live streaming someone was asking which was better to use for high quality live streaming x264 vs NVENC

[The God Factory]

dont know if this will be useful but overkill on cores just get as many cores as you can afford. i encode now in x264 with amd 3970x since NVENC on the 3090FE cant handle a 4k stream almost on anything. (single rig setup) nvenc is a great idea but its far from the answer to pushing out the best possible quality but that will change down the road as more of the tech is allowed.  i can do this and run CPU heavy games wile still only using 18% - 25% of my cpu ...this setup can run an 8k stream but you will struggle to find a platform that can host it outside of your own website's thresholds

[The God Factory]

Just now, The God Factory said:

dont know if this will be useful but overkill on cores just get as many cores as you can afford. i encode now in x264 with amd 3970x since NVENC on the 3090FE cant handle a 4k stream almost on anything. (single rig setup) nvenc is a great idea but its far from the answer to pushing out the best possible quality but that will change down the road as more of the tech is allowed.  i can do this and run CPU heavy games wile still only using 18% - 25% of my cpu ...this setup can run an 8k stream but you will struggle to find a platform that can host it outside of your own website's thresholds

although obs and most programs are limited to use about 4-8 cores some are optimized for 16 but mostly its 4-8 cores 

[GuiltySpark_]

Those that do this kind of thing know that if you are after overall quality above all else, CPU based x264 is king. The issue is more people don't have 3970x's and are streaming to Twitch/Youtube, both of which have resolution and bitrate limitations. NVENC is perfectly suitable for the vast majority of streamers.

 

If you are putting this information out there it might be helpful to maybe link who you were talking to or just post in that existing thread. Standalone I'm not sure what this thread's purpose is.

[Brooksie359]

Realistically the majority of people won't notice the difference between the two also high quality 1080p is better than low quality 4k imo. Also for streaming content is king so the difference isn't going to make or break a stream. If you can get away with using h264 without affecting performance then more power to you but if it negatively effected fps then I would do nvenc Personally. 

[The God Factory]

On 6/8/2022 at 2:23 PM, Brooksie359 said:

Realistically the majority of people won't notice the difference between the two also high quality 1080p is better than low quality 4k imo. Also for streaming content is king so the difference isn't going to make or break a stream. If you can get away with using h264 without affecting performance then more power to you but if it negatively effected fps then I would do nvenc Personally. 

high quality 4k is better than high quality 1080p if one has the upload speed to push out 51,000 kbps why not push a high quality 4k stream?

[The God Factory]

On 6/8/2022 at 1:15 PM, GuiltySpark_ said:

Those that do this kind of thing know that if you are after overall quality above all else, CPU based x264 is king. The issue is more people don't have 3970x's and are streaming to Twitch/Youtube, both of which have resolution and bitrate limitations. NVENC is perfectly suitable for the vast majority of streamers.

 

If you are putting this information out there it might be helpful to maybe link who you were talking to or just post in that existing thread. Standalone I'm not sure what this thread's purpose is.

i lost the post that had the question in it and i couldnt respond to it directly i just hope he sees this lol ... and i agree about not alot of people having them but im speaking really to the people who i would consider gaming connoisseurs that will pay top dollar just so they know their system isnt ever going to break a sweat no matter what we eventually decide to use the rig for...mainly this isnt even for gamers its for creators.  but yes i do agree with you to say the least.

 

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to Programs, Apps and Websites

***

 

Due to rendering limitations on steaming platforms, streaming (uploading) anything beyond 1080p60 is pointless unless you are someone getting constant 1k+ viewership. Because at least on Twitch, scaling on viewer side is given prioritising biggest streamers and events. Pretty much meaning that your viewers must match in download speed the bitrate you are uploading to get smooth viewing experience. It's still rare to have over 10mbps stable download speeds, and you are talking about need for stable 50-60mbps.

 

For recording purposes, sure. There pre- and post-rendering equals things out quite a lot.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, The God Factory said:

high quality 4k is better than high quality 1080p if one has the upload speed to push out 51,000 kbps why not push a high quality 4k stream?

Because most streaming websites don't allow a high enough bitrate for high quality 4k. Unfortunately most streaming websites don't care if you have high enough upload speed as they won't give you the bit rate you want anyways. 

[The God Factory]

10 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

-> Moved to Programs, Apps and Websites

***

 

Due to rendering limitations on steaming platforms, streaming (uploading) anything beyond 1080p60 is pointless unless you are someone getting constant 1k+ viewership. Because at least on Twitch, scaling on viewer side is given prioritizing biggest streamers and events. Pretty much meaning that your viewers must match in download speed the bitrate you are uploading to get smooth viewing experience. It's still rare to have over 10mbps stable download speeds, and you are talking about need for stable 50-60mbps.

