• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

4K60 FPS VP9 decoding performance

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
Sure, since it is available through DXVA. OpenCL solutions never match true hardware implementation in terms of performance or power efficiency, so a true decoding capability is highly preferred. VP9 is inferior format and it needs to die, sooner the better. Unfortunately it was chosen by Google and their muscle guarantees that it's departure won't be as swift as one could hope. If your CPU cannot decode VP9 at 1080P regardless of the bitrate, it is pretty much useless for anything else too.
I'd hope so, VP9 is a competitor to H.264, it's not really meant to go head to head with HEVC. The competitor to H.265 (HEVC) is AV1 which is a collaboration of Mozilla's Dalla, Cisco's Thor, and Google's VP10, all rolled into one royaltyfree codec called AV1. Which should get a finished standard at some point in the first half of 2017.
VP9 is more advanced of a format than h264. You can sort of look at it as a middle ground somewhere between h265/HEVC and h264. This says nothing as to the quality of the encoders being used but just want to put it into perspective since some people here may have the wrong idea about VP9.

As for the next generation of video codecs there's one thing that people may not have realized about HEVC/h265, the licensing costs are much much higher. This may push people to alternative codecs such as AV1.
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
3,057
106
As for the next generation of video codecs there's one thing that people may not have realized about HEVC/h265, the licensing costs are much much higher. This may push people to alternative codecs such as AV1.
Superior technology always comes at a cost. Anyone who has ever tried to encode VP9 using the reference encoder / library soon realizes what kind of a joke it is. Not to mention the codec itself is inferior to HEVC in terms of compression efficiency. It is pretty hard for a new contender to put up a serious challenge on HEVC, since HEVC is largely based on the current industry standard (AVC, 264).
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,015
536
126
I wonder if the HEVC patent pool holders are starting to panic. If not, perhaps they should be.
 

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
Superior technology always comes at a cost. Anyone who has ever tried to encode VP9 using the reference encoder / library soon realizes what kind of a joke it is. Not to mention the codec itself is inferior to HEVC in terms of compression efficiency. It is pretty hard for a new contender to put up a serious challenge on HEVC, since HEVC is largely based on the current industry standard (AVC, 264).
Considering the prices that HEVC is charging it's not difficult for an alternative to look very attractive. Furthermore, at least on Youtube, VP9 offers superior quality to h264. I never said that VP9 was direct competition to HEVC, it's somewhere in the middle between h264 and HEVC.
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,387
356
136
I wonder if the HEVC patent pool holders are starting to panic. If not, perhaps they should be.
Considering AV1 also has hardware partners out the ass, they should be. If it's anywhere close to HEVC I don't see why anyone would bother paying the royalties.
 

nathanddrews

Graphics Cards, CPU Moderator
Super Moderator
Aug 9, 2016
965
534
136
www.youtube.com
Considering AV1 also has hardware partners out the ass, they should be. If it's anywhere close to HEVC I don't see why anyone would bother paying the royalties.
You say that, but then HDMI has been the dominant home theater connector for a decade despite its royalties and poor performance (relative to VESA DisplayPort or DVI, for example). Planned obsolescence is a huge part of what makes certain standards "better" than others. In this particular case, AV1 won't even be released until 2017, while HEVC was already complete and ready in 2015, so timing was the real reason.
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,387
356
136
Yet Google(YouTube), Netflix, Amazon, are all partners of the AV1 codec. YouTube already announced plans to convert all 4k content to AV1 upon the completion of the standard.

The full list of companies comprising the group is:
Adobe
Amazon
AMD
ARM
Ateme
Cisco
Google
Intel
Ittiam
Microsoft
Mozilla
Netflix
NVIDIA
Vidyo
VeriSilicon
 

imported_ats

Senior member
Mar 21, 2008
422
63
86
Superior technology always comes at a cost. Anyone who has ever tried to encode VP9 using the reference encoder / library soon realizes what kind of a joke it is. Not to mention the codec itself is inferior to HEVC in terms of compression efficiency. It is pretty hard for a new contender to put up a serious challenge on HEVC, since HEVC is largely based on the current industry standard (AVC, 264).
Except, every major digital content provider, every major browser maker, plus AMD, ARM, Intel, MS, and Nvidia are all firmly behind AV1. Within 12 months of AV1 being published, every GPU will support it in hardware. Ever browser will support it. Android will default to it. Youtube will default to it. Amazon will default to it. Netflix will default to it.

