3 ms·

IIRC both x264 and nvenc have multiple profiles for the tradeoff between quality and computing power. For your comparison, are assuming that the objective is b

IIRC both x264 and nvenc have multiple profiles for the tradeoff between quality and computing power. For your comparison, are assuming that the objective is best quality, e.g. that you'd accept 10x the computation even if it gave only a 2% quality improvement? (I can see how this could make sense, if you're encoding a file once and it will be viewed many times. But I could imagine other situations, e.g. where most files are viewed once or never, and only a few files are very popular.)

izacus 2y ago
Having profiles doesn't really change the fact that even Ampere generation encoding block at slowest profile won't come close to visual quality at same output bitrate to x264s slow+ profiles (and we're not even touching on H.265/AV1 here). > For your comparison, are assuming that the objective is best quality, e.g. that you'd accept 10x the computation even if it gave only a 2% quality improvement? The difference is more like 150% encoding time for half the filesize at same SSIM - depending on configuration and video type of course. And that ignores the fact that a server machine with 64-core Threadripper or equivalent can handle parallel encoding of many more videos at massively lower dollar cost than using nvenc. Especially at current GPU prices and GPU power consumption. There's a reason why all online services are encoding in software (usually with x264 & co.) for mainstream most used profiles (that is, SD/HD, many also for 4K). It just doesn't make sense from product quality, user experience or financial perspective. It only makes sense if you never check the results of your production.