6 ms·

This must be one of the reasons https://i.redd.it/181enxirv6f31.jpg https://i.redd.it/181enxirv6f31.jpg Edit: source https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=art

This must be one of the reasons https://i.redd.it/181enxirv6f31.jpg https://i.redd.it/181enxirv6f31.jpg Edit: source https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-epyc-7502-7742&num=4 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-epyc...

phkahler 7y ago
Beating Intel using their own codec! That's gotta hurt.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  AV1 is not Intel's codec, though they have released an encoder for it.
  - basilgohar 7y ago
    AV1 is a video format. SVT-AV1 [0] is a codec, and it is (co-)authored by Intel. [0] https://github.com/OpenVisualCloud/SVT-AV1 https://github.com/OpenVisualCloud/SVT-AV1
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      That is actually just an encoder and not a (co)der (dec)oder.
- Teknoman117 7y ago
  Looks like the dual socket systems don't really fare well in that benchmark. Either way, it's really funny that we need a state-of-art 64 core CPU to exceed 60 fps in AV1 encode. Jokes aside, I know H.264 was at this point in the past, I just wonder how long it's going to be before we see AV1 hardware encoders that produce good quality video (and hell, hardware decoders at that as well).
  - notathing 7y ago
    > Either way, it's really funny that we need a state-of-art 64 core CPU to exceed 60 fps in AV1 encode. When H.264 was introduced, you needed a state of the art CPU just to play it back... You can imagine how slow encoding it was.
    - rasz 7y ago
      Wasnt that bad. H.264 ratified in 2003, meanwhile even first Xbox released in 2001 (~celeron 733MHz) can play H.264 480p 2.5Mbit (DVD resolution, equal quality to 10Mbit mpeg2) movies with ease, just as desktop budget processors released in 2001 (Celeron 800/Duron 800, both included SSE). Higher resolutions were another matter. 720p needed at least 2GHz Athlon/2.8GHz P4 for smooth H.264 720p 5Mbit playback. Either top of the line 2003 CPUs, or 2006-2007 budget ones. H.264 1080p 30Mbit bluray released in 2006 could be decoded purely in software on top of the line 2006-2007 CPUs (dual core P4, A64 X2).
  - the8472 7y ago
    Codecs make N-way tradeoffs between implementation complexity, latency, throughput, quality, ... AV1 is designed to give you the ability to throw more CPU cycles at the encode side to achieve higher quality/byte while maintaining reasonable decoding performance. You don't have to use it that way, you can encode faster but give up quality/byte. But without AV1 we would not even have that choice, the previous generations reach diminishing returns at some point. And hardware decoders are not that great. They use less power and can achieve realtime encoding, but if you want the maximum quality/byte (at the expense of encoding time) then software encoders generally reign supreme due to years of iterative improvements that you don't see in hardware. This is important for streaming services which spend those cycles once and then streams to millions. The asymmetry makes it worth it.

phkahler 7y ago

Beating Intel using their own codec! That's gotta hurt.

BubRoss 7y ago
AV1 is not Intel's codec, though they have released an encoder for it.
- basilgohar 7y ago
  AV1 is a video format. SVT-AV1 [0] is a codec, and it is (co-)authored by Intel. [0] https://github.com/OpenVisualCloud/SVT-AV1 https://github.com/OpenVisualCloud/SVT-AV1
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    That is actually just an encoder and not a (co)der (dec)oder.
Teknoman117 7y ago
Looks like the dual socket systems don't really fare well in that benchmark. Either way, it's really funny that we need a state-of-art 64 core CPU to exceed 60 fps in AV1 encode. Jokes aside, I know H.264 was at this point in the past, I just wonder how long it's going to be before we see AV1 hardware encoders that produce good quality video (and hell, hardware decoders at that as well).
- notathing 7y ago
  > Either way, it's really funny that we need a state-of-art 64 core CPU to exceed 60 fps in AV1 encode. When H.264 was introduced, you needed a state of the art CPU just to play it back... You can imagine how slow encoding it was.
  - rasz 7y ago
    Wasnt that bad. H.264 ratified in 2003, meanwhile even first Xbox released in 2001 (~celeron 733MHz) can play H.264 480p 2.5Mbit (DVD resolution, equal quality to 10Mbit mpeg2) movies with ease, just as desktop budget processors released in 2001 (Celeron 800/Duron 800, both included SSE). Higher resolutions were another matter. 720p needed at least 2GHz Athlon/2.8GHz P4 for smooth H.264 720p 5Mbit playback. Either top of the line 2003 CPUs, or 2006-2007 budget ones. H.264 1080p 30Mbit bluray released in 2006 could be decoded purely in software on top of the line 2006-2007 CPUs (dual core P4, A64 X2).
- the8472 7y ago
  Codecs make N-way tradeoffs between implementation complexity, latency, throughput, quality, ... AV1 is designed to give you the ability to throw more CPU cycles at the encode side to achieve higher quality/byte while maintaining reasonable decoding performance. You don't have to use it that way, you can encode faster but give up quality/byte. But without AV1 we would not even have that choice, the previous generations reach diminishing returns at some point. And hardware decoders are not that great. They use less power and can achieve realtime encoding, but if you want the maximum quality/byte (at the expense of encoding time) then software encoders generally reign supreme due to years of iterative improvements that you don't see in hardware. This is important for streaming services which spend those cycles once and then streams to millions. The asymmetry makes it worth it.