3 ms·
The last time I tried x265, about half a year I was really disappointed. For what I tried (a low bitrate encode with a very slow encode, Hi10p profile for x264)
by 1ris 12y ago
The last time I tried x265, about half a year I was really disappointed. For what I tried (a low bitrate encode with a very slow encode, Hi10p profile for x264) x264 was only slightly worse for the same crf (witch x264 and x265 share) - less than 15% worse, but the encoding time for x264 was practical (on my machine about 2 frames per second) while x265 was simply to slow for real-world use for me (about 0.1 fps). My Computer is somewhat old, but I doubt that newer PCs would to so much better. I can't even image how long it takes to encode 8k.
- Osiris 12y agoI ran a test using x264 and x265 just about a month ago. The x265 encoding took about twice as long, and was half the bitrate for the same constant quality setting. However, since all my playback devices (Fire TV w/ XBMC) rely on H264 hardware decoding, I have to stick with x264.