dav1d 1.0 AV1 Video Decoder Nears Release With AVX-512 Acceleration

[Black_Fox]

Incorrect.

Care to elaborate if you have the knowledge?

[brad0]

Care to elaborate if you have the knowledge?

AVX is AVX, AVX2 is AVX2, AVX-512 is AVX-512.

This is like me having to say A is A,B is B, C is C, Z is Z. *facepalm*

[Azrael5]

what about AMD integration on its CPUs of this instruction?

Ok I got the info: https://www.techpowerup.com/279129/a...t-avx-512?cp=2

[Azrael5]

AVX is AVX, AVX2 is AVX2, AVX-512 is AVX-512.

This is like me having to say A is A,B is B, C is C, Z is Z. *facepalm*

😁 funny

[CommunityMember]

Maybe DAV1D will now begin work on RISC-V vector extension support.

The project has previously stated that they are willing to review and accept contributions for alternative architectures. So if you are interested in seeing it happen, you should go work on risc-v support and contribute it.

[schmidtbag]

What's your point? Most of the devices (phones) I'm talking about probably can't do better than 720p @ 30Hz as a practical matter anyway. My original point stands. Youtube and similar services automatically transcode the content to make it available to lower end or older devices without hardware acceleration for VP9 and AV1. I reiterate, self published video providers should keep in mind the billions of devices still in use that can't view those formats if they want those devices to be able to view the content. No, telling people to buy a new phone isn't going to work. They'll blow you off (rightfully so).

So what if a phone can only do 720p? You're still getting excellent pixel density. If you want the higher resolutions because the quality is less lossy, well guess what: that's why these newer codecs are used. Furthermore, if you can't afford a better phone, you probably can't afford a connection with either unlimited data, or, bandwidth that can handle 1440p@60FPS. Last but not least, if your device can't take advantage of VP9/AV1, there's a very good chance the resolution is below 1080p, so this complaint is moot. So, you seem to really just be complaining only out of principle.

If we're talking HTPCs, it doesn't cost much to buy a replacement CPU platform that can handle such codecs. AVX2 has been around for almost a decade. If you can afford multiple streaming services, you can afford to buy a used Skylake CPU. If you don't stream, then just convert the video to your preferred format.

While I agree that people short on funds shouldn't be left behind, progress shouldn't stifle so people with low-end outdated hardware can "watch" 4k@60FPS content.

[skeevy420]

AVX is AVX, AVX2 is AVX2, AVX-512 is AVX-512.

This is like me having to say A is A,B is B, C is C, Z is Z. *facepalm*

A is LW, B is B, C is πD, D is RT, E is MC²

[TheLexMachine]

I hope content providers will keep in mind there will be billions of devices for years to come that can't manage AV1 properly and plan for it accordingly by offering alternative formats if they're self publishing (youtube, et al already does this).

AV1 software decoders - for older devices and current ones with no AV1 decoding hardware - were developed from the get-go and have pretty much been perfected, so older devices can simply use the GPU shader cores to decode the video via these software options. Microsoft offers their own install of DAV1D for Windows 10/11, though it's an older version that is always far behind the one you can easily install yourself from the build downloads.

[brucethemoose]

So what if a phone can only do 720p? You're still getting excellent pixel density. If you want the higher resolutions because the quality is less lossy, well guess what: that's why these newer codecs are used. Furthermore, if you can't afford a better phone, you probably can't afford a connection with either unlimited data, or, bandwidth that can handle 1440p@60FPS. Last but not least, if your device can't take advantage of VP9/AV1, there's a very good chance the resolution is below 1080p, so this complaint is moot. So, you seem to really just be complaining only out of principle.

If we're talking HTPCs, it doesn't cost much to buy a replacement CPU platform that can handle such codecs. AVX2 has been around for almost a decade. If you can afford multiple streaming services, you can afford to buy a used Skylake CPU. If you don't stream, then just convert the video to your preferred format.

While I agree that people short on funds shouldn't be left behind, progress shouldn't stifle so people with low-end outdated hardware can "watch" 4k@60FPS content.

Not all modern streaming boxes/TVs support AV1. In fact, Google recently called out Roku for selling brand new boxes without AV1 hw decode support (and without any kind of CPU muscle to software decode it).


Maybe I lost track of what y'all are arguing about, but content providers will have to support at least some HEVC/AVC streams for a looong time. This is an existential issue for real-time streams in particular.

[schmidtbag]

Not all modern streaming boxes/TVs support AV1. In fact, Google recently called out Roku for selling brand new boxes without AV1 hw decode support (and without any kind of CPU muscle to software decode it).


Maybe I lost track of what y'all are arguing about, but content providers will have to support at least some HEVC/AVC streams for a looong time. This is an existential issue for real-time streams in particular.

True, and I'm aware. I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with AV1 being optimized for instructions that old/simpler platforms don't have. As resolutions and refresh rates go higher, you have to pick 2 of the the 3:
A. Good quality
B. Low CPU+RAM requirements
C. Low disk/bandwidth requirements
AV1 appears to be options A and C. Some people here want older methods, which tend to be B and C. Most people who want A and B just buy Blu Rays.