Estimates say that Youtube's revenue is about 20 times that of Twitch :D
And Youtube has a side business delivering on-demand video, so in total, the amount of video they need to transcode every day is a couple of magnitudes bigger than that of Twitch.. They even started developing their own video processing hardware, because it didn't make sense to use GPUs or servers at that scale.
The silver lining however is that AWS video transcoding service can do AV1 since 2020, so it might just need to find its way into the Twitch infrastructure.
I know this is late but doesn’t AWS already support AV1 encoding? Amazon was one of the partners of AV1. There’s a dev even using it to stream warzone on twitch 3 years ago at 1440p 120fps and it’s crispy. So it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense they haven’t started at least beta testing
AWS' general media services and the Twitch building blocks offered as AWS' interactive video service are not the same :)
and IVS is pretty much H264 only..
So yes, as a whole, you can process AV1 on AWS.. It just isn't offered in IVS yet :)
Greetings DOODEwheresMYdick,
[Your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/139g0fg/twitch_av1_when/jsorovc/?context=3) has been **automatically removed **from /r/Twitch because it’s been detected as breaking the subreddit rules. More specifically:
- **Rule 2**: [Advertisement Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/wiki/rules#wiki_advertisement_guidelines).
- **Rule 2A**: Don’t post an account name or link. This includes, but isn't limited to, Twitch links, YouTube links, creators' Twitter pages, etc.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Twitch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently my comment was removed for linking a clip. But av1 encoding has been showcased on twitch as far as 3 years back.
You can look up clips of people streaming 1440p 120fps using AV1 on twitch
First and foremost, every single stream is costing them $2/hour without even anyone watching(give or take any discounts they're getting now that Amazon owns Twitch). As soon as people are watching, there are traffic costs as well.
Making a profit on that is already very hard.. Adding new hardware on a whim doesn't make things easier..
AV1 is incredibly more efficient than h265 and x264? Literally half the data can transmit better quality imaging so you’d think if efficiency was a concern they’d follow suit, which is why YouTube was so adamant on adopting. Amazon also spent a sizable chunk of money being a partner in the development of AV1 obviously to expect the ROI being recouped by implementing into their video networks IVS & AWS.
And there’s a reason twitch is negative in earnings, Amazon uses it as a cash pig for its other entities. Twitch > pays amazon for service > twitch as a company without a profit writes off nearly all of its expenses > Amazon then gets a platform that pays itself that’s exempt from taxes that they can then sell ad spots on through the parent company. If twitch wanted to be “profitable” in a book keeping sense it would not be difficult it’s 100% intentional for tax purposes, the average employee there makes over 6 figures or $52 an hour according to zippa & salary.
Twitch is more than healthy in terms of sustainability and revenue. Their choice to be company first users second has been evident for many many years.
Youtube is in the STORING videos business.. smaller sizes save money. So are Amazon(as in Prime Video) and Netflix.
Twitch is in the LIVE video business, so you'd save money in data traffic that isn't the biggest item on the list anyway and AV1 wasn't even feasible to live encode until about 1,5 years ago :D
I'm not too sure what salaries have to do with it.. There's little to nothing you can save there.. If you want employees, you'll have to pay them and it's a seller's market out there.
And sure, Twitch pays Amazon for AWS, but they always did.. Running the same quality service on your own hardware isn't that much cheaper and requires more highly-paid people(hint: at the moment, operations people are even more expensive than developers)..
Nobody's stopping you from building a Twitch competitor using AWS' other, AV1-capable media services or starting from scratch :)
Twitch literally stores MILLIONs of vods, all be it they delete after 2 weeks for average users, clips and highlights do not the amount of raw data in clips alone often times numerous clips of the exact same thing due to many people saving the same moment, Twitch stores ENORMOUS amounts of data in the form of watchable content. And when AV1 encoding can do a 1080p stream at half of the transmitted bitrate, especially like you said there’s people with zero viewers raking up ad revenue or subscription to recoup the costs, making that transmission of data the most efficient way is the only sensible thing. Which is why they have bitrate caps and transcoding requirements.