Add to that the fact that pretty much everyone is backing away from 265/HEVC. No one wants to deal with the insanity that is the HEVC licensing quagmire. Google has basically disavowed HEVC and will not support it which means android and chrome are out. Mozilla likewise won't support it. And MS won't support it. And of course, Linux won't support it. That basically means that direct OS/Browser support for HEVC is dead.
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
3,057
106
Had a look at the much hyped AV1. Based on what I saw, I cannot really see what the fuss is all about. AV1 can match or even excel HEVC in term of quality, but outside of being encoded using a dedicated, fixed function encoder I cannot see any serious use for it (for consumers). It shares the same exact issues as VP9 does, it is extremely slow and clumsy. Anyone who has tried encoding HEVC knows that it is extremely slow compared to X264 for example. Based on my tests using the most recent encoder versions (AOM 0.10 & HEVC 2.1), HEVC is 11.3x - 13.6x faster at the same bitrate and at settings resulting comparable (within 0.005) SSIM. Since HEVC is already extremely slow to encode it means that AV1 is completely impossible to be encoded on a CPU.

I used a RAW 420P 1080P ("Cobra" by Harmonic) sample video with following settings:

AV1 = --passes=2 --good --i420 --threads=18 --width=1920 --height=1080 --target-bitrate=* (*1000 / 5000) --end-usage=cbr --cpu-used=2
X265 = --preset medium --input-res 1920x1080 --fps 30 --bitrate * (*1000 / 5000) --pools "18" --pass * (* 1 / 2)

AV1 - 1000kbps = 3.71fps (2nd pass), SSIM ~ 0.967, 5000kbps = 1.92fps (2nd pass), SSIM ~ 0.975
HEVC - 1000kbps = 41.71fps (2nd pass), SSIM ~ 0.9675, 5000kbps = 26.15fps (2nd pass), SSIM ~ 0.973

Tested on Haswell-EP HCC (18C/36T), both binaries compiled with x86-64 GCC 6.20 & YASM. AOM compiled with cpu runtime detection / "fat binary" (dispatcher) enabled.
 

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
Had a look at the much hyped AV1. Based on what I saw, I cannot really see what the fuss is all about. AV1 can match or even excel HEVC in term of quality, but outside of being encoded using a dedicated, fixed function encoder I cannot see any serious use for it (for consumers). It shares the same exact issues as VP9 does, it is extremely slow and clumsy. Anyone who has tried encoding HEVC knows that it is extremely slow compared to X264 for example. Based on my tests using the most recent encoder versions (AOM 0.10 & HEVC 2.1), HEVC is 11.3x - 13.6x faster at the same bitrate and at settings resulting comparable (within 0.005) SSIM. Since HEVC is already extremely slow to encode it means that AV1 is completely impossible to be encoded on a CPU.

I used a RAW 420P 1080P ("Cobra" by Harmonic) sample video with following settings:

AV1 = --passes=2 --good --i420 --threads=18 --width=1920 --height=1080 --target-bitrate=* (*1000 / 5000) --end-usage=cbr --cpu-used=2
X265 = --preset medium --input-res 1920x1080 --fps 30 --bitrate * (*1000 / 5000) --pools "18" --pass * (* 1 / 2)

AV1 - 1000kbps = 3.71fps (2nd pass), SSIM ~ 0.967, 5000kbps = 1.92fps (2nd pass), SSIM ~ 0.975
HEVC - 1000kbps = 41.71fps (2nd pass), SSIM ~ 0.9675, 5000kbps = 26.15fps (2nd pass), SSIM ~ 0.973

Tested on Haswell-EP HCC (18C/36T), both binaries compiled with x86-64 GCC 6.20 & YASM. AOM compiled with cpu runtime detection / "fat binary" (dispatcher) enabled.
No one is saying that HEVC isn't more advanced currently. The issue is the licensing costs. The licensing costs for HEVC are prohibitively expensive which is why you have all of these other companies/groups backing AV1. Encoders can be improved.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,015
536
126
I get the impression that Netflix will continue to use HEVC for a long time even after AV1 lands. The problem is that HEVC will be too firmly entrenched in TVs and stuff like that, and those can't be updated to support AV1. At best, Netflix will start supporting both AV1 and HEVC, the former for computer browsers.

