[kagenouta]

Note that the encoders are slower largely because it's not hardware-accelerated yet.

We can reasonably assume that will change, as basically every major player in the CPU/GPU spaces[1] has signed on to back this. Even Apple is a member.

[1] the exceptions are mostly downstream ARM vendors - notably, Qualcomm

[kasabali]

> Note that the encoders are slower largely because it's not hardware-accelerated yet.

This is a very misleading statement.

AV1 encoders are slow because they're slow, not because they're not hardware accelerated.

x264 and x265 are not hardware accelerated, either.

[zamalek]

> x264 and x265 are not hardware accelerated, either.

This is incredibly false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_NVENC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Engine (this has been widely available for 8 years)

[izacus]

You've linked competing hardware encoding APIs which are not x264/x265.

x264/x265 are software encoding libraries for H264/H.265 video formats and don't really use hardware acceleration beyond SIMD instructions on CPUs. x264 is known for its great output quality while still being fast on x86 CPUs.

[clouddrover]

I think kasabali was talking about x264 (https://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html) and x265 (http://x265.org/) specifically rather than the H.264 and H.265 video formats in general.

[_qxjp]

x264 and x265 refer to the specific set of software programs of the same name, right? Most chips nowadays can hardware accel H.264 and H.265, but they don't use x264/x265 (or do they? Not sure...). I think the confusion is that the terms x264 and H.264 are not interchangeable

[kagenouta]

> x264 and x265 are not hardware accelerated, either.

Huh, TIL.

Though I would also sort of want to know where x264 and x265 were a year in, tbf.