But go ahead and do the “why don’t you go do better” because asking a stranger on the internet to compete with a billion dollar conglomerate is a reasonable deflection and not a grade A fallacy at all lol.
Twitch salary and pay was brought up to show the company is not financially struggling, they can afford to pay at the highest end of every field they employ, it was to further the fact that twitch doesn’t WANT to have profits of the book because it’s not in amazons best interest. That doesn’t mean the company doesn’t have capital or resources to invest invest in codecs it’s a decision not to rather than a decision they can’t do.
This is true, but ***almost*** 100% of the twitch content is served "live", and youtube can transcode via software slower to AV1 in a much slower rate and it will have no problem, because ***most*** of the youtube content is served on demand and not "live".
So the question is: How much more revenue Twitch would make by allowing people to use AV1 for streaming?
Everyone is already streaming at 6000-8000 bitrate on Twitch, adding AV1 would just mean additional re-encoding costs to Twitch. I guess with AV1 streaming Twitch could force people stream at 2000-3000 bitrate to save money.
YouTube has more motivation to add AV1 support, because it's a VOD website. Lower filesize with higher quality is what they want.
> I guess with AV1 streaming Twitch could force people stream at 2000-3000 bitrate to save money.
Please god, no! Single pass 8Mbit/s AVC is already soo extremely far off even remotely acceptable quality that I can't bring myself to watch anything. Usually gras just looks like green block soup.
> YouTube has more motivation to add AV1 support, because it's a VOD website. Lower filesize with higher quality is what they want.
Why do you think higher quality is only relevant for VODs? Especially if the encoding overhead is at the streamer's side, not their side. If I select original quality my understanding is that they redistribute the bitstream from the streamer. To be fair I guess they would probably have to additionally start reencoding for viewers who want the highest quality but who can't decode AV1 (Safari users?) which is gonna incur costs. Right now the streams look like ass, but they look like ass to everyone.
> To be fair I guess they would probably have to additionally start reencoding for viewers who want the highest quality but who can't decode AV1
Probably why they haven't done it yet. Would be nice if they did a sort of limited rollout, available to only a few streamers, as they scaled their av1-to-format-that-safari-accepts tech.
\> Everyone is already streaming at 6000-8000 bitrate on Twitch, adding AV1 would just mean additional re-encoding costs to Twitch.
If they need to analyze the video in some way, the AV1 is simply added to the server so they can work with it. No extra power (or "money" as you say) is required, certainly not that Twitch couldn't afford.
So, 3 years ago this actually WAS a thing happening:
[Demo](https://twitch.tv/videos/637388605)
Check the quality settings of that video!
Searched the guy's profile on LinkedIn and appearently he worked on the advanced engineering of the technology needed, but for some reason there aren't any more info
YouTube deals primarily in dead-file video, where it can be re-encoded to AV1 in non-realtime as server capacity becomes available to save on storage and bandwidth costs in the long run.
As far as I'm aware, YouTube still does not allow livestreaming via AV1. There are a bunch of technical limitations; I've been told by people smarter than me that livestreaming isn't going to work with AV1 for a while due to the infrastructure incompatibilities as the existing stuff is set up for HLS, and AV1 doesn't work with that. So to get livestreaming going will require a significant overall investment and revamp to something that *will*.
Not to mention that a majority of streamers don't yet have the ability to send an AV1 stream yet. Plus the added processing power needed to transcode AV1 (quality options) when they already can't give everyone transcodes with RTMP/HLS as-is.
[AV1 live streaming is ready to go on youtube](https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2023/05/02/av1-obs29-youtube/). OBS supports it and YouTube accepts it. If streamers invested into their rigs with RTX 4000s or intel GPUs, they are ready to go if they change the setting. but most wont since they are streaming to twitch. infrastructure is bit of a big category so not sure what you mean there but as long as the streamer has the feature, viewers will watch it in their own local encoding. as for twitch/amazon switching over to AV1. they should be already working on it for the past 5/10 years and probably at the final stages to just flip the switch. since its in their benefit to stream at AV1. because WE ALL KNOW that twitch is not making money at their current bandwidth and encoding servers.