 

For recording purposes, sure. There pre- and post-rendering equals things out quite a lot.

well im not talking about 50-60mbps im talking more like 100-200mbs upload speed and since 1gbps download speed is pretty much commonplace now keeping up with the data transfer isn't an issue...at least for my viewers. This is a waste for a ONLY TWITCH STREAMER...if you stream on YT and create other content that requires a powerful CPU I still recommend it because i am using it and i love its performance against all you nay sayers out there i went and bought it to know for myself and i will say...you're all wrong in your criticisms on this unit...it is very pricey but we pay for what we want and if one does not want it one does not have to pay... other cheaper units can achieve close to its performance and if we are talking about a gamer rather than a creator....then yes by all means don't buy an 18 wheeler if you have tiny load to haul...get a pick up...

[The God Factory]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Because most streaming websites don't allow a high enough bitrate for high quality 4k. Unfortunately most streaming websites don't care if you have high enough upload speed as they won't give you the bit rate you want anyways. 

yes true that is most.  YT is 51,000 kbps max good enough to get a really good quality stream.  There are other platforms that allow higher bitrates than YT but they are not the traditional sites you think of...its the new free .tv sites exploding around the world ... you know those little free netflix like apps that dont quite do it for you? lol there are ways to benefit from high quality streams like hosting on your own website... but I say this UNIT is worth every dollar...that way only a few of us have it and when we need more they are always available... 

[LogicalDrm]

6 minutes ago, The God Factory said:

well im not talking about 50-60mbps im talking more like 100-200mbs upload speed and since 1gbps download speed is pretty much commonplace now keeping up with the data transfer isn't an issue...at least for my viewers.

Uh? My connection is common at 25mb advertised download which equals at 18mbps actual. 1gbps is common LAN speed, but I don't think there are many private customers who would be willing to pay for such. Our provider does offer 5G advertised at 1gb/s, but unlikely thats stable at that speed. Also, looking at Speedtest data https://www.speedtest.net/global-index

Seems like average is closer to 100mbps. So you are making quite assumptions, or acting bit elitistic saying viewer either needs to have good internet or they are not worthy for viewing content streamed.

[Brooksie359]

28 minutes ago, The God Factory said:

well im not talking about 50-60mbps im talking more like 100-200mbs upload speed and since 1gbps download speed is pretty much commonplace now keeping up with the data transfer isn't an issue...at least for my viewers. This is a waste for a ONLY TWITCH STREAMER...if you stream on YT and create other content that requires a powerful CPU I still recommend it because i am using it and i love its performance against all you nay sayers out there i went and bought it to know for myself and i will say...you're all wrong in your criticisms on this unit...it is very pricey but we pay for what we want and if one does not want it one does not have to pay... other cheaper units can achieve close to its performance and if we are talking about a gamer rather than a creator....then yes by all means don't buy an 18 wheeler if you have tiny load to haul...get a pick up...

Yeah internet speeds are highly dependent on where you live. I know in alot of European countries they have more widespread gigabit internet but in the US it is really hit or miss depending on where you live. You live in a high populated area like the city then yeah you probably have the option to get gigabit internet not that this means people are actually willing to pay for gigabit internet. Anyways I would say gigabit internet isn't all that common especially in the US. 

[The God Factory]

4 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Uh? My connection is common at 25mb advertised download which equals at 18mbps actual. 1gbps is common LAN speed, but I don't think there are many private customers who would be willing to pay for such. Our provider does offer 5G advertised at 1gb/s, but unlikely thats stable at that speed. Also, looking at Speedtest data https://www.speedtest.net/global-index

Seems like average is closer to 100mbps. So you are making quite assumptions, or acting bit elitistic saying viewer either needs to have good internet or they are not worthy for viewing content streamed.

you're nerves seem touched to accuse me of your blind perspective.  Once again my viewers don't have an issue...gig speeds are quickly on the rise and in my part of the world...it is in fact commonplace and it is very affordable.  but "for you" "affordable" is subjective.  I know what you're trying to say even though elitistic is not a word...we aren't here to argue semantics...with your statement of 100mbs is plenty download speed for data transfer on these levels... my internet is advertised at 1.2gbps but i get a stable 800-900mbps ... I am aware of these tid bits of info you threw in there but it all still stands...internet speeds are evolving with data density.  Bet ya didn't know the Japanese are working on technology that can see data transfers with speeds over 300Tbps  ... thats useless info too but i am sharing my experience as everyone doesn't have my needs for this unit the same goes that not everyone is facing the same problems as you.

[GuiltySpark_]

29 minutes ago, The God Factory said:

..you're all wrong in your criticisms on this unit..

Your original post talks about running games and streaming. 

 

The system you're doing this CPU encoding on is incredibly unrealistic for streamers and nearly all of them get by just fine doing 6000kb/s to Twitch/Youtube. 

