4 ms·

Curious - why are you doing video transcoding on CPUs? The CPU to GPU speedup is so massive that it's really not worth it. I don't recall the exact numbers, bu

Curious - why are you doing video transcoding on CPUs? The CPU to GPU speedup is so massive that it's really not worth it. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I got an order of magnitude boost going from HEVC encoding on CPU to GPU with no noticeable quality difference. Works out to several times more efficient too FPS/watt wise.

CyberShadow 9y ago
As I understand it, video encoding continues to perform worse on GPUs. Hardware H.264 video encoding is comparable in quality and speed to the x264 "ultrafast" preset, with the only benefit being lower power consumption. More importantly, hardware encoding is incapable of producing higher-quality output, comparable to software encoders' higher presets. https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/14656/why-processor-is-better-for-encoding-than-gpu https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/14656/why-processo...
- problems 9y ago
  It actually looks quite good in my experience. Definitely better than the "ultrafast" preset on CPU encoding. I use CRF though mostly for GPU encoding which should remedy the issue at the possible cost of file size (didn't seem to be a significant increase, but was a slight one). I'm also talking HEVC and not H.264 though primarily - and using NVENC not a CUDA based encoder as your link mentions. I've also seen it mentioned that things have improved a lot on the newer GPUs, so might be worth a try again if you've got a 10xx card around.
icelancer 9y ago
>The CPU to GPU speedup is so massive that it's really not worth it. Not in my experience. Furthermore, there are a lot of errors (comparatively) that are introduced when GPUs are used at high speeds. Other comments have linked articles indicating why this can be the case.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]