Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by GeneticGenesis 2102 days ago
Sure, but this was my point, x264 is very fast on commodity hardware, the overwhelming amount of video delivered is still h.264, especially on live video, and in particular for low-viewership, live user generated content.

If you want/need to transcode to VP9 or AV1 at scale with good quality, yes, you'll absolutely need GPU or ASIC accelerated encoders, of which there are a couple for VP9, and none for AV1 today.

h.264 will get you to 95-99% market penetration on the device landscape.
1 comments
02020202 2101 days ago
ok, i see what you mean. though vp9 usually gets me 1/4 or 1/5 of h264 video so i thought it was worth to save the network traffic(even av1 got me larger file at incredibly slow speed) but as you directly pointed out, without direct support on the hardware, like h264 has these days, it will become a bottleneck so i would have to sacrifice traffic for speed and practicality and i guess vp9/av1 makes sense for youtube, bitchute or simply video HOSTING service, not for lvie streaming. thanks for lighting the bulb above my head :D
link
GeneticGenesis 2101 days ago
No worries!

While some of the larger UGC platforms do use VP9 for live streaming, it is only for a limited subset of high concurrent viewer streams, and yes, in many cases those aren't running the encodes on commodity hardware.

As for AV1, there really aren't any live implementations ready right now, a few have been demo'd, but I'm not aware of any deployments today.

link
02020202 2100 days ago
I have checked [1], so the VP9 already has generally available hardware support, and Intel just a few days ago releasted their Tiger CPUs that do support AV1 [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9#Hardware_implementations

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Hardware

link