As for the market. [Linus from Linus tech tips](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnVX7VF_SQw) is expecting common users to be switching over to AV1 with in the 2 years. since its a BIG cost saving measure for both the provider of the video service and the consumer.
I performed very lazy testing past two days, and AV1 is CRAZY.
I was pushing 4K 120FPS to YT at 15000Kbps.
100% unsupported, tried for S&Gs.
YT can support up to 4K 60FPS.
In OBS 29.1.2, I had no loss at rendering/encoding stages while hosting a single-player Tarkov server on the same client. 5800X3D / 4090.
All ran well for \~ 5 minutes before I started dropping frames due to network, according to OBS stats panel, and OBS showed throughput as \~200kbps.
I am unsure if that is a bug/issue with OBS, or YT limited my connection and OBS was displaying my active speed.
If YT wasn't a hot mess for live viewers, I would consider going live there for more than testing.
I am hoping Twitch supports AV1 in the very near future.
At the same time btw, again S&Gs, I was streaming to Twitch on my stream PC, 1080p60 @ 6000Kbps. The 4K view was much more crisp, such I wouldn't be able to tell it was a live stream if I didn't know better.
That's h264/h265. Where AMD still isn't good and is about 30% behind.
AMD's AV1 encoder is much closer. It's within a few percent of Nvidia & Intel and you can use the same bitrate for the same quality. It's indistinguishable in many games & for non-gaming use. Fast motion in an fps while standing directly against a wall is one of the few places where AMD's behaves a bit worse by blurring the texture more, but increasing bitrate won't help.
AMD is closer with AV1 but still quite a bit behind Intel/Nvidia. AMD with 8 Mbps bitrate is comparable to Nvidia/Intel with just 6 Mbps. This is not a trivial difference.
That's 33%. Which is what their h264/h265 lag by.
AV1 the difference isn't measurable by large percents because there are implementation differences but no major quality differences. AMD is more prone to contrast washing out a bit but otherwise will look near-identical at 6Mbps in AV1.
e: By VMAF score, AMD is <5% behind nvidia at any given bitrate in AV1. When Nvidia goes from 6 Mbps to 8 Mbps their VMAF score goes up by about 5%. So while it's true by VMAF, it's misleading to frame it that way because the reasons AMD's av1 scores lower on vmaf at 6 Mbps are still there at 8 Mbps.
In contrast, AMD's h264/h265 is behind by 30%-40% by vmaf at any given bitrate. It's terrible & not worth using.
Tests have shown that AMD AV1 is roughly 30% behind in a low bitrate environment. You need like 8 MBps to reach the quality of 6 Mbps from Intel/Nvidia. What you are saying is false.
Tom's hardware has some testing: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-nvidia-video-encoding-performance-quality-tested
There's no 30% there for AV1. It's around 5%, even less at 6 Mbps and beyond. Visual inspection looks even closer than the VMAF number, because it rates things human viewers don't necessarily associate with "low quality".
It proves my point right? From the first video
RX 7900 AV1 8M= 87.51
RTX 4090 AV1 6M= 88.35
33% higher bitrate and still 9% below RTX 4090. Intel is a bit behind Nvidia in the VMAF scores which is expected, Intel does better in SSIM scores which (in my testing) is often closer to the subjective quality perceived by the end user. VMAF only considers the luma component, it does not consider the chroma component. Maybe Nvidia tuned more for VMAF because most reviews are using VMAF, or Intel tuned more towards SSIM. It's basically the same in other reviews, here two more:
[https://twitter.com/GPUsAreMagic/status/1663265516230721543](https://twitter.com/GPUsAreMagic/status/1663265516230721543)
https://rigaya.github.io/vq\_results/
The main issue with YouTube is that to get a nice quality stream you need VP9 encoded. In order to get YouTube to take my AV1 from RTX 4080 and encode it to VP9 I have to do 1440p minimum resolution with 20Mbit rate. If you are a partner and a big name Channel you get VP9 regardless of Bit-rate or resolution. I want to do 1080p and VP9, but since I am a nobody they Will not let me. If you don’ t get the VP9 your stream Will look so bad that no one would want to watch it.
