Question / Help NVENC vs x264 quality (Local recording, no stream!)

lord-carlos

lord-carlos

New Member
Hi

Most topics about the quality between NVENC vs x264 are about streams and apparently x264 is always better (if you have the CPU power)
But some say that local recording with NVENC is fine.

I want to do local recordings and edit them later of a game called 'Eve Online', it's important that the ingame font stays clear and sharp. If you don't know it, here is an example. (A lot of text UI ;-) )

The thing is, I am about to buy a new computer and wondering if I should buy an Nvidia GTX 760 for NVENC or for the same money a way faster AMD GPU but fallback to x264.

At first I wanted an Nvidia for the CUDA support for After Effects, but apparently only raytracing will be faster. Which I don't use. So it all boils down to if NVENC is worth the extra money compared to buying an AMD GPU.

Thank you for your time
With kind regards
lord carlos
 
koala

koala

Active Member
From my experience: nvenc local recording with 30000 bitrate is sufficient quality for the average user. Especially if you want to upload the stuff to youtube later, since youtube mangles your video anyway.

I am able to record with nvenc as well as with Quicksync on the same machine. With 30000 bitrate, I don't see a difference between the two, but I am no expert. For me, they look the same quality. But after reading different sources, I learnt that the Quicksync encoder is more efficient and produces way better quality at low bitrates than nvenc (and vce, the AMD equivalent, that is being worked on for OBS). So I assume it will produce better quality at higher bitrates as well, and so I use now Quicksync for local recording. Its CPU usage is negligible, so it's a pleasure to just play the game without negative impact and record the whole evening. With x264, CPU usage was so much higher, that it had a big impact on the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top