3 ms·

I agree with your statement mostly. However I think if we're dealing with 1080p displays, hardware-accelerated transcoding produces acceptable video quality for

• izacus 2y ago
  Can you explain your point there though? It won't change the fact that you could deliver the same visual quality at significantly reduced bandiwdth cost FOR YOU and for the user. You're making user experience worse (e.g. on less stable 4G/5G links and limited connections), paying more for your egress bandwidth for what? Using an expensive GPU block (with most of its cores idling) to encode slightly faster than a cheaper CPU core will do? It just doesn't make sense to save a few minutes of encoding time (a one time operation) when that costs you and users money every single time that file is streamed.
  • visualblind 2y ago
    > Using an expensive GPU block (with most of its cores idling) to encode slightly faster than a cheaper CPU core will do? Slightly faster? Sir, I do think you are mistaken. There are other variables go that into it such as choosing between constant or variable bitrates & variable or constant frame rate, and profiles obviously. There's a crapload of other directives that you can tweak as well. I see what you mean though, you're right if you have CPU with lot of cores/threads/horsepower then you should use that instead of hardware-accel transcoding. I don't.