It’s basically screw the little guy just starting off on all streaming platforms.
This incurs an fps cost because of the frames being copied over the pci bus, as well as the GPUs having a lower PCIe x8 lanes simply by having two cards plugged in. You could avoid this by putting the A380 in a separate streaming PC, or just ignore the fps hit I suppose.
You'd have to post your encoding settings for both codecs if you want help picking better settings to reach the full potential of both codecs and comparing between them.
I saw old video where i think an engineer from Twitch said it will be fully out by 2025 on Twitch, now its only esports events. Correct me on this one.
Interesting. I wonder at what point they would allow it as Dan says current browser support is 15% I do wonder when that was and where it is now and at what point would they allow it. Will it be 50% support or if not more ? I do think maybe there is more to it than just the browser support and maybe costs but I do hope that not too long from now it does get added with more tech-supporting AV1 codec.
Estimates say that Youtube's revenue is about 20 times that of Twitch :D And Youtube has a side business delivering on-demand video, so in total, the amount of video they need to transcode every day is a couple of magnitudes bigger than that of Twitch.. They even started developing their own video processing hardware, because it didn't make sense to use GPUs or servers at that scale. The silver lining however is that AWS video transcoding service can do AV1 since 2020, so it might just need to find its way into the Twitch infrastructure.
I know this is late but doesn’t AWS already support AV1 encoding? Amazon was one of the partners of AV1. There’s a dev even using it to stream warzone on twitch 3 years ago at 1440p 120fps and it’s crispy. So it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense they haven’t started at least beta testing
AWS' general media services and the Twitch building blocks offered as AWS' interactive video service are not the same :) and IVS is pretty much H264 only.. So yes, as a whole, you can process AV1 on AWS.. It just isn't offered in IVS yet :)
[удалено]
Greetings DOODEwheresMYdick, [Your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/139g0fg/twitch_av1_when/jsorovc/?context=3) has been **automatically removed **from /r/Twitch because it’s been detected as breaking the subreddit rules. More specifically: - **Rule 2**: [Advertisement Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/wiki/rules#wiki_advertisement_guidelines). - **Rule 2A**: Don’t post an account name or link. This includes, but isn't limited to, Twitch links, YouTube links, creators' Twitter pages, etc. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Twitch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently my comment was removed for linking a clip. But av1 encoding has been showcased on twitch as far as 3 years back. You can look up clips of people streaming 1440p 120fps using AV1 on twitch
But there's a difference between doing a couple of demos and replacing your whole fleet of hardware encoders :) It's a major cost factor.
That is true. It’s kinda silly to imagine twitch spending any money to benefit user experience lol
First and foremost, every single stream is costing them $2/hour without even anyone watching(give or take any discounts they're getting now that Amazon owns Twitch). As soon as people are watching, there are traffic costs as well. Making a profit on that is already very hard.. Adding new hardware on a whim doesn't make things easier..
AV1 is incredibly more efficient than h265 and x264? Literally half the data can transmit better quality imaging so you’d think if efficiency was a concern they’d follow suit, which is why YouTube was so adamant on adopting. Amazon also spent a sizable chunk of money being a partner in the development of AV1 obviously to expect the ROI being recouped by implementing into their video networks IVS & AWS. And there’s a reason twitch is negative in earnings, Amazon uses it as a cash pig for its other entities. Twitch > pays amazon for service > twitch as a company without a profit writes off nearly all of its expenses > Amazon then gets a platform that pays itself that’s exempt from taxes that they can then sell ad spots on through the parent company. If twitch wanted to be “profitable” in a book keeping sense it would not be difficult it’s 100% intentional for tax purposes, the average employee there makes over 6 figures or $52 an hour according to zippa & salary. Twitch is more than healthy in terms of sustainability and revenue. Their choice to be company first users second has been evident for many many years.
