I'm just asking this out of pure curiosity.
I use FFMPEG a lot. Sometimes, I just opt to use the good old CPU encoding and decoding, because of how effectively it preserves the original video quality, but this can be really inconvenient sometimes because of how slowly it encodes.
However, if keeping the original quality isn't a big deal for me, I most often choose to encode with Quicksync, because of how much faster it is.
To highlight the difference, I re-encoded the same video in ffmpeg (it was about an hour long with 1080p res) using the CPU first, then the GPU.
My CPU (a core i7 8th gen) encoded the video at about 2x speed. Comparatively, my GPU (just an Intel UHD graphics 620) encoded the video at around 15x.
This is a HUGE difference in speed, but, of course, I'm sacrificing some of the visual quality (in this case, the difference was not very noticeable). Now I'll get to my question - Is encoding with a fairly new nvidia gpu going to give a better quality per bitrate than when encoding with Intel Graphics? Or is all GPU processing just not very good in general (in terms of quality)? And would it compare to the quality produced by CPU encoding? I imagine it would be a lot faster. Are there other things I'd have to factor in as well? (such as using a hdd or ssd, does that affect the speed?)
Some videos I process are very long, and CPU encoding is very inconvenient, given how slow it is, but encoding with Intel Quicksync doesn't give as good quality. I'm just interested to know whether a better GPU for encoding would produce results comparable to CPU, while also being much faster.