Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
5th August 2014, 19:47 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,565
|
Comparisons of x265 vs x264
Since it has been asked to move comparisons of x265 vs other codecs out of the main x265 thread I'm starting this one.
I used a low quality, grainy, blockbuster source with about 8 Mbit/s as the output bitrate (x265 --crf 21). If you substract some bitrate because of this being a trailer with many scenecuts you come into a region often used for Blu-Ray-rips. This test uses the new psy features of x265 (still experimental). I haven't written down the fps, just believe me when I say it was too slow for encoding complete films. My subjective conclusion: x264 is still ahead in this test though both would be transparent under normal viewing conditions. Since they aren't too different I wouldn't be surprised if others were to come to a different conclusion. Original (dl) x264 8bit r2452 --preset placebo --tune grain (2pass) (dl) x264 10bit r2452 --preset placebo --tune grain (2pass) (dl) x265 1.2.436 10bit --preset placebo --psy-rd 0.5 --psy-rdoq 0.5 --crf 21 (dl) #64, all B http://abload.de/img/a_originalvfqkp.png http://abload.de/img/a_x264_8bit6fq7g.png http://abload.de/img/a_x264_10bit8eqbr.png http://abload.de/img/a_x265_10bitapp2t.png #606, all I http://abload.de/img/b_original8po9k.png http://abload.de/img/b_x264_8bit95rif.png http://abload.de/img/b_x264_10bite3rp5.png http://abload.de/img/b_x265jho08.png #1326, all P http://abload.de/img/c_originaly9rf1.png http://abload.de/img/c_x2640rpv0.png http://abload.de/img/c_x264_10bitlxq7h.png http://abload.de/img/c_x265b6rcy.png #1472, x264: P, x265: B http://abload.de/img/d_original3jpl4.png http://abload.de/img/d_x264vkrw2.png http://abload.de/img/d_x264_10bitixqwf.png http://abload.de/img/d_x2658qp01.png #1610, all B http://abload.de/img/e_originalhjrxf.png http://abload.de/img/e_x2647spwg.png http://abload.de/img/e_x264_10bitwrp38.png http://abload.de/img/e_x265m2ogi.png #1831. all B http://abload.de/img/f_originalbaeaq.png http://abload.de/img/f_x26458dzb.png http://abload.de/img/f_x264_10bit8hidb.png http://abload.de/img/f_x265yqivq.png #2068, all B http://abload.de/img/g_originalnzd2x.png http://abload.de/img/g_x264ssdyg.png http://abload.de/img/g_x264_10bit6ke1i.png http://abload.de/img/g_x265b7czq.png I think for future tests I'll try out higher quality sources and a slightly lower bitrate. The biggest problem I see for x265 is the speed. If it needs the new psy features to compete with x264 it's way too slow (needing at least preset slower to work). Last edited by sneaker_ger; 6th August 2014 at 17:15. |
6th August 2014, 16:20 | #6 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,049
|
Are you sure that frame type is exactly the same for x264 and x265? I found unfair to compare I frame vs B frame and it is hardly to believe that encoders decision make this exactly repeatable but... this is my question - are we compare apples to apples?
|
6th August 2014, 22:03 | #9 | Link | ||||
Testeur de codecs
Join Date: May 2003
Location: France
Posts: 2,484
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Le Sagittaire ... ;-) 1- Ateme AVC or x264 2- VP7 or RV10 only for anime 3- XviD, DivX or WMV9 |
||||
7th August 2014, 00:14 | #10 | Link | |
Angel of Night
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tangled in the silks
Posts: 9,559
|
Quote:
Of course, equal is a low bar, given the speed penalty, but at least it's not subjectively worse any longer. |
|
7th August 2014, 02:48 | #11 | Link | |||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,771
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Note that none of the presets turn on --weightb at this point, presumably because the feature was added after the presets were finished. That's probably useful to add to the comparison, at least when comparable speed isn't a testing goal. I'm not sure what the speed impact is. Also, I'm not sure how comparable the motion search ranges are between x264 and x265 |
|||
7th August 2014, 09:36 | #12 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,565
|
Quote:
|
|
7th August 2014, 14:59 | #13 | Link | ||
Testeur de codecs
Join Date: May 2003
Location: France
Posts: 2,484
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Le Sagittaire ... ;-) 1- Ateme AVC or x264 2- VP7 or RV10 only for anime 3- XviD, DivX or WMV9 |
||
7th August 2014, 22:19 | #15 | Link |
47.952fps@71.928Hz
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 940
|
Rather interesting. I've been curious as to how x265 is coming along.
I will say that for x265 being in early development, it's still not too shabby. I find the -slower preset to be visually pleasing more than the others, but those encoding speeds... Sagittaire's comes very close to the slower preset without modifying anything. Upon a second watch between Sagittaire and Slower, there's virtually little difference. A reasonable compromise to get a speed boost for encoding. It's nice to see so many updates for x265 in recent months. Thanks for the testing.
__________________
Win10 (x64) build 19041 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (GP106) 3071MB/GDDR5 | (r435_95-4) NTSC | DVD: R1 | BD: A AMD Ryzen 5 2600 @3.4GHz (6c/12th, I'm on AVX2 now!)
|
7th August 2014, 23:41 | #16 | Link | ||
Testeur de codecs
Join Date: May 2003
Location: France
Posts: 2,484
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Le Sagittaire ... ;-) 1- Ateme AVC or x264 2- VP7 or RV10 only for anime 3- XviD, DivX or WMV9 |
||
8th August 2014, 17:50 | #17 | Link | ||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,771
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, you should be specifying the same --vbv-maxrate and --vbv-bufsize. |
||
11th August 2014, 17:45 | #19 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 90
|
wait wait wait...
are those comparisons done with the same bitrate? and there isn't really difference in quality and often x264 on default looks better than x265 on slower? what the hell?!? I understand that promised 50% reduction isn't always realistic, but come on, what is the point of all this if we can't beat old standard even with much longer encoding and more hardware demanding decoding. It looks like for now it's better to use 10bit x264, it doesn't have any hardware support either but at least it can give realistic 10% or more bitrate savings. Last edited by fumoffu; 11th August 2014 at 17:49. |
11th August 2014, 17:54 | #20 | Link | ||
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Quote:
The big question, however, is: Was the bitrate chosen reasonable for what we want to test? Currently I think there are (at least) two test scenarios:
Quote:
At the same time HEVC is a relatively new standard and x265 is a relatively young project. So patience!
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 11th August 2014 at 18:25. |
||
|
|