> Auorara claims to improve encoding speed by 32.2% against x265 veryslow<p>I'll have to see it to believe it, because av1 has a <i>long</i> way to go to become even remotely comparable to x265 in encode times, let alone superior.<p>With ffmpeg built from git, I can encode a 1920x1080 video file to x265 (with a boatload of parameters and options, via a custom threadpool I've written that can saturate all the cores regardless of input stream complexity or size) at 9.2fps on a 16-core 1950X with sufficient RAM.<p>The same harness powering ffmpeg's av1 encoder (not the fastest, they haven't switched to rav1e yet) does not manage 2fps (I'm letting it run to see what it ends up with, but it'll be a while for this short 3:13 video).
>Company, which has every reason to exaggerate, claims it can improve encoding speed by 32.2% against x265 veryslow<p>"It’ll be interesting to see if we find out more info and are able to test this encoder in the coming months."<p>>BBC, which has no skin in the game, claims AV1 is less efficient than HEVC<p>"I would call this test flawed as AV1 has consistently shown to perform better than HEVC."<p>Every article on AV1 that I have read is like this, except for <a href="https://codecs.multimedia.cx/2018/12/why-i-am-sceptical-about-av1/" rel="nofollow">https://codecs.multimedia.cx/2018/12/why-i-am-sceptical-abou...</a> -- they are always blatantly cheerleading new advancements, like only being 5x slower to decode than VP9 or 10x slower to encode than x265 or whatever. But the advancements are not phrased like that, of course--you are never reminded that the competition continues to clobber AV1 in every aspect but filesize/quality efficiency.
>From Visionular website, Auorara claims to improve encoding speed by 32.2% against x265 veryslow<p>This is extremely unlikely. But a game changer if true.