AVX2 Tuning Paying Off Big Time For Dav1d 10b/12b Video Decode

[phoronix]

Phoronix: AVX2 Tuning Paying Off Big Time For Dav1d 10b/12b Video Decode

With the new dav1d 0.9 AV1 decoder release bringing AVX2 Assembly for higher bit depth videos, the performance improvements are very pronounced with modern Intel and AMD systems...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AVX2-dav1d-0.9-Benchmarks

[schmidtbag]

Wow, well that extra effort sure proved its worth.

[skeevy420]

Where are these big wins?

**scrolls down**

Holy Shnikes

[linuxgeex]

Benchmark results on a Haswell-era CPU machine would have been particularly helpful for the folks who are avoiding turning on AV1 support in their browsers and/or sticking with x265 because "AV1 is too slow".

[Toggleton]

Benchmark results on a Haswell-era CPU machine would have been particularly helpful for the folks who are avoiding turning on AV1 support in their browsers and/or sticking with x265 because "AV1 is too slow".

If you talk about "turning on AV1 support in their browsers" you mean in Youtube? Youtube is so far 8bit only and that(dav1d decoding) should be nearly fully done(not many big improvements anymore)
Just enable it watch a YT video that got encoded in AV1 and look how the performance/CPU usage is.
And you can set it that you only want it for 480p or lower https://www.youtube.com/account_playback
There was no change for 8bit in 0.9 so you can look at the results of 0.8.2 https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/dav1d

I don't think decoding/playback of h265 would be noticeable faster than AV1 decoding with dav1d(8bit).


If you talk about x265 you are talking about the encoding side. Have no up to date numbers that compare x265 vs AV1 encoder. But the AV1 encoder did get quite a lot faster since AV1 got released.

[Danny3]

Wow, cool and everything, but why the fuck we still have stone age framerate ?
I don't give a fuck that the the CPU can decode the 100-600 FPS when the video is still 24 FPS !
I'm really tired of blurry vision !

[skeevy420]

Wow, cool and everything, but why the fuck we still have stone age framerate ?
I don't give a fuck that the the CPU can decode the 100-600 FPS when the video is still 24 FPS !
I'm really tired of blurry vision !

Artistic preference. Some people complain that higher than 24 FPS video looks too sharp; the soap opera effect. In order to accommodate both high frame rates and artistic integrity video would have to be done at at least 120 FPS and either kept there or "downrated". 120 is the lowest common denominator of 24 and 60. 24 being Hollywood Standard and 60 being Display Standard.

[MadeUpName]

Wow, cool and everything, but why the fuck we still have stone age framerate ?
I don't give a fuck that the the CPU can decode the 100-600 FPS when the video is still 24 FPS !
I'm really tired of blurry vision !

Maybe because the vast majority of video content is rendered in 24fps? If all the movies and TV shows you have been watching in 24fps are blurry it might be time to visit an optometrist.

Where are these big wins?

**scrolls down**

Holy Shnikes

Ya, I was the same way. I saw the first two and thought Michael was trolling us. But sure enough, that is pretty impressive. Now if only they could do that on the encode side.

[reba]

Benchmark results on a Haswell-era CPU machine would have been particularly helpful for the folks who are avoiding turning on AV1 support in their browsers and/or sticking with x265 because "AV1 is too slow".

For my Ivy Bridge I use h264ify to make youtube switch delivery codec from av1 to h264.

[cl333r]

Artistic preference. Some people complain that higher than 24 FPS video looks too sharp; the soap opera effect.

I thought it's only a problem with movies looking like soap opera at 60 FPS?
Why would anyone complain about a documentary or show at 60 FPS (other than bandwidth)?