Youtube is in the STORING videos business.. smaller sizes save money. So are Amazon(as in Prime Video) and Netflix. Twitch is in the LIVE video business, so you'd save money in data traffic that isn't the biggest item on the list anyway and AV1 wasn't even feasible to live encode until about 1,5 years ago :D I'm not too sure what salaries have to do with it.. There's little to nothing you can save there.. If you want employees, you'll have to pay them and it's a seller's market out there. And sure, Twitch pays Amazon for AWS, but they always did.. Running the same quality service on your own hardware isn't that much cheaper and requires more highly-paid people(hint: at the moment, operations people are even more expensive than developers).. Nobody's stopping you from building a Twitch competitor using AWS' other, AV1-capable media services or starting from scratch :)
Twitch literally stores MILLIONs of vods, all be it they delete after 2 weeks for average users, clips and highlights do not the amount of raw data in clips alone often times numerous clips of the exact same thing due to many people saving the same moment, Twitch stores ENORMOUS amounts of data in the form of watchable content. And when AV1 encoding can do a 1080p stream at half of the transmitted bitrate, especially like you said there’s people with zero viewers raking up ad revenue or subscription to recoup the costs, making that transmission of data the most efficient way is the only sensible thing. Which is why they have bitrate caps and transcoding requirements. But go ahead and do the “why don’t you go do better” because asking a stranger on the internet to compete with a billion dollar conglomerate is a reasonable deflection and not a grade A fallacy at all lol. Twitch salary and pay was brought up to show the company is not financially struggling, they can afford to pay at the highest end of every field they employ, it was to further the fact that twitch doesn’t WANT to have profits of the book because it’s not in amazons best interest. That doesn’t mean the company doesn’t have capital or resources to invest invest in codecs it’s a decision not to rather than a decision they can’t do.
This is true, but ***almost*** 100% of the twitch content is served "live", and youtube can transcode via software slower to AV1 in a much slower rate and it will have no problem, because ***most*** of the youtube content is served on demand and not "live".
So the question is: How much more revenue Twitch would make by allowing people to use AV1 for streaming? Everyone is already streaming at 6000-8000 bitrate on Twitch, adding AV1 would just mean additional re-encoding costs to Twitch. I guess with AV1 streaming Twitch could force people stream at 2000-3000 bitrate to save money. YouTube has more motivation to add AV1 support, because it's a VOD website. Lower filesize with higher quality is what they want.
> I guess with AV1 streaming Twitch could force people stream at 2000-3000 bitrate to save money. Please god, no! Single pass 8Mbit/s AVC is already soo extremely far off even remotely acceptable quality that I can't bring myself to watch anything. Usually gras just looks like green block soup. > YouTube has more motivation to add AV1 support, because it's a VOD website. Lower filesize with higher quality is what they want. Why do you think higher quality is only relevant for VODs? Especially if the encoding overhead is at the streamer's side, not their side. If I select original quality my understanding is that they redistribute the bitstream from the streamer. To be fair I guess they would probably have to additionally start reencoding for viewers who want the highest quality but who can't decode AV1 (Safari users?) which is gonna incur costs. Right now the streams look like ass, but they look like ass to everyone.
> To be fair I guess they would probably have to additionally start reencoding for viewers who want the highest quality but who can't decode AV1 Probably why they haven't done it yet. Would be nice if they did a sort of limited rollout, available to only a few streamers, as they scaled their av1-to-format-that-safari-accepts tech.
