| ▲ | Slurpee99 5 hours ago |
| ... improvements around 25% compared to AV1
AV2 decoding is roughly five times more complex than AV1 decoding
I'm not sure what these two lines mean or if we can compare them, any help? |
|
| ▲ | whynotmaybe 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I understood it as compression is 25% better : a quality of 10mbps in av1 can be achieved with 8mbps in Av2.
But, it needs 5 times more compute power for this 25% gain. |
| |
|
| ▲ | jbk 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I'm not sure what these two lines mean or if we can compare them, any help? AV2 saves 25% bandwidth at the cost of 5x more decoding complexity. |
| |
| ▲ | 0x1ceb00da 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does "complexity" mean here? Computation required? | | |
| ▲ | WD-42 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | dav1d is the av1 decoder and it’s an insane feat of engineering. Written in assembly, it even eschews the normal c calling convention to get even better performance. | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab an hour ago | parent [-] | | The normal C calling convention is really only for cross-binary calls (e.g. between shared libraries). If you're not doing that you can ignore it; it's not a weird thing to do. It would be odd to strictly follow it in assembly and I assume compilers don't either. |
| |
| ▲ | BillStrong 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, much higher computation required to encode it, and decode it, both. | | |
| ▲ | Caspy7 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | He only mentioned decode complexity. Would be interesting to know the average encode complexity compared to AV1. |
| |
| ▲ | simjnd 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes |
|
|
|
| ▲ | croes 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Smaller files but harder to decode |
