4 ms·
>It's good for bitrate starved files, but x264 is actually still more efficient for transparent encodes. x265 currently can't handle noise very well. Yes this
by gillianseed 12y ago
>It's good for bitrate starved files, but x264 is actually still more efficient for transparent encodes. x265 currently can't handle noise very well.
Yes this is my impression as well from the tests I've made.
>x265 is also much slower than x264, but it's getting faster all the time.
It will remain slower than x264 though, it uses more cpu consuming algorithms in order to cram out more 'quality per bit', that said it likely has a lot of performance improvements left to do.
- xooyoozoo 12y ago>It will remain slower than x264 though, it uses more cpu consuming algorithms in order to cram out more 'quality per bit' At an abstract level, HEVC is AVC + refinement + new algorithms. Conforming bitstreams aren't required to use all or even most features, so in the long-term, I don't see why an HEVC encoder can't be a simple, straightforward superset of x264 (i.e. same speed for same quality).
- gillianseed 12y agoSure, but the whole point behind x265 is to provide better quality per bit than x264.