4 ms·

A lot of interest in hardware encoders collapsed with Ryzen's release in 2017. Software encoding is superior quality and latency to NVENC, and I've been using 8

A lot of interest in hardware encoders collapsed with Ryzen's release in 2017. Software encoding is superior quality and latency to NVENC, and I've been using 8-thread encoding for Steam streaming since then (April '17) never to look back. If you don't have or want to use the CPU grunt for that, Intel Quick Sync isn't bad and a good pair with a Radeon like the 6000 series. If you want hardware encoding, Intel CPU + AMD GPU is a great pair, as is AMD CPU + Nvidia GPU. Otherwise anything works well with sufficient core count, can go AMD/Intel CPU + AMD GPU.

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
I only have a quad-core rn, and found that NVENC has lower latency than Intel QuickSync. But yeah, my next PC will prob. have the power to software-encode. Are you sure about the lower latency though?
- BuckRogers 6y ago
  NVENC does have lower latency than Intel Quick Sync, NVENC > Quick Sync in all regards. I'd be ok with using Intel Quick Sync though, the only one I would avoid entirely is AMD VCN. I haven't looked into or compared encoders since 2017 but the takeaway was that software offered the best in latency and IQ. Dependent of course on what software is doing the encoding. I focused on Steam. I just dug up one of my sources for you, you'll enjoy this.[0] It may no longer be accurate but it's at least suggestive. They all have similar latency, but you'll see the in the longest delay results (my eyeballs always focus on worst-case), has the software encoder on top. I'm currently considering a 5800X (higher sustained boost clocks due to heat/VRMs) or 5900X (lower sustained boost but more cores for potentially better streaming) to upgrade my system. Given an 8+ core system can encode so well, I'm fine with either a 6800XT or 6080. I really don't have enough information yet. For years I used to buy based on NV's OpenGL support (and after NV's Vista driver blunders, AMD), but since the Oculus Quest was released, my primary deciding factor is VR performance. NV has held the edge there historically, but 16GB VRAM for the same price is not to be dismissed outright. If NV will match AMD's 16GB at a similar MSRP I'd go that route, the GDDR6X would cut into their margins pretty good though so I'm not holding my breath. I find AMD's Infinity Cache approach so interesting that I'm leaning towards rewarding their innovation. It works so well while cutting costs means that their approach is probably the future for all GPUs. Anyway, with this evidence you hopefully now have more hardware to choose from for your upgrade. I had a great luck with Nvidia for a long time (currently using Pascal), but zero good reason to be entirely at Nvidia's mercy these days. Radeons got a big bump in quality since AMD bought ATI and it'll continue to get better. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogNT6w4bzIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogNT6w4bzIs
  - MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll get an 5900X, as soon as they can actually be bought. RT and DLSS still make me lean towards Nvidia, but yeah the limited RAM is a bummer.
    - BuckRogers 6y ago
      One more thing worth noting, research the VRMs on whatever motherboard you get.[0] Getting the wrong motherboard will hold back your 5900X. I generally buy Asus's higher end boards which is a safe bet, but my current Asus X470-i pretty much presents me with the choice between clocking higher or more cores. I'd have to get a newer board and don't want to. I'm probably sticking to the combo you're looking at, AMD+NV. I generally prefer Intel for overall QA reasons, and I can attest that Ryzen was buggy up until today, but I still can't imagine going with an Intel system right now. My Ryzen 1800X, 1700, and 2700X systems were stable but I wouldn't call them plug and play. I'm making my changes in January so supply should no longer be a problem. You might find it's worth waiting it out till then too, Nvidia may have a response to the 6800 series by then too. Rumor was they were increasing VRAM but cancelled the cards. [0]https://linustechtips.com/topic/1137619-motherboard-vrm-tier-list-v2-currently-amd-only/?fbclid=IwAR1Aq_VJeyXs1ak2YDc5dRY0YLN63ig1qc1T9r7FnHRhHvTHHrQ5PPNveRY https://linustechtips.com/topic/1137619-motherboard-vrm-tier...
  - Fidelix 6y ago
    Hi. The results on that video do not reflect your comments; The software encoder is obviously inferior. Also those results are old. I have also tried all the options and there is no comparison. It's a night and day difference between software encoding and nvenc. It was more than triple the latency last I tested. I tested steam, parsec and also the best software available today for game streaming, Gamestream + Moonlight or Gamestream on the Shield TV. Anybody would notice the difference in quality and input lag between QuickSync, libx264 and NVEnc. The difference really is very large in higher resolutions (talking about 1440p and 4k in 60/144fps).
    - BuckRogers 6y ago

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago

I only have a quad-core rn, and found that NVENC has lower latency than Intel QuickSync. But yeah, my next PC will prob. have the power to software-encode. Are you sure about the lower latency though?

