Linked by Brooss on Tue 15th Mar 2011 23:32 UTC
Benchmarks A comment on the recent article about the Bali release of Googles WebM tools (libvpx) claimed that one of the biggest problems facing the adoption of WebM video was the slow speed of the encoder as compared to x264. This article sets out to benchmark the encoder against x264 to see if this is indeed true and if so, how significant the speed difference really is.
Permalink for comment 466306
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by galvanash on Wed 16th Mar 2011 00:02 UTC
Member since:

Since I'm the one that made the comment prompting this comparison... I'm very glad to see Bali Shows some significant improvement on a real world encode. It's still slower than x264, but it's no longer "embarrassingly" slow it seems. I've also never seen those settings that were used for 2 pass, that is good info. Kudos to the author!

However, I'm still going to do my own tests with more realistic source material when I have the time. Using a 320x240 resolution for the source is not representative of what most users would actually encode (not even close really).

Edited 2011-03-16 00:07 UTC

Reply Score: 4