 

I don't think i'm wrong in my criticism when talking about a Threadripper system in conjunction with game streamers. 

[GuiltySpark_]

1 minute ago, The God Factory said:

you're nerves seem touched to accuse me of your blind perspective.

Bud you joined here to make a statement about something that no one asked. No one is agreeing with you and to be quite honest it seems you're the only one who seems agitated about it.

[The God Factory]

2 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Your original post talks about running games and streaming. 

 

The system you're doing this CPU encoding on is incredibly unrealistic for streamers and nearly all of them get by just fine doing 6000kb/s to Twitch/Youtube. 

 

I don't think i'm wrong in my criticism when talking about a Threadripper system in conjunction with game streamers. 

everyone is allowed to do what they want scrape at the ground or reach for the stars i guess... the example has no relation to the choice of cpu btw...  6000kbps is great for mobile games lol...but im not going to be likely to stick around in a stream pushing that quality...or lack thereof... but i will say for sure...there are dope popular funny people out there that can have the crappiest gear and have thousands of viewers so at the end of the day the stream will succeed or fail mostly because of the streamer... mediocre gear will work ... but for those who want overkill.... (possibly because we are also creators) 3970x all day... im getting the 3990x to compare it and mess with it.  the one im REALLY excited to see is the EPYC 7763 it isnt for gaming but i am not using it for gaming or streaming lol i love CPUs and anyone saying this one is a bad choice is wrong in my opinion...  

 

i will say it again... if you are JUST BUYING CRAP FOR YOUR VIDEO GAMES you might not need to shell out the dollars for this.

 

 

[The God Factory]

9 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Bud you joined here to make a statement about something that no one asked. No one is agreeing with you and to be quite honest it seems you're the only one who seems agitated about it.

bud no one asked? ok i just made all this up in fact i dont even own a PC im talking on a 3 pound nokia right now.. lol also at what point would an individual feel the need to require the affirmation of someone agreeing with them?  When you know that you are right....it doesn't matter what people try to tell you and its best to just let most people believe what they want.  Im using it...did you? till then lets hear from a more credible consumer...wait you didnt consume...lmao 

[LogicalDrm]

11 minutes ago, The God Factory said:

you're nerves seem touched to accuse me of your blind perspective.  Once again my viewers don't have an issue...gig speeds are quickly on the rise and in my part of the world...it is in fact commonplace and it is very affordable.  but "for you" "affordable" is subjective.  I know what you're trying to say even though elitistic is not a word...we aren't here to argue semantics...with your statement of 100mbs is plenty download speed for data transfer on these levels... my internet is advertised at 1.2gbps but i get a stable 800-900mbps ... I am aware of these tid bits of info you threw in there but it all still stands...internet speeds are evolving with data density.  Bet ya didn't know the Japanese are working on technology that can see data transfers with speeds over 300Tbps  ... thats useless info too but i am sharing my experience as everyone doesn't have my needs for this unit the same goes that not everyone is facing the same problems as you.

You are sharing useful info overall, thats not issue. But your post, not the original, but one's after it, do ask question "why would anyone". I gave reasons. If one wants to attract more viewers overall, going for higher quality without viewers having ability to scale it more suitable for their experience is not very good way to go about it. Even YT does have limits on rendering, I've hit that issue with just 1080p60 streaming.

 

Me going bit haywire was response to your very elitistic sounding take that everyone or at least vast majority would in fact have stable 1gbps download speeds. If not elitistic, very arrogant at minimum.

[The God Factory]

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

You are sharing useful info overall, thats not issue. But your post, not the original, but one's after it, do ask question "why would anyone". I gave reasons. If one wants to attract more viewers overall, going for higher quality without viewers having ability to scale it more suitable for their experience is not very good way to go about it. Even YT does have limits on rendering, I've hit that issue with just 1080p60 streaming.

 

Me going bit haywire was response to your very elitistic sounding take that everyone or at least vast majority would in fact have stable 1gbps download speeds. If not elitistic, very arrogant at minimum.

well i cant deny my own arrogance... youtube has its limits overall its the best option for people who arent able to partner with live tv companies.  51,000  kbps is YT maximum. It's just for a different type of creator to say the least... some people will only ever use free software for their streams while others may spend upwards of around 500-1000usd per year to have the best streaming software with the best capabilities these scales should be observed on the scale of the creators/gamers viewership/monetization that should depict when upgrades like these are in fact necessary ... nothing in this thread is for anyone just trying to play apex or WoW or COD ... my post is mainly for creators as it was a creator who originally had the question about this specific unit...i said hey i have that unit and after months of frustrating tuning and testing i am really happy with what this thing can do ....  i think ill make a club lmao!