4 ms·

The claim is that it's more efficient than h264, but I assume that's comparing software decoders? With h264 hardware decoding pretty ubiquitous on current CPUs,

The claim is that it's more efficient than h264, but I assume that's comparing software decoders? With h264 hardware decoding pretty ubiquitous on current CPUs, it seems like it will continue to have a substantial advantage for the foreseeable future. Is the AV1 team pursuing hardware implementations down the line?

ac29 9y ago
Its more efficient than h265, actually. It doesn't have anything to do with decoders, its the encoders that are more efficient (in bitrate/quality metrics, not frames encoded per second). AV1 has heavy interest from hardware companies: AMD. ARM, Broadcom, Intel, NVIDIA, and Realtek, among others are already members [0]. http://aomedia.org/about-us/ http://aomedia.org/about-us/
- threeseed 9y ago
  Who cares if AV1 has heavy "interest". H.265 hardware decoding has been shipping for at least a year on major platforms. All of those companies you listed ship H.265 hardware today. And then you have companies like Apple and Sony who are H.265 only.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    Who cares that Apple and Sony are H.265 only? You are free to pay extra license fees for H.265 anyway. Your competition will not.
    - threeseed 9y ago
      What ? Users aren't paying licensing fees for H.265. And the competition are all part of H.265 as well e.g. Microsoft, Intel.
      - vetinari 9y ago
        There are TWO patent pools for HEVC, MPEG LA and HEVC Advance, plus patent holders that are part of neither and you have to negotiate on your own. Even if you are patent holder, you still have to pay and then you will receive back your share. It doesn't mean it is free for you. On the content producer side, while MPEG LA waives fees there, HEVC Advance does not. If you are not fta broadcast/cable/sat tv provider or free-to-user streaming provider, you are going to cash up per title or subscriber/month. So in competition, I meant yours. If you are providing a non-free video content, and you insist on HEVC, it is going to cost you. Your competition with VP9 or AV1 won't have this cost. I can pretty much imagine, that those using devices without VP9/AV1 support will be relegated either to software decoding, or will have to pay premium for their hw accelerated stream.
        Ace17 9y ago
        > There are TWO patent pools for HEVC, MPEG LA and HEVC Advance, Don't forget Velos Media (the third one!).
- ghostly_s 9y ago
  Ah, thanks for clarifying. Maybe just my bias but when I see 'efficiency' w/r/t media codecs, I presume you're talking about decoder efficiency, because that's much more important for a popular codec IMO. (Also, down-votes for asking a relevant question. Classy crowd here...)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ac29 9y ago

Its more efficient than h265, actually. It doesn't have anything to do with decoders, its the encoders that are more efficient (in bitrate/quality metrics, not frames encoded per second). AV1 has heavy interest from hardware companies: AMD. ARM, Broadcom, Intel, NVIDIA, and Realtek, among others are already members [0]. http://aomedia.org/about-us/ http://aomedia.org/about-us/

threeseed 9y ago
Who cares if AV1 has heavy "interest". H.265 hardware decoding has been shipping for at least a year on major platforms. All of those companies you listed ship H.265 hardware today. And then you have companies like Apple and Sony who are H.265 only.
- vetinari 9y ago
  Who cares that Apple and Sony are H.265 only? You are free to pay extra license fees for H.265 anyway. Your competition will not.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    What ? Users aren't paying licensing fees for H.265. And the competition are all part of H.265 as well e.g. Microsoft, Intel.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      There are TWO patent pools for HEVC, MPEG LA and HEVC Advance, plus patent holders that are part of neither and you have to negotiate on your own. Even if you are patent holder, you still have to pay and then you will receive back your share. It doesn't mean it is free for you. On the content producer side, while MPEG LA waives fees there, HEVC Advance does not. If you are not fta broadcast/cable/sat tv provider or free-to-user streaming provider, you are going to cash up per title or subscriber/month. So in competition, I meant yours. If you are providing a non-free video content, and you insist on HEVC, it is going to cost you. Your competition with VP9 or AV1 won't have this cost. I can pretty much imagine, that those using devices without VP9/AV1 support will be relegated either to software decoding, or will have to pay premium for their hw accelerated stream.
      - Ace17 9y ago
        > There are TWO patent pools for HEVC, MPEG LA and HEVC Advance, Don't forget Velos Media (the third one!).
ghostly_s 9y ago
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Maybe just my bias but when I see 'efficiency' w/r/t media codecs, I presume you're talking about decoder efficiency, because that's much more important for a popular codec IMO. (Also, down-votes for asking a relevant question. Classy crowd here...)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]