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

[brad0]

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.

Then they continue to use VP9.

[Flaburgan]

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While I agree that people short on funds shouldn't be left behind, progress shouldn't stifle so people with low-end outdated hardware can "watch" 4k@60FPS content.

75% of the CO2 emissions generated by computers & smartphones come from the building of the devices themselves, not the usage. There are other reasons than "I can't afford it" for not wanting to buy a new phone. One simply is, why should I replace something which works, especially knowing that building a smartphone pollute a lot.

[schmidtbag]

75% of the CO2 emissions generated by computers & smartphones come from the building of the devices themselves, not the usage. There are other reasons than "I can't afford it" for not wanting to buy a new phone. One simply is, why should I replace something which works, especially knowing that building a smartphone pollute a lot.

I'm a big proponent of efficiency, renewable energy sources, and minimizing waste, but what you said there is full of logical fallacies:
Assuming you get your power from fossil fuels, if you're on a budget, that percentage steadily decreases. The longer you keep a device, the closer it gets to using as much emissions as it took to create it. So, you're arguing "let's hold back the evolution of technology because that would reduce pollution", well, that backfires in the long run.

Since you're in the mindset of "just stick with something old so we don't pollute the planet" then don't start whining about wanting to watch content dependent upon newer technology. Stick with 720p if you care that much.

Better technology and newer products are going to be released and purchased regardless of what you do, and you sticking with your old phone isn't saving the planet. So, wouldn't it make sense that these newer devices have the option to run more efficiently? In other words, you don't want optimized codecs to be made because they won't run optimally on your old device, yet you neglect the efficiency gains (and in turn, the reduction of CO2) of such optimizations for newer devices. The worst possible outcome is to buy a new device (which is inevitable) and it doesn't have any noteworthy efficiency gains.

Manufacturing processes are generally improving in efficiency. More dies can fit on a single wafer. Processes are more precise, leading to more usable product to work with. The increased efficiency of modern processors requires fewer components and smaller batteries.

Last but not least, if you're really that picky about CO2, the heat output of inefficient devices means your air conditioner is going to work harder and longer, which indirectly makes the device use more CO2 than you think. Doesn't matter if you're even running a Celeron from 2012 - the inefficiency is causing it to work harder and for longer, and its wattage directly translates to how much heat it is dumping into the room. If you are to disregard the significance of the heat produced by an old Celeron that an AC must remove, then you should disregard the amount of CO2 it takes to produce a modern Celeron system, because both are insignificant on a global scale. Driving the average commuter car in city traffic for a couple of hours would likely contribute more CO2 than the average phone will in its lifetime.

[Flaburgan]

I'm a big proponent of efficiency, renewable energy sources, and minimizing waste, but what you said there is full of logical fallacies:
Assuming you get your power from fossil fuels, if you're on a budget, that percentage steadily decreases. The longer you keep a device, the closer it gets to using as much emissions as it took to create it. So, you're arguing "let's hold back the evolution of technology because that would reduce pollution", well, that backfires in the long run.

Since you're in the mindset of "just stick with something old so we don't pollute the planet" then don't start whining about wanting to watch content dependent upon newer technology. Stick with 720p if you care that much.

Better technology and newer products are going to be released and purchased regardless of what you do, and you sticking with your old phone isn't saving the planet. So, wouldn't it make sense that these newer devices have the option to run more efficiently? In other words, you don't want optimized codecs to be made because they won't run optimally on your old device, yet you neglect the efficiency gains (and in turn, the reduction of CO2) of such optimizations for newer devices. The worst possible outcome is to buy a new device (which is inevitable) and it doesn't have any noteworthy efficiency gains.

Manufacturing processes are generally improving in efficiency. More dies can fit on a single wafer. Processes are more precise, leading to more usable product to work with. The increased efficiency of modern processors requires fewer components and smaller batteries.

Last but not least, if you're really that picky about CO2, the heat output of inefficient devices means your air conditioner is going to work harder and longer, which indirectly makes the device use more CO2 than you think. Doesn't matter if you're even running a Celeron from 2012 - the inefficiency is causing it to work harder and for longer, and its wattage directly translates to how much heat it is dumping into the room. If you are to disregard the significance of the heat produced by an old Celeron that an AC must remove, then you should disregard the amount of CO2 it takes to produce a modern Celeron system, because both are insignificant on a global scale. Driving the average commuter car in city traffic for a couple of hours would likely contribute more CO2 than the average phone will in its lifetime.

