MediaCoder vs Handbrake

[kmueho]

I have a workstation notebook with a quite fast Nvidia graphics (quadro K4000M). And I'm using Handbrake since years to convert videos but Handbrake only supports Intel HD Grahpics for GPU support.
Today I found the MediaCoder which can also use my Nvidia graphics to accelerate the conversion.

I installed this verision (64Bit):


When I tested the conversion speed of MediaCoder I found out, that Handbrake - running only on the CPU - is 60% faster than MediaCoder using additionally the GPU. I checked that (of course) with the same source video (Blu Ray stream, 1920 x 1080) and as similar as possible settings (outputsize of the video: 960 x 540, codec: H.264).

With MediaCoder I used two GPU-Settings:



and



When I activated GPU-encoding MediaCoder showed that my GPU can be used:



While Handbrake achieved without any GPU support on average 82,5 fps MediaCoder made only 50,1 fps (CUDA) and 52,4 fps (NVENC).

Some information to the computer:
HP 8740w mobile workstation
CPU: Core i7 940xm (32 GByte RAM)
GPU: Nvidia quadro K4000m (4GByte RAM), Driver Version 354.56
HDD: Samsung SSD 830
OS: Windows 8.1 64Bit

Probably I made something wrong. But what could that be?

[stanley]

Actually MediaCoder normally has better video quality than faster software.