Video summary

It is FINALLY GOOD on AMD Cards!! RDNA3 vs RDNA4 - AMD H.264 & AV1 Codec Comparison

Main summary

Key takeaways

Technology

Tech/codec background and recording variables

  • The video focuses on recording/streaming image quality from AMD GPUs using different codecs and video bit rates.
  • The quality is framed as depending on:
    • Resolution (1080p / 1440p / 4K)
    • Video bit rate (e.g., 2 Mbps, 8 Mbps, 15 Mbps, 40 Mbps)
    • Codec (primarily AV1 vs H.264/AVC)
    • GPU encoder / media-engine improvements
      • AMD contrasts RDNA3 vs RDNA4
      • NVIDIA is mentioned as historically producing better results on the same codec

What a codec does (explained)

  • A codec (coder/decoder) compresses video for storage/transmission, then decompresses it for playback.
  • More efficient codecs can preserve more detail at the same settings/bit rate.
  • The video claims:
    • AV1 (newer, more efficient) generally delivers better image quality than H.264/AVC, especially at lower bit rates.

Codec comparison results (same GPU, same settings)

AV1 vs H.264 (example: RX 7900 XTX)

  • At very low bit rate (~2 Mbps, 1080p)

    • AV1 shows less pixelation and clearer edges/details, though the footage is still heavily degraded due to bitrate limits.

  • At moderate bit rate (~8 Mbps)

    • The difference narrows.
    • AV1 handles lines/small details well but may over-smooth some content.
    • H.264 sometimes keeps texture detail better in specific areas.

  • At low-to-mid bit rates in high-detail scenes

    • The video repeatedly highlights AV1 as sharper overall in certain frames (e.g., clearer lines such as box/rocks/cloud/light-post edges).
    • In some described cases, H.264 may be sharper for particular textures (e.g., pillars/city textures in one example).

  • At higher bit rate (~15 Mbps and up)

    • AV1 remains generally strong, but results depend on content.
    • The video’s framing: “AV1 still better, but not perfect.”

RDNA4 improvements claim (same codec/bitrate/resolution across GPUs)

RDNA4 vs RDNA3 (AVC/H.264 focus, main comparisons)

  • The core question: does AMD RDNA4 (RX 9000 series; repeatedly referenced as RX 970 XT / RX 9070 XT) improve recording quality using an “enhanced media engine” with AI video filtering—especially for H.264?
  • Test setup compares RDNA3 (RX 7900 XTX) vs RDNA4 using:
    • same resolution
    • same codec
    • same bit rates
  • Main recurring outcome:
    • RDNA4 shows less pixelation and retains finer details than RDNA3, particularly at low bit rates.
  • As bit rate increases, the difference becomes smaller:
    • At ~40 Mbps (1080p), quality differences are described as nearly null.

Evidence described across scenarios

  • 1080p

    • 2 Mbps: RX 970 XT shows better detail/less pixelation (e.g., sharper cables/windows).
    • 8 Mbps and 15 Mbps: RX 970 XT stays ahead with clearer wall/door/floor texture and sharper lettering.
    • 40 Mbps: differences are “basically null.”

  • 1440p (slower game; extremely low bitrate like 2 Mbps)

    • 2 Mbps: both look bad, but RDNA4 retains more forest/building/horizon detail.
    • 8–15 Mbps: gap reduces; RDNA4 remains slightly sharper in fine details.
    • 40 Mbps: differences fade; RDNA4 is only slightly sharper.

  • 4K (extreme low bit rates like 2 Mbps / 10 Mbps)

    • 2 Mbps: both are heavily degraded, but RDNA4 improves text clarity and overall reduces pixelation.
    • 10 Mbps: RDNA4 shows more detail in trees and logos/stickers.
    • 15 Mbps: RDNA3 catches up more; differences become very small.
    • 40 Mbps: slight differences remain for some sharp edges/logos.

AV1 on RDNA3 vs RDNA4

  • After testing H.264, the video also checks whether AV1 benefits from RDNA4 improvements.
  • Stated conclusion:
    • AV1 is already better than H.264 in most scenarios.
    • RDNA4 still improves AV1 encoding quality vs RDNA3:
      • less blurred images
      • better preservation of fine detail at the same settings/bit rate
      • biggest gains at lower bit rates (e.g., 2/8/15 Mbps)
    • At higher bit rates (30–40 Mbps), differences are expected to be smaller.

Practical takeaway (streaming/real-world relevance)

  • RDNA4 is framed as a meaningful improvement for streaming/recording when constrained by low bit rate (e.g., Twitch).
  • Suggested guidance:
    • Use AV1 when possible—especially at lower bit rates.
    • RDNA4’s enhanced media engine can produce noticeable gains on both AV1 and H.264, particularly under bitrate pressure.
  • Streaming bit rate constraints mentioned:
    • YouTube allows higher bit rates (examples cited around 40/60/70 Mbps).
    • Twitch historically restricts more aggressively (examples mentioned like 1080p ~6 Mbps).

Main speakers/sources

  • Primary source/speaker: the YouTube creator/narrator who performs the codec and GPU encoding comparisons (frequently says things like “I’m testing,” “let’s watch,” and “as you can see”).
  • No external named technical source is cited in the subtitles.
  • References are mainly to:
    • AMD (RDNA4 enhanced media engine / AI video filtering)
    • NVIDIA (historical codec quality comparison)

Original video