![]() ![]() ![]() It is my understanding that ffmpeg does use some "short cuts" in their codecs to achieve higher performance, at the expense of some quality degradation. Measuring the performance of one encoder operating at a high quality level against one operating at a low quality level will provide substantially different measurements, but will not necessarily be a "fair" comparison of the two encoders. ![]() In the case of ffmpeg comparisons, you also have to be sure you are comparing encode/decode at similar quality levels. There are simply too many variables involved in any such comparison. Providing performance comparisons between IPP functions and other applications is a very tricky business. What I would really like to see from intel is that the codecs from intel on single thread should be as good as codecs from ffmpeg on single thread.Īnother point is that with every release i would expect intel to publish the performance improvements with respect to previous release all comparisons done with single thread (in the case here i was expecting a performance comparison of all the codecs from ipp 6.1 to ipp 7). It would be good if you can provide some camparative analysis between intel and ffmpeg codecs. I have another query: is intel ipp sample code / library using cache on the system in an optimal way? I did not see anywhere that the code is cache sensistive. Here is more info on comparison: for a typical HD input 30 fps, ipp h264 decoder gives max 18-20fps o/p whereas ffmpeg h264 decoder gives max 35 fps o/p on a 2.3 ghz linux m/c. Even if i calculate your ways the performance of ffmpeg H264 decoder is substantially (40%-50%) better than ipp h264 decoder without a doubt. The way you are calculating the performance is good if we take both ipp h264 decoder and ffmpeg decoder with single thread. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |