5 ms·
Video decoding is sequential, so adding more cores is not going to help. It might actually be easier for you to get a dual core which can decode everything you
by microcolonel 9y ago
Video decoding is sequential, so adding more cores is not going to help.
It might actually be easier for you to get a dual core which can decode everything you want. Any high-clocked desktop Core i3 should easily handle any reasonable bitrate 4k video in any codec on the market. If it doesn't then there's something very wrong with your video decoder software.
- calafrax 9y agoIt all depends on how you define "reasonable" bitrate. I am running ~40mbit h265 videos. I have a Pentium G4400 which can only do a few frames per second and I have tested on an i5 also and it still drops frames on high complexity scenes. More to the point, why would I want to burn 100 watts decoding this in software when I can do it in single digits with fixed function hardware? [edit] You may be talking about videos that can use Intel's own fixed function video decoding hardware, which will work just fine on an i3. I am talking about 10bit h265 which Intel Skylake didn't support when I was building my system. Kaby Lake supports it now so if you are building a new system Kaby Lake would be the way to go.
- microcolonel 9y agoThought you were referring to h.264 and VP9/10 video, which are still a lot more common, even for UHD (in my experience). h.265 software decoders are still immature, in part because of the lack of content.