I have a backlog of gaming footage dating back to 2023 and want to encode it to AV1 once, ideally keeping the originals only when necessary. My main priorities are encoding speed and compression efficiency, with power usage being a secondary concern. I want at least real-time performance and little or no noticeable quality loss.
My available systems include an i7-4770 with 8 GB of RAM, which would need a low-profile GPU, and an AMD FX-6300 system that has several hard drives installed. The FX system has a 6-pin PCIe power connector, and I am currently testing an RX 570 8 GB using the included 6-pin-to-8-pin adapter, though I am willing to replace that card.
I am considering building a newer AMD system that can hold my current and future hard drives. Another option is adding an Intel Arc card to my main PC, which has a Ryzen 7 5700X3D, RX 7900 XT, and 32 GB of RAM, although its case has no room for additional drives. I currently have two 10 TB hard drives, so storage capacity is not an immediate problem.
Would a modern AMD CPU-based system, an Intel Arc GPU, or another option give me the best balance of AV1 quality, file size, speed, and convenience?
3 Answers
The A310 is worth a close look, especially for the older machine. Arc cards generally work best when the motherboard and CPU support Resizable BAR, so check whether your system can enable it. Newer AMD platforms should be fine, but an old i7-4770 setup may need a BIOS setting or may have limited support. For pure AV1 encoding, the dedicated Arc hardware should be much faster and more convenient than relying only on an older CPU.
Intel Arc is probably the most practical choice here. An Arc A310 is inexpensive, supports AV1 hardware encoding, usually comes in a low-profile form factor, and does not need an additional PCIe power cable. That makes it a good fit for the i7-4770 system or a storage-focused server, while avoiding the cost of a completely new DDR5 platform.
Be aware that hardware AV1 encoders prioritize speed and low usage rather than the absolute smallest file at a given quality. A CPU encoder can sometimes compress more efficiently, but it will be dramatically slower. Test a representative sample with the exact quality settings you plan to use before deleting originals; some footage can show banding, blockiness, or other artifacts even when the encode is technically real-time.
I would avoid using a video streaming site's re-encode as a quality benchmark. It may look surprisingly small, but you have little control over the codec settings, bitrate, or generation loss. A short test with your own footage and side-by-side viewing is safer.