EMERGENCY!! OBS streaming 1800x or 7700k??

[Rasecx]

EMERGENCY!! 

I planned getting the AMD R7 1800x in a few hours!!! My main reason is because my AMD FX 8350 is crap for streaming on OBS (streaming CSGO mainly and lose more than half of my frames).

However! After the new benchmarks, 7700k seems to be beating the 1800x by a lot! So my question is, will the 7700k's performance do better for streaming?? or the 1800x core count do better for streaming on OBS???

 

Much appreciatied!

[Rasecx]

During AMD's Ryzen event they showed that OBS streaming was better than Intel in an AMD 1700?!?!

[Guest]

1800x is better for streaming

[Rasecx]

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

1800x is better for streaming

Reasons???

[Rasecx]

Just now, huilun02 said:

The Ryzen 7 series have 8 core and 16 threads. Stream encoding and the game itself won't have to fight over CPU resources as much compared to 4 core 8 threads.

Very true. But is OBS streaming fighting for resources that much? I'm wondering if OBS uses more than 4 core/8 threads. If not, the 7700k would destroy the 1800x because of it's higher clock speed (5.1Ghz overclocked). I appreciate your replies already but I just need more information to feel at ease.... 

[ybriK]

Even though this is only 1 game and it's at 4K where the GPU is generally the bottleneck. It still shows the 1800X is a better buy when you plan to stream and game at the same time. If we tested BF1 here which is known to be a very CPU demanding game, we should see the 1800X pull ahead of the 7700K in theory.

 

 

[Matt_98]

Just now, Rasecx said:

Very true. But is OBS streaming fighting for resources that much? I'm wondering if OBS uses more than 4 core/8 threads. If not, the 7700k would destroy the 1800x because of it's higher clock speed (5.1Ghz overclocked). I appreciate your replies already but I just need more information to feel at ease.... 

 

yes when it has to fight with games, watch the amd event it crushes streaming

[zMeul]

if you are streaming with HEVC or QuickSync the 7700K is the better buy

it makes no sense to stress the CPU when the GPU encoding is better; even using the iGPU in the i7

 

that difference you save on 7700K can go in better video card, more memory, larger storage ... you name it

 

people that say 1800X is better at this because is has more cores/threads have no fucking clue what they're talking about

 

[Rasecx]

Thank you everyone! Please keep the information coming. From what I understand so far, the higher cores/threads will in FACT benefit me more for streaming than the 7700k with higher clock speeds.

[Thony]

U should see much lower game peformance hit on ryzen chip simply because it has double the cores over i7-7700k. 

 

I would go for ryzen or do what some streamers do. Have your old 8350 system do the streaming and use 7700k rig for gaming with no performamce issues. In case you are getting a full rig together.

[Rasecx]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

if you are streaming with HEVC or QuickSync the 7700K is the better buy

it makes no sense to stress the CPU when the GPU encoding is better; even using the iGPU in the i7

I would like to use the CPU to handle the streaming work load. You seem to favor using GPU, but do you agree that 1800x CPU would be better if i use the CPU for the work load?

[Mira Yurizaki]

If you're not anal about quality, you can get away with using Intel's QuickSync or NVIDIA's NVENC. AMD's ReLive might work.

 

Either way, you don't necessarily need more CPU cores to stream. You have other options.

[Rasecx]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

If you're not anal about quality, you can get away with using Intel's QuickSync or NVIDIA's NVENC. AMD's ReLive might work.

 

Either way, you don't necessarily need more CPU cores to stream. You have other options.

My budget is $500 for just the CPU. I AM anal about quality, so I am still debating over the 7700k at $350 and the 1800x at $499. I wouldnt mind saving the $150 if the extra cores in the 1800x will do nothing for me.

[zMeul]

11 minutes ago, Rasecx said:

I would like to use the CPU to handle the streaming work load. You seem to favor using GPU, but do you agree that 1800x CPU would be better if i use the CPU for the work load?

considering the 1800X will be performing marginally better while drawing more power and costing ~150$ more?!

for ~150 give or take you can go from GTX1070 to GTX1080 (considering the price cut)

 

Quote

My budget is $500 for just the CPU. I AM anal about quality,

if it's not compression at your end it will be on the service you'll be using - lower quality than what you're recording at will happen no matter what

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, Rasecx said:

My budget is $500 for just the CPU. I AM anal about quality, so I am still debating over the 7700k at $350 and the 1800x at $499. I wouldnt mind saving the $150 if the extra cores in the 1800x will do nothing for me.

It also depends on what quality setting you use anyway. If you're using x264's fast or very fast setting, then it looks like hardware encoders are pretty close to quality.

 

There's also this topic

 

[ybriK]

If you're still interested OP, here's BF1. Now if you were streaming this then it's safe to say you're going to be experiencing some performance hiccups.

