Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
jordand | on: Dav2d
'AV2 decoding is roughly five times more complex than AV1 decoding. In practice, that means software running on today’s hardware will struggle to decode AV2 in real time without careful, architecture-specific optimization'

AV1 software decoding is already very intensive so AV2 decoding benchmarks are the next thing that would be really interesting (or mortifying) to see.

kmfrk | parent | next
Intel's Arc dGPUs were really compelling for dedicated AV1 encode and decode, especially the small form factor of some cards. You could even fit it as a secondary card in a PC dedicated to recording and encode workflows for OBS.

Hope we get a similar option with future lineups that support AV2, especially given how popular video creation and streaming are now.

thrownthatway | root | parent
Is there a compelling reason encoding needs to be done locally?

The point of encoding is to reduce downstream bandwidth for the viewer, and upstream bandwidth for the distribution network.

The content creator only needs to upload it once.

halJordan | root | parent | next
Well yes? The platforms only accept certain resolution/bitrates and also most of America isnt running 1gig up. They're running 5-30 mbps up. So yeah they need to encode it.
loading story #48346966
loading story #48347005
mrbluecoat | parent | next
I came to post this as well. Until widespread, inexpensive hardware catches up to a 2018 codec, AV# will remain a niche ideal.
breve | root | parent
Hardly niche. My laptop isn't new and it has hardware AV1 decoding and encoding. My 10 year old iPhone 7 can play 1080p AV1 video in software for over 200 minutes with VLC. The iPhone 7 was released in 2016, a year and a half before AV1. The dav1d decoder is mighty.

Netflix uses AV1: https://netflixtechblog.com/av1-now-powering-30-of-netflix-s...

YouTube uses AV1. It's tough to be more mainstream than that.

Right click on a YouTube video and select Stats for Nerds. If your system is capable of it, chances are it will be playing back in AV1.

Most of the YouTube videos I watch these days are AV1 encodes. Sometimes it's in VP9 and occasionally it's H.264.

weiliddat | root | parent | next
Supported is different from doing it well though. You do notice the performance hit even on TVs that playback YouTube videos on AV1.

Even on 1080p videos running on AV1 on 1x, the TV system bogs down and any kind of interaction has a variable 1-3s lag. On some TVs if you do 1.25x the TV automatically "downgrades" the resolution to 480p to avoid dropping frames.

I wish there was an option to still use VP9 / H.264 on those systems (even limited to 1080p).

Dylan16807 | root | parent | next
More reason to never use the builtin stuff in a tv. Cheap sticks can handle decoding fine.
TingPing | root | parent
Youtube artificially limits the resolution, on mine if you cast the exact same video it doesn’t impose that limit and works fine.
jordand | root | parent | next
Yeah I could imagine the AV1 codec sticking around for a very long while, even as a fallback for AV2. There's still hundreds of millions of people out there using old/cheap devices (especially in developing countries) where that battery drain from software decoding is a big problem, so AV2 would be nonviable.
ZeroGravitas | root | parent
Some of the early use of VP9 and AV1 was Netflix serving video to people in developing countries. Their metered bandwidth was more of a bottleneck than the CPU playback.
sylware | root | parent
Same. Mostly AV1, sometimes VP9, and rarely h264.

What's missing mostly: live streams which are h264.

Currently, and I say currently, dav1d is so fast, no worries on that side.

jbk | parent
> AV1 software decoding is already very intensive so AV2 decoding benchmarks are the next thing that would be really interesting (or mortifying) to see.

Yes, this is going to be fun to watch.