4 ms·
I believe most of these benchmarks were set at a time when you simply couldn't run x265 on “slow” on any reasonable CPU if you ever wanted it to complete. But y
by Sesse__ 7y ago
I believe most of these benchmarks were set at a time when you simply couldn't run x265 on “slow” on any reasonable CPU if you ever wanted it to complete. But yes, I'd really like CPU benchmarkers to move to higher-quality presets for video encoding, because they do tend to have different kinds of performance curves.
Fun fact: There's no point in running x265 on the fastest presets unless you absolutely need to have HEVC; x264 on slow is faster _and_ gives better quality per bit. See the second graph on https://blogs.gnome.org/rbultje/2015/09/28/vp9-encodingdecoding-performance-vs-hevch-264/ https://blogs.gnome.org/rbultje/2015/09/28/vp9-encodingdecod... (a few years old, the situation is likely to look similar but not identical).
- ksec 7y ago>(a few years old, the situation is likely to look similar but not identical). x265 has made massive improvement over the years, 2015 x265 wasn't even considered good; despite all of its hype, or another way to think about it is how well x264 managed to squeeze every last bit of detail possible.
- Sesse__ 7y agoIIRC, I redid this graph in early 2019 (using Tears of Steel), and it looked pretty similar.