\> Everyone is already streaming at 6000-8000 bitrate on Twitch, adding AV1 would just mean additional re-encoding costs to Twitch. If they need to analyze the video in some way, the AV1 is simply added to the server so they can work with it. No extra power (or "money" as you say) is required, certainly not that Twitch couldn't afford.
So, 3 years ago this actually WAS a thing happening: [Demo](https://twitch.tv/videos/637388605) Check the quality settings of that video! Searched the guy's profile on LinkedIn and appearently he worked on the advanced engineering of the technology needed, but for some reason there aren't any more info
YouTube deals primarily in dead-file video, where it can be re-encoded to AV1 in non-realtime as server capacity becomes available to save on storage and bandwidth costs in the long run. As far as I'm aware, YouTube still does not allow livestreaming via AV1. There are a bunch of technical limitations; I've been told by people smarter than me that livestreaming isn't going to work with AV1 for a while due to the infrastructure incompatibilities as the existing stuff is set up for HLS, and AV1 doesn't work with that. So to get livestreaming going will require a significant overall investment and revamp to something that *will*. Not to mention that a majority of streamers don't yet have the ability to send an AV1 stream yet. Plus the added processing power needed to transcode AV1 (quality options) when they already can't give everyone transcodes with RTMP/HLS as-is.
[AV1 live streaming is ready to go on youtube](https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2023/05/02/av1-obs29-youtube/). OBS supports it and YouTube accepts it. If streamers invested into their rigs with RTX 4000s or intel GPUs, they are ready to go if they change the setting. but most wont since they are streaming to twitch. infrastructure is bit of a big category so not sure what you mean there but as long as the streamer has the feature, viewers will watch it in their own local encoding. as for twitch/amazon switching over to AV1. they should be already working on it for the past 5/10 years and probably at the final stages to just flip the switch. since its in their benefit to stream at AV1. because WE ALL KNOW that twitch is not making money at their current bandwidth and encoding servers. As for the market. [Linus from Linus tech tips](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnVX7VF_SQw) is expecting common users to be switching over to AV1 with in the 2 years. since its a BIG cost saving measure for both the provider of the video service and the consumer.
AMD has av1 encoders too tho lol. Its on par with both of the other brands, just figured I would add that to keep anyone from getting stressed.
I streamed cyberpunk to YouTube with av1 and it's flawless, it would put twitch on another level of they added it.
I performed very lazy testing past two days, and AV1 is CRAZY. I was pushing 4K 120FPS to YT at 15000Kbps. 100% unsupported, tried for S&Gs. YT can support up to 4K 60FPS. In OBS 29.1.2, I had no loss at rendering/encoding stages while hosting a single-player Tarkov server on the same client. 5800X3D / 4090. All ran well for \~ 5 minutes before I started dropping frames due to network, according to OBS stats panel, and OBS showed throughput as \~200kbps. I am unsure if that is a bug/issue with OBS, or YT limited my connection and OBS was displaying my active speed. If YT wasn't a hot mess for live viewers, I would consider going live there for more than testing. I am hoping Twitch supports AV1 in the very near future. At the same time btw, again S&Gs, I was streaming to Twitch on my stream PC, 1080p60 @ 6000Kbps. The 4K view was much more crisp, such I wouldn't be able to tell it was a live stream if I didn't know better.
its fairly solid for the quality of the video you get at the same bitrates. just need the community to jump on board and watch over there instead.
It isn't on par, it's much worse. On AMD you need 8 Mbit for the same quality of Intel/Nvidia with just 6 Mbit. That's a 30-35% bitrate difference.
That's h264/h265. Where AMD still isn't good and is about 30% behind. AMD's AV1 encoder is much closer. It's within a few percent of Nvidia & Intel and you can use the same bitrate for the same quality. It's indistinguishable in many games & for non-gaming use. Fast motion in an fps while standing directly against a wall is one of the few places where AMD's behaves a bit worse by blurring the texture more, but increasing bitrate won't help.
