When running the exact same software encoder (program) with exactly the same options and configuration on two different processors you will get the exact same result. The only difference will be time taken to do the encoding.
Using an exact same program with exact same configuration with exact same input should give the same output quality when run on a Xeon, an i7, an i3 or even a Celeron processor.
If you use the built-in hardware video encoders or decoders then you may get different results as they might be set up or optimised differently between processor generations and newer hardware may support newer features. In the same way that using a 5 year old copy of ffmpeg might be slower or yield slightly different results for a given configuration than a newer version, the different hardware video encoders can be thought of as equivalent to different versions of the "software", albeit versions that cannot be upgraded without replacing the hardware.
The processor itself will not likely degrade but as the processor runs hotter the fans will run harder, the power supply will work harder and overall the system will work harder and hotter than it otherwise would if you weren't doing the encoding. In theory this extra work could be thought to be putting an extra strain on your system but in practice your system should be designed well enough that the difference between you using it in this fashion and not using it at all should mean that the working lifetime of the system will be as near the same as makes no difference.
If you have a power supply or cooling system that is not designed or specified well enough to match the load of your system then you might cause a failure sooner than they otherwise should.
Running demanding tasks on an underpowered PSU may cause it to overheat and burn out components within the PSU, or it might "brown out" causing system instability. Unless you bought a bargain basement pre-built machine or built it yourself with the smallest supply you could find this should not be the case.
A more powerful CPU can actually make the video output (slightly) worse if the built-in GPU's video rendering is used rather than a pure software solution. – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams – 2018-07-04T08:57:23.620
2@IgnacioVazquez-Abrams So...where's the difference between your HD4400 in a i5-4210U and the HD4400 in an i7-4600U? Answer: The speed/date of the CPU does not have to do anything with whether there is a GPU integrated (making it an APU, effectively) or not. E.g. my i7-5820k does not offer an integrated GPU - and it certainly is not less powerful than my i5-4210U. – flolilo – 2018-07-04T15:11:59.830
@flolilolilo: Can, not does. Obviously this isn't a consideration when an integrated GPU isn't present. – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams – 2018-07-04T18:02:59.063
2@IgnacioVazquez-Abrams well, then it is like saying "A less powerful CPU can actually...." What this is about: The release date of the CPU and/or how powerful it is has nothing to do with a software's use of the (sometimes) available on-chip GPU, and the availability of a GPU on the CPU's die has nothing to do with whether the software uses it or not. (Well, except from that if no GPU is there, then it can't be used. But then again, this does nothing to answer the question whether an Atom CPU provides higher quality rendering than a Core X CPU or vice versa.) – flolilo – 2018-07-04T18:08:38.533
@IgnacioVazquez-Abrams how? Why would processing on a GPU instead of a CPU make a difference in quality of output (given same parameters for the encoding of course) – Baldrickk – 2018-07-05T14:27:54.473
@Baldrickk: There are many algorithms that have shortcuts that aren't as accurate as the original. If you were a hardware or software vendor, which situation would sound better on paper, being 100% accurate, or being 99% accurate and taking one-quarter the time? – Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams – 2018-07-05T14:34:42.150
I think time. Processor intensive tasks will take much more time to complete on lower performance processor. – Ronnie Royston – 2018-07-05T17:27:04.523
FWIW, I've run several laptops at 100% for years with virtually no breaks and they are doing perfectly fine. Only one of them died, and only because I had failed to dust it periodically. – forest – 2018-07-05T22:58:54.730
1
@IgnacioVazquez-Abrams: I think you're talking about hardware video encoding, e.g. h.264 with Intel Quick Sync instead of a high-quality software encoder like x264. Last I checked, there was a noticeable quality-per-bitrate difference between HW encoders and
– Peter Cordes – 2018-07-06T22:00:51.007x264 -preset slower
; for video that will be compressed once but sent over the Internet many times, or kept around on disk forever, spending extra CPU time / electricity up front should pay off in the long run. But that's sep from 3D rendering.