3 ms·
And that's exactly why OP asked for GPU encoder, those are low-latency and if the resulting stream requires less bandwidth it means that there can be fewer pack
by tlamponi 5y ago
And that's exactly why OP asked for GPU encoder, those are low-latency and if the resulting stream requires less bandwidth it means that there can be fewer packets on the network, meaning lower absolute re-transmits (the networks relative error rate is the same independent of the data transferred) and faster transmission for slower networks, i.e., in general also lower latency as by-product; latency, available bandwidth and packet amount are often coupled.
- renw0rp 5y agoSome codecs might be more suitable for encoding video streams which are known ahead of time and utilize similarity of frames both before and ahead to maximize compression (multi pass encoding); they might also require larger buffer. With real time video calls you can't really do that. There is no codec-fits-all solution unfortunately.
- vetinari 5y agoLow-latency encoder are not exactly known for producing bit-efficient streams. Their purpose is to dump the frame into compliant stream in least possible time, so the compliant decoder can decode it back. It doesn't concern itself with using less bits; if it does, it is nice, but not deal breaker. So if the hardware encoders can produce VP9/HEVC/AV1 at roughly the same bit-budget, it doesn't make sense to use the more complicated one. It makes sense to use the one, where you do have to pay less fees, though.