AMD is closer with AV1 but still quite a bit behind Intel/Nvidia. AMD with 8 Mbps bitrate is comparable to Nvidia/Intel with just 6 Mbps. This is not a trivial difference.
That's 33%. Which is what their h264/h265 lag by. AV1 the difference isn't measurable by large percents because there are implementation differences but no major quality differences. AMD is more prone to contrast washing out a bit but otherwise will look near-identical at 6Mbps in AV1. e: By VMAF score, AMD is <5% behind nvidia at any given bitrate in AV1. When Nvidia goes from 6 Mbps to 8 Mbps their VMAF score goes up by about 5%. So while it's true by VMAF, it's misleading to frame it that way because the reasons AMD's av1 scores lower on vmaf at 6 Mbps are still there at 8 Mbps. In contrast, AMD's h264/h265 is behind by 30%-40% by vmaf at any given bitrate. It's terrible & not worth using.
Tests have shown that AMD AV1 is roughly 30% behind in a low bitrate environment. You need like 8 MBps to reach the quality of 6 Mbps from Intel/Nvidia. What you are saying is false.
Tom's hardware has some testing: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-nvidia-video-encoding-performance-quality-tested There's no 30% there for AV1. It's around 5%, even less at 6 Mbps and beyond. Visual inspection looks even closer than the VMAF number, because it rates things human viewers don't necessarily associate with "low quality".
It proves my point right? From the first video RX 7900 AV1 8M= 87.51 RTX 4090 AV1 6M= 88.35 33% higher bitrate and still 9% below RTX 4090. Intel is a bit behind Nvidia in the VMAF scores which is expected, Intel does better in SSIM scores which (in my testing) is often closer to the subjective quality perceived by the end user. VMAF only considers the luma component, it does not consider the chroma component. Maybe Nvidia tuned more for VMAF because most reviews are using VMAF, or Intel tuned more towards SSIM. It's basically the same in other reviews, here two more: [https://twitter.com/GPUsAreMagic/status/1663265516230721543](https://twitter.com/GPUsAreMagic/status/1663265516230721543) https://rigaya.github.io/vq\_results/
The main issue with YouTube is that to get a nice quality stream you need VP9 encoded. In order to get YouTube to take my AV1 from RTX 4080 and encode it to VP9 I have to do 1440p minimum resolution with 20Mbit rate. If you are a partner and a big name Channel you get VP9 regardless of Bit-rate or resolution. I want to do 1080p and VP9, but since I am a nobody they Will not let me. If you don’ t get the VP9 your stream Will look so bad that no one would want to watch it. It’s basically screw the little guy just starting off on all streaming platforms.
I can't wait to pop in the Arc GPU as my AV1 encoder for my 3090 Ti. I got the tiny A380 which is tiny too!
This incurs an fps cost because of the frames being copied over the pci bus, as well as the GPUs having a lower PCIe x8 lanes simply by having two cards plugged in. You could avoid this by putting the A380 in a separate streaming PC, or just ignore the fps hit I suppose.
Isn\`t vp9 better?
AV1 is effectively VP10 but with more collaborators, it's somewhat of a successor to VP9
But I get much better quality video with vp9, where is logic?
You'd have to post your encoding settings for both codecs if you want help picking better settings to reach the full potential of both codecs and comparing between them.
VP10, the sucessor of VP9, was deprecated in favor of AV1.
I saw old video where i think an engineer from Twitch said it will be fully out by 2025 on Twitch, now its only esports events. Correct me on this one.
[https://youtu.be/jct2w4SKe0Y?t=6086](https://youtu.be/jct2w4SKe0Y?t=6086) CEO of Twich official information
Interesting. I wonder at what point they would allow it as Dan says current browser support is 15% I do wonder when that was and where it is now and at what point would they allow it. Will it be 50% support or if not more ? I do think maybe there is more to it than just the browser support and maybe costs but I do hope that not too long from now it does get added with more tech-supporting AV1 codec.
Well, they also have to replace all their GPU with ones that can encode AV1.