Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,434
Calling MattDonk calling MattDonk @LtMatt Come in MattDonk...Some expert pixel peepers on here will find this a breeze!
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Calling MattDonk calling MattDonk @LtMatt Come in MattDonk...Some expert pixel peepers on here will find this a breeze!
They all look bad, but then it is a screenshot of recorded video so not surprising tbf.Calling MattDonk calling MattDonk @LtMatt Come in MattDonk...
They all look bad, but then it is a screenshot of recorded video so not surprising tbf.
Will check when home tonight!I took a random 1 minute segment of one of my Shadowplay recordings and tested NVEnc HEVC and AV1 on it with a different CQ value to get a very similar file size.
NVEnc HEVC - CQ 28 slowest preset. File size 235,636 KB.
NVEnc AV1 - CQ 36 slowest preset. File size 235,635 KB.
Overall bitrate is 31.9 Mb/s in both.
Then I took a screenshot of a random frame and did a 1920x1080 crop so you can more easily see the differences in quality. Can you tell which one is which?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Can you tell which one is which?
Have you tried switching between them in fullscreen?Ok so I basically see no difference!
Encode 1 is AV1. Both of them lose quite a lot of detail but NVEnc AV1 is definitely worse than NVEnc HEVC, at least in the Handbrake snapshot build. I don't know if it's something they can improve with it being hardware based, but it seems that the main purpose is to avoid royalties in HEVC. I guess that's why they didn't compare AV1 to HEVC in their blog post.If I was to guess I'd say encode 2 is av1, slightly crisper background and it has a higher cq
Look at a specific area like the wall, you should be able to easily see differences.Yes, full screen, zoomed to fill v axis, each image opened in a new tab and then cycled rapidly with CTRL+TAB and saw no meaningful differences just scanning the whole frame as I cycle the tabs.
Bit weird, I've been hearing all this stuff about av1 being the 'saviour' for low files sizes etc keeping good quality but to me at least it's the worst one of the two at the same file size/bitrate....based on your images (and I'm sure there will be others with different outcomes) the marketing is more about saving money from paying royalties...Encode 1 is AV1. Both of them lose quite a lot of detail but NVEnc AV1 is definitely worse than NVEnc HEVC, at least in the Handbrake snapshot build. I don't know if it's something they can improve with it being hardware based, but it seems that the main purpose is to avoid royalties in HEVC. I guess that's why they didn't compare AV1 to HEVC in their blog post.
Anyway. That's the 4000 series done to death. In summary - TOTAL FAIL.
What about the 5000? Who's looking forward to that?
I'll likely get a 5090.
When’s that out?
When’s that out?
In 18 months.
Amazing. We have spent six months being depressed about the 4000 series already. How time flies when we are being miserable.