$ vi /etc//rpmfusion-free.repo /etc//rpmfusion-free-updates.repo Much like RT applications like live streaming.# add lines to rpmfusion to prevent them from offering ffmpeg Maybe you can do that if your CPU is beefy enough- but a hw encoder will help you a lot in this case.but time is more important in this example, vs quality and size. Encoding re-playable content just isn't the primary use case- not that it can't.īut consider a situation like this: you need to encode a 2 hour long video, at 1080P and you need it done in an hour. Most people aren't going to be running ffmpeg to realtime encode their 1080P stream while they are gaming (or whatever). Try some other content types and see how they fair.Īs for asking what the hw is, because hw encoders improve over time, the generation of your encoder actually matters quite a bit, quality in particular can see some large improvements.Īs for the overall answer to your question- the goal of a hw encoder primarily is performance and reduced CPU usage. Animation is also probably a particularly bad scenario for hw/something sw can optimize better for. So you've forced your comparison to be as least apples-to-apples as you can make it. In your sw encode, you are telling it hitting a quality target is more important. In the hardware encoder, you are pretty much telling it bitrate is more important.

Why don't you use a quality setting like you did with the sw encoder? As a general rule, you will get worse output from a hw encoder for similar settings.

There are a _lot_ of factors that go into hardware encoders.

H264_nvenc ffmpeg