...
  • jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    It gives a completely and quantifiably awful quality for storage, archival, and typical media center purposes. Transcoding at high efficiency is not what Quick Sync is for. It is for streaming, where it is quite fine. This is known. I'm not repeating cargo cult science; I benchmarked it because I didn't believe it either (which is good! be suspicious!) and it would have been quite handy for a startup I was developing. But alas. Looks like dogshit or costs too many bits. Be careful not to confuse "looks fine to me" with quantifiable.
    • cm2187 10y ago
      I guess people have different degrees of tolerance. But I am looking at anandtech's samples: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7007/intels-haswell-an-htpc-perspective/8 http://www.anandtech.com/show/7007/intels-haswell-an-htpc-pe... and I honestly can't see the difference between the QuickSync and regular H264 samples. I am sure there are some tiny subtleties that I miss and perhaps my screen is not good enough to render the difference, but if we are talking about that level of degradation, and unless you are really a purist, the 10x performance gain is really worth it.
      • Retric 10y ago
        That clip started muddy looking from all that dust. So, it's less obvious.