Original sentence: 264 video codecs comparison showed that Quick Sync was comparable to x264 superfast preset in terms of speed, compression ratio and quality (SSIM); tests were performed on an Intel Core i7 3770 (Ivy Bridge) processor.However, QuickSync could not be configured for lower speeds, whereas x264 improved significantly when allowed to use more time for encoding using the recommended settings.Like most desktop hardware-accelerated encoders, Quick Sync has been praised for its speed
Edited sentence: 264 video codecs comparison showed that Quick Sync is comparable to x264 superfast preset in terms of speed, compression ratio and quality (SSIM); tests were performed on an Intel Core i7 3770 (Ivy Bridge) processor.A benchmark from Tom's Hardware showed in 2011 that Quick Sync could convert a 449 MB, four-minute 1080p file to 1024×768 in 22 seconds.Quick Sync encoding can produce image quality which varies based on how well the software is written.Quick Sync has been praised for its speed.The same encoding took 83 or 86 seconds GPU-assisted, using an Nvidia GeForce GTX 570 and an AMD Radeon HD 6870, respectively, both of which were at that time contemporary high-end GPUs.The same encoding using only software took 172 seconds but it is not clear what software encoder was used and how it was configured