 

 

[DocSwag]

On 3/2/2017 at 8:08 AM, zMeul said:

if you are streaming with HEVC or QuickSync the 7700K is the better buy

it makes no sense to stress the CPU when the GPU encoding is better; even using the iGPU in the i7

 

that difference you save on 7700K can go in better video card, more memory, larger storage ... you name it

 

people that say 1800X is better at this because is has more cores/threads have no fucking clue what they're talking about

 

If you watched linus's video you'd know that quick sync is crap compared to software encoding.

On 3/2/2017 at 8:10 AM, Rasecx said:

I would like to use the CPU to handle the streaming work load. You seem to favor using GPU, but do you agree that 1800x CPU would be better if i use the CPU for the work load?

No, I'd say 1700 instead, any day. 1700 overclocks as well for 2/3 the price. 1800x is not worth it.

[zMeul]

13 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

If you watched linus's video you'd know that quick sync is crap compared to software encoding.

Linus' video is kinda' bullshitty

he's comparing quality from what?

• the raw exports?
• the re-encode for uploading?
• what the twitch / YT client sees?

and then he uploads it to YT, again passing through re-encoding

 

let's get real, whatever you encode it at, twitch / YT will re-encode it again and god knows what quality the clients actually gets

the live WAN Show on twitch is always at a lower quality than seeing it on YT - and it's from the same source

[DocSwag]

7 minutes ago, zMeul said:

Linus' video is kinda' bullshitty

he's comparing quality from what?

• the raw exports?
• the re-encode for uploading?
• what the twitch / YT client sees?

and then he uploads it to YT, again passing through re-encoding

 

let's get real, whatever you encode it at, twitch / YT will re-encode it again and god knows what quality the clients actually gets

the live WAN Show on twitch is always at a lower quality than seeing it on YT - and it's from the same source

And he says that it minimizes quality loss once it's reencoded, because there's more quality beforehand already.

 

You can see the QuickSync record blocking up at times. If it was better to begin with, then why would that happen?

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

And he says that it minimizes quality loss once it's reencoded, because there's more quality beforehand already.

 

You can see the QuickSync record blocking up at times. If it was better to begin with, then why would that happen?

I don't have time right now, Easter and all, but when I get back I plan to upload some samples on YT

 

[Pyrii]

11 minutes ago, zMeul said:

Linus' video is kinda' bullshitty

he's comparing quality from what?

• the raw exports?
• the re-encode for uploading?
• what the twitch / YT client sees?

and then he uploads it to YT, again passing through re-encoding

 

let's get real, whatever you encode it at, twitch / YT will re-encode it again and god knows what quality the clients actually gets

the live WAN Show on twitch is always at a lower quality than seeing it on YT - and it's from the same source

Twitch will only re-rencode if you're partnered and your viewers have a quality setting other than "source" selected. It's why I always tell my friends to be careful of bitrate as they might go too high for their viewers to watch.

 

Quicksync is just that, it's quick, it's not quality-based and so a software encoder which can take advantage of more features of a codec (motion compensation etc) will always win out. 

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, Pyrii said:

Twitch will only re-rencode if you're partnered and your viewers have a quality setting other than "source" selected. It's why I always tell my friends to be careful of bitrate as they might go too high for their viewers to watch.

 

Quicksync is just that, it's quick, it's not quality-based and so a software encoder which can take advantage of more features of a codec (motion compensation etc) will always win out. 

utter crap! if the game is high motion, both twitch and YT will fuck it up independent of the source's quality

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I don't have time right now, Easter and all, but when I get back I plan to upload some samples on YT

 

The fact of the matter is, quick sync requires higher bitrates than x264 to get the same quality.

 

NVENC is close to x264 in quality, but if you look at Linus's video it has a larger performance drop resulting in Ryzen x264 performance coming close to 7700k nvenc performance. And x264 gives you a little better quality.

[Pyrii]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

utter crap! if the game is high motion, both twitch and YT will fuck it up independent of the source's quality

Are you saying that YT took the zoomed in encoded footage from quicksync WHILE IT WAS ON THE SAME FRAME AS OTHER FOOTAGE and messed it up independently?

 

Yes YT transcodes footage, that's why they recommend you encode to specific settings and upload footage at the best quality you can. LTT have been doing this for a long time and they even upload at 4K to compensate for this too.

 

Twitch does not do this unless you are partnered. They'd have to spend a LOT of money to buy heaps of machines for all that transcoding for the thousands of streams going on at the same time. That's why they only offer transcoding to lower bitrates for partnered streams where they'll be making money to compensate.

 

You really seem determined to make your theory work here that somehow Quicksync is better and everyone is wrong.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

The fact of the matter is, quick sync requires higher bitrates than x264 to get the same quality.

 

NVENC is close to x264 in quality, but if you look at Linus's video it has a larger performance drop resulting in Ryzen x264 performance coming close to 7700k nvenc performance. And x264 gives you a little better quality.

and what's the problem!?

you cap the framerate at 60 and record at 60