I get that real-time streaming is a goal, but I don't see it as a necessity. However, I'll admit to not being a consumer of gameplay streaming. I use a 7600k too, but I also dropped in a 1050Ti 4GB card to help. Both are overkill for my uses for the moment, but the 1050Ti can obviously do more than transcode. This really depends on the hardware and how it's utilized. Current hardware seems a bit fixed, but we should see improvements from Intel with their next GPU generation. Software wins from a logical standpoint because it can be adjusted beyond whatever limits exist in hardware, however, it's 'good enough' for many things, and will likely be 'good enough' for others in the future. This is more of a software thing. Near entry-level Quadros are usually favored for this as they don't have limits set and can support a dozen+ concurrent streams. For the Geforce variants, one needs to run Linux with a driver patch, which I am. Beyond all that, it does seem that the bar for gameplay streaming (as opposed to game streaming a la Google's Stadia, now we have to be more specific...), is that the recording from gameplay needs to be in its final form at the time of recording. I don't really see this as a necessity as much as a convenience. Typically recording will be done with a higher bitrate, lower compression, higher dynamic range / lower noise codec and then edited and output for specific targets such as Youtube. So when we're talking about gameplay streaming, we're talking about a subset of functionality that's likely more software limited than anything. Further, if one is serious about it, a second machine optimized for the purpose would be the best solution for many reasons, not the least of which being that frametime disruptions due to recording affecting various systems should be avoided.