Perhaps that installed base in TVs, etc. is what the patent pool is counting on but in my undereducated opinion that is very risky for them since some manufacturers could easily switch to support AV1 in the future. Sony won't but as time goes on they are becoming less important as a driver of these types of technologies.
 

escrow4

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2013
3,333
113
106
I get the impression that Netflix will continue to use HEVC for a long time even after AV1 lands. The problem is that HEVC will be too firmly entrenched in TVs and stuff like that, and those can't be updated to support AV1. At best, Netflix will start supporting both AV1 and HEVC, the former for computer browsers.

Perhaps that installed base in TVs, etc. is what the patent pool is counting on but in my undereducated opinion that is very risky for them since some manufacturers could easily switch to support AV1 in the future. Sony won't but as time goes on they are becoming less important as a driver of these types of technologies.
If its a smart TV then pushing an updated FFMPEG build for the Android OS running it shouldn't be too difficult, unless the SOC in that smart TV is old rubbish, which it shouldn't be for 2015 era smart TVs.
 

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
If its a smart TV then pushing an updated FFMPEG build for the Android OS running it shouldn't be too difficult, unless the SOC in that smart TV is old rubbish, which it shouldn't be for 2015 era smart TVs.
It's often not about the software but the capability of the hardware decoders present.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
50,736
6,249
126
Hmm, I just tried the video in the OP, it runs really great on my i5-6400 @ 4.05Ghz, and RX 460 4GB video card. I was doing DC in the background, so I didn't get a CPU usage graph. But it was really smooth, no dropped frames.

(Using Waterfox 50.0, with YouTube full-screened, no Flash Player installed.)
 

PhonakV30

Senior member
Oct 26, 2009
978
350
136
So according to techreport :

Like Intel's recently-released Kaby Lake CPUs, Bristol Ridge offers hardware acceleration for the HEVC and VP9 video codecs. It's worth noting that these APUs can only perform hardware encoding and decoding of 4K content for HEVC, however—VP9 support is limited to 1080p content. Kaby Lake, on the other hand, can decode 4K VP9 content in hardware. Given that the next-generation codec wars still appear to be in full swing, Bristol's limited VP9 support may not be that important in the grand scheme of things.
both have hardware encoding and decoding but Intel ==> 4K VP9 while APU ==> 1080p VP9.So APUs are out of the question for 4K VP.Also, 1080p at what Fps? 1080p@60 possible ?
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,083
899
136
This claim requires a proof because AMD likes to promote things in slides that they don't support in real wold. Have a look to Polaris, two pass encoder? Didn't happen? VP9 up to 4k? Didn't happen. AMD only says it is coming in future drivers, we don't even know exactly if it is a hardware solution or shader based.
 

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,222
742
136
For Decode:
// Bristol Ridge, Stoney Ridge, Polaris 1&2.
HDR10 (10-bit Rec2020) 4K/60p H264/H265/VP9

For Encode:
// Bristol Ridge, Stoney Ridge, Polaris 1&2.
HDR10 (10-bit Rec2020) 2-pass 4K/24p // SDR8(8-bit) 1-pass 4K/60p H264/H265/VP9

Omega16 or 17.3/17.4 (Redstone2-DXVA3) in my opinion is when most of the stuff promised will be dropped on consumers.
 

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,222
742
136
I guess, I don't quite see how hardware video encoders can be both two-pass, and real-time.
It's not real two-pass.
NVENC does have a "vbr_2pass" in its options, but what it means is that it will
look ahead a number of frames for the rate control to make better decisions.
True two-pass encoding means to do two full passes over the data. Although what
NVENC does improves the quality is this far from the real thing. The naming of
the options is confusing and misleading...
QuickSync(Haswell/Broadwell/Kaby Lake(Skylake not 100% sure)), NVENC(Maxwell+?), and VCE 3.x(BriRid,StoRid, Pol12) support this fake 2pass.
 

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
It's not real two-pass.
QuickSync(Haswell/Broadwell/Kaby Lake(Skylake not 100% sure)), NVENC(Maxwell+?), and VCE 3.x(BriRid,StoRid, Pol12) support this fake 2pass.
"Two-pass" isn't a very good way to describe it anymore considering that even 2-pass with x264 is really just to get a crf value which will hit the target bitrate (1-pass crf and 2-pass will output the exact same thing). The difference here is that x264 actually has excellent rate control whereas the hardware encoders probably are not as good in that category.
 

Spjut

Senior member
Apr 9, 2011
895
75
91
AMD's latest drivers says VP9 Decode Acceleration is now supported under Chrome
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS