Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Google Graphics Software

FFmpeg's VP9 Decoder Faster Than Google's 101

Posted by timothy
from the healthy-competition dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A VP9 video decoder written for FFmpeg, FFvp9, now holds the title of being the world's fastest VP9 video decoder. FFvp9 is faster than Google's de facto VP9 decoder found in libvpx, but this doesn't come as too much of a surprise given that FFmpeg also produced a faster VP8 video decoder than Google a few years back with both single and multi-threaded performance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FFmpeg's VP9 Decoder Faster Than Google's

Comments Filter:
  • by Cesare Ferrari (667973) on Sunday February 23, 2014 @09:20AM (#46315481) Homepage

    My understanding is that there is no room for decode artifacts in this - you either do it right, or it's not a proper decoder. This is a proper decoder, so will produce identical output to the google standard one. I believe there are test streams with md5s for the test frames, and this decoder passes the tests.

    So, it's free, and it's correct, and it's fast. I think you have pre-conceived prejudices which are in this case wrong ;-)

    From my perspective, faster is good for low power devices, so if this helps spread decent video codecs to more devices, that's a win.

  • Re:Whoo-hoo! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23, 2014 @09:22AM (#46315487)

    Or less fan noise while watching porn.

    If you want less fan noise you should go with a format your system have hardware decode support for. That would not be VP9.

  • by Zuriel (1760072) on Sunday February 23, 2014 @10:03AM (#46315627)

    I haven't seen dropped frames in video in longer than that... on my desktop. My AMD E-350 based netbook, on the other hand... when it runs into something incompatible and can't do hardware decoding, it gets bad.

    Besides, even if you have a decently powerful laptop, each second your CPU spends in higher performance states costs you battery runtime. Faster code gives you less heat and longer battery life for free.

  • by tota (139982) on Sunday February 23, 2014 @10:55AM (#46315811) Homepage
    Just how slow am I talking about? As per the link, often about 50 times slower than x264.
    This may be OK for google, which encodes a video once and then sends it to many many customers (youtube), the bandwidth savings pay for the increased CPU cost.
    But for most users, that's just not acceptable. Until they get the speed up to a reasonable, we'll keep using what works: x264 or vp8

Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke