Question / Help I don't have anything else beside x264, why?

Y

yitzhak

New Member
I can only see encoder x264... why?

My basic computer details:

Processor: AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Quad-Core Processor
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030
RAM: 8.0 GB
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 (build 17134), 64-bit

(there no need for log file right?)
If you need more info tell me, Thanks for the help in advance!
 
Harold

Harold

Active Member
The GT1030 doesn't support nvenc
Ryzen chips don't support quicksync
You have no AMD video card.

That's why.

I'm 400% sure.
 
MCBYT

MCBYT

Member
Harold said:
The GT1030 doesn't support nvenc
Click to expand...
Supposedly there are workarounds for it. For example, Shadowplay/Share uses NVENC afaik, but people have gotten it to work on GT 1030 cards. I think it has the capability, but it's just locked as I've seen with several other GT/GTX card features. But yes, @alpinlol, you do not have a traditional setup and it can't support many popular codecs. For minimal lag, I'd just suggest x264 on ultrafast.
 
koala

koala

Active Member
The workaround is to buy hardware that contains a hardware encoder. According to the nvidia nvenc support matrix, the GT 1030 does not:

1539784352351.png
 
A

alpinlol

Active Member
yitzhak said:
is this related that I haves lags in streams? .-.
I'm trying to find what makes my stream lags...
Click to expand...

Well since there are two different versions of the GT 1030 https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-1030/specifications you might have issues with memory bandwidth which results into a lot of issues when streaming.

MCBYT said:
Supposedly there are workarounds for it. For example, Shadowplay/Share uses NVENC afaik, but people have gotten it to work on GT 1030 cards. I think it has the capability, but it's just locked as I've seen with several other GT/GTX card features. But yes, @alpinlol, you do not have a traditional setup and it can't support many popular codecs. For minimal lag, I'd just suggest x264 on ultrafast.
Click to expand...

Would also explain why certain users managed to get it to work. Same issue has occured on an older generation with GDDR3 VRAM and GDDR5. Usually with a workaround you might get it to work with a GDDR5 Version of the Card.
 
Y

yitzhak

New Member
MCBYT said:
Supposedly there are workarounds for it. For example, Shadowplay/Share uses NVENC afaik, but people have gotten it to work on GT 1030 cards. I think it has the capability, but it's just locked as I've seen with several other GT/GTX card features. But yes, @alpinlol, you do not have a traditional setup and it can't support many popular codecs. For minimal lag, I'd just suggest x264 on ultrafast.
Click to expand...
but on ultra fast it will be super trash on quality... and people told me x264 is the best one, it is?
 
MCBYT

MCBYT

Member
yitzhak said:
but on ultra fast it will be super trash on quality... and people told me x264 is the best one, it is?
Click to expand...
Yes, x264 is typically considered best for quality. I don't know who told you ultrafast was trash quality, though, because when I used to use it it was giving me smooth 720p48 (got a new GPU and now record in 1080p100)
 
koala

koala

Active Member
x264 ultrafast produces "trash quality", because it requires almost twice the bandwidth than x264 veryfast for the same quality. If you are fixed at bitrate 4000, for example, you need bitrate 8000 with ultrafast to get the same quality as bitrate 4000 with veryfast.

You can deduct this from the comparison made in this article: http://blogs.motokado.com/yoshi/2011/06/25/comparison-of-x264-presets/

In that article, some video produced with ultrafast results in a file with size 81,046,858 bytes. The same video, with same quality of crf=18 but preset=veryfast, results in a file with size 43,968,615 bytes. That means, for the same quality, compression with ultrafast almost doubles the size requirement. In terms of streaming, this means it almost doubles the bitrate requirement. If you don't have that bitrate but use the same bitrate instead, you halve the quality. And that's quite "trash quality".
 
MCBYT

MCBYT

Member
koala said:
x264 ultrafast produces "trash quality", because it requires almost twice the bandwidth than x264 veryfast for the same quality. If you are fixed at bitrate 4000, for example, you need bitrate 8000 with ultrafast to get the same quality as bitrate 4000 with veryfast.

You can deduct this from the comparison made in this article: http://blogs.motokado.com/yoshi/2011/06/25/comparison-of-x264-presets/

In that article, some video produced with ultrafast results in a file with size 81,046,858 bytes. The same video, with same quality of crf=18 but preset=veryfast, results in a file with size 43,968,615 bytes. That means, for the same quality, compression with ultrafast almost doubles the size requirement. In terms of streaming, this means it almost doubles the bitrate requirement. If you don't have that bitrate but use the same bitrate instead, you halve the quality. And that's quite "trash quality".
Click to expand...
Ah. When I used to record x264 ultrafast, I was using a CRF of 10, so relatively high quality. Now I'm using QuickSync CRF 12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top