Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner
Encoding time in a reference encoder doesn't really matter. 64x generally means it has 64x more ways to do things than HEVC, but real-world encoders aren't going to do an exhaustive search of all those modes! They'll use heuristics and early exits to deliver as good quality as possible within available time. As encoders have always done since the beginning of time. x265 is >>100x faster than the HEVC HM reference encoder even with --preset slower, for example.
Decoder time of 16x would be a huge problem. HEVC was carefully designed to have no more than 2x the complexity of H.264 even with all the options on. No one would ever come out with a video codec standard that requires 16x the silicon area or clock speed or memory or anything. Even MPEG-2 -> HEVC was only about 4x the decoder complexity per pixel at a given quality.
|
But when we compare x264 and x265 then increasing complexity of the JET looks quite unpleasant... I know that overall trend is to use more threads but still - increasing computational complexity (exponentially) quickly become serious issue.
Those 64x and 16x are just worse case scenario a bit exaggerated figures.
In 80 when MPEG-1 (and later 2) was born every 2 - 3 years CPU computational power was almost doubled, now we observe severe stagnation on this - rarely new CPU's are providing more than 20% processing gain...