You are extrapolating here, I never said that I don't want optimized codecs, and obviously at some point you will buy a new device anyway. But:
- A phone is kept less than 3 years in average in the USA: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...artphone-life/ which means making it polluted much more than using it, and that's including the internet consumption.
- Better technologies aren't going to reduce the impact on the planet, because you're going to use them more. That's very well known and is called Rebound effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboun..._(conservation).
- Obviously, the fact people should keep using phones mean they will stay on 720p, that doesn't mean AVX shouldn't be available there
- The heat my old device is going to generate will pollute more because it has to be cooled by Air Conditioner? Seriously? I never used AC in my whole life (ok, in the trains, but I don't control it). Clearly, the path is long...

[schmidtbag]

You are extrapolating here, I never said that I don't want optimized codecs, and obviously at some point you will buy a new device anyway. But:

Then why are you commenting to me at all? If new devices are inevitable then the CO2 emissions from their production doesn't really matter because they're going to be produced whether you buy them or not. So, might as well make them more efficient.

- A phone is kept less than 3 years in average in the USA: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...artphone-life/ which means making it polluted much more than using it, and that's including the internet consumption.

That is true, but phones are the least of concern when it comes to codes like AV1 since they either don't have a screen large enough for such content, they don't have enough mobile broadband bandwidth, or they're a flagship and should otherwise be capable of AV1 playback.

- Better technologies aren't going to reduce the impact on the planet, because you're going to use them more. That's very well known and is called Rebound effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboun..._(conservation).

That is true but it's a matter of perspective. More is getting done with the same amount of energy. So while the climate impact is the same, the level of productivity goes up. Greenhouse emissions aren't as devastating when the processes involved can be more easily compensated for.

- The heat my old device is going to generate will pollute more because it has to be cooled by Air Conditioner? Seriously? I never used AC in my whole life (ok, in the trains, but I don't control it). Clearly, the path is long...

To clarify, I mean the room being cooled by an AC, not the device itself.
In any case, I'm glad you found that ridiculous, because so is pointing out the climate impact of buying a single phone.

[Quackdoc]

Then they continue to use VP9.

yup, I would like to see AVC die, but sadly decode performance of VP9 while phenomenal, not good enough to replace avc yet. I doubt that it will happen soon.

[Quackdoc]

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.

I am assuming you are talking about decode , if so I am not sure about this one chief, dav1d preforms phenomenally on older hardware too. just look at the benchmarks on openbenchmarking. av1 is not as good as vp9 in this regard granted . but av1 is still an infant in comparison to vp9. of course it is a balancing act, but av1 is balancing it really good

[schmidtbag]

I am assuming you are talking about decode , if so I am not sure about this one chief, dav1d preforms phenomenally on older hardware too. just look at the benchmarks on openbenchmarking. av1 is not as good as vp9 in this regard granted . but av1 is still an infant in comparison to vp9. of course it is a balancing act, but av1 is balancing it really good

I am referring to decode. As someone who hasn't really looked into AV1 (or VP9) on older systems, I'm just taking the word of other commenters that they don't work well. So, if older systems can handle it just fine, then people really need to stop whining.

[Quackdoc]

I am referring to decode. As someone who hasn't really looked into AV1 (or VP9) on older systems, I'm just taking the word of other commenters that they don't work well. So, if older systems can handle it just fine, then people really need to stop whining.

I get around 28fps on 1080p content with av1 on my laptop. I wouldn't call it good enough to use on my laptop, but if we are using a chromebook from 2016 as a guide as to what or what not to use. there is some serious rethinking that needs to be done.

[hotaru]

I am referring to decode. As someone who hasn't really looked into AV1 (or VP9) on older systems, I'm just taking the word of other commenters that they don't work well. So, if older systems can handle it just fine, then people really need to stop whining.

my experience with AV1 on older hardware (which is limited to desktops) has been that it works well enough that you probably wouldn't notice a difference between it and VP9, but software-decoded AV1 uses a lot more electricity than hardware-decoded VP9. the older systems I've used can only handle AV1 decoding "just fine" as long as you don't think about the environmental impact.