Nvenc: AV1 is bigger than HEVC?
I usually encode my media to store on NAS using H.265, but to be more efficient as i thought i tried AV1.
Everywhere I hear that AV1 should be at leas somewhat better than H.265, but no matter what i tried (including building custom FFMPEG with VHQ tune for AV1), i get filesizes nearly doubling what H.265 does.
As for quality they are the same, and i mean it, you wouldn't be able to tell which one is which.
Am i doing something wrong?
Also just to clear things up, I strictly talking about NVEnc and not software encoders.
EDIT:
I guess the post doesn't clarify on what actual question is. It isn't about how to encode videos, it is strictly about NVEnc's implementation of AV1.
What i wanted to actually know Is NVEnc's AV1 just significantly worse than NVEnc's H.265, or am I missing something?
Additionally to every reply saying "Just use SVT" I re-ran vmaf:
Nvenc H.265 (slowest, CQ 27):
~3 minutes
339 MB file
median vmaf against original: 91.899171
Nvenc AV1 (slowest, CQ 27):
~2 minutes
638 MB file
median vmaf against original: 93.456927
AV1-SVT (Preset 2, RF 30, tune vq):
took 55 minutes
263 MB file
median vmaf against original: 92.321889
Those results are with 5070 ti which would allow me to do two separate h.265/AV1 encodes at the same time so it would nearly half encoding time then encoding more than one file at a time, which I usually do.
As for SVT, it is done on Ryzen 5700x (8/16) with PBO so it is barely throttling during multicore tasks, and it produced file 100 mb smaller at the price of doing a video for x30 time even compared to single threaded encode with NVEnc, so with multi threaded encode again, double it.
As for CQ not scaling equally across different codecs, it actually does. It is litteraly scales even between different encoders, I did test Nvenc vs VideoToolBox same CQ means extremely similar vmaf results. CQ is not the same as RF, RF does scale differently but CQ is basically a quality target.
I don't have so much time to wait for single file to be processed then at the same time I could finish 40.