2025-01-03, 06:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 2025-01-03, 06:55 PM by Efficient_Good_5784. Edited 1 time in total.)
From my own personal experience and bias, using the GPU to transcode almost always results in worse video quality per bitrate used when compared to using the CPU.
What you consider better may just be something you're used to that feels better to you. It would be helpful if you could share PNG screenshot examples of both encodes to have us better understand what you're experiencing.
Also as a note that I want to add. Unlike H264 where going with a slower preset lowers the final output size, going with slower presets for H265 actually increases your final video size. Slower presets in H265 use more complex algorithms to better capture movement detail and other things which use more data.
That said, if you care about quality, the slow preset is recommended to be used as a minimum like you are.
What you consider better may just be something you're used to that feels better to you. It would be helpful if you could share PNG screenshot examples of both encodes to have us better understand what you're experiencing.
Also as a note that I want to add. Unlike H264 where going with a slower preset lowers the final output size, going with slower presets for H265 actually increases your final video size. Slower presets in H265 use more complex algorithms to better capture movement detail and other things which use more data.
That said, if you care about quality, the slow preset is recommended to be used as a minimum like you are.