BuckRogers 6y ago
NVENC does have lower latency than Intel Quick Sync, NVENC > Quick Sync in all regards. I'd be ok with using Intel Quick Sync though, the only one I would avoid entirely is AMD VCN. I haven't looked into or compared encoders since 2017 but the takeaway was that software offered the best in latency and IQ. Dependent of course on what software is doing the encoding. I focused on Steam. I just dug up one of my sources for you, you'll enjoy this.[0] It may no longer be accurate but it's at least suggestive. They all have similar latency, but you'll see the in the longest delay results (my eyeballs always focus on worst-case), has the software encoder on top. I'm currently considering a 5800X (higher sustained boost clocks due to heat/VRMs) or 5900X (lower sustained boost but more cores for potentially better streaming) to upgrade my system. Given an 8+ core system can encode so well, I'm fine with either a 6800XT or 6080. I really don't have enough information yet. For years I used to buy based on NV's OpenGL support (and after NV's Vista driver blunders, AMD), but since the Oculus Quest was released, my primary deciding factor is VR performance. NV has held the edge there historically, but 16GB VRAM for the same price is not to be dismissed outright. If NV will match AMD's 16GB at a similar MSRP I'd go that route, the GDDR6X would cut into their margins pretty good though so I'm not holding my breath. I find AMD's Infinity Cache approach so interesting that I'm leaning towards rewarding their innovation. It works so well while cutting costs means that their approach is probably the future for all GPUs. Anyway, with this evidence you hopefully now have more hardware to choose from for your upgrade. I had a great luck with Nvidia for a long time (currently using Pascal), but zero good reason to be entirely at Nvidia's mercy these days. Radeons got a big bump in quality since AMD bought ATI and it'll continue to get better. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogNT6w4bzIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogNT6w4bzIs
- MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll get an 5900X, as soon as they can actually be bought. RT and DLSS still make me lean towards Nvidia, but yeah the limited RAM is a bummer.
  - BuckRogers 6y ago
    One more thing worth noting, research the VRMs on whatever motherboard you get.[0] Getting the wrong motherboard will hold back your 5900X. I generally buy Asus's higher end boards which is a safe bet, but my current Asus X470-i pretty much presents me with the choice between clocking higher or more cores. I'd have to get a newer board and don't want to. I'm probably sticking to the combo you're looking at, AMD+NV. I generally prefer Intel for overall QA reasons, and I can attest that Ryzen was buggy up until today, but I still can't imagine going with an Intel system right now. My Ryzen 1800X, 1700, and 2700X systems were stable but I wouldn't call them plug and play. I'm making my changes in January so supply should no longer be a problem. You might find it's worth waiting it out till then too, Nvidia may have a response to the 6800 series by then too. Rumor was they were increasing VRAM but cancelled the cards. [0]https://linustechtips.com/topic/1137619-motherboard-vrm-tier-list-v2-currently-amd-only/?fbclid=IwAR1Aq_VJeyXs1ak2YDc5dRY0YLN63ig1qc1T9r7FnHRhHvTHHrQ5PPNveRY https://linustechtips.com/topic/1137619-motherboard-vrm-tier...
- Fidelix 6y ago
  Hi. The results on that video do not reflect your comments; The software encoder is obviously inferior. Also those results are old. I have also tried all the options and there is no comparison. It's a night and day difference between software encoding and nvenc. It was more than triple the latency last I tested. I tested steam, parsec and also the best software available today for game streaming, Gamestream + Moonlight or Gamestream on the Shield TV. Anybody would notice the difference in quality and input lag between QuickSync, libx264 and NVEnc. The difference really is very large in higher resolutions (talking about 1440p and 4k in 60/144fps).
  - BuckRogers 6y ago