X265 vs DivX265

[deadrats]

alright folks, now that the new divx cli is out and boast vastly improved encoding speed i decided to a fresh divx hevc vs x265 comparison and i threw in some x264 for good measure.

i tested with park joy 1080p50 and the sintel lossless 720p24 trailer. i initially wanted to do crf and cq encodes but i found that both x264 and x265 wanted to use tons of bit rate for the park joy encode and the resulting bit rate was greater than the 12mb/s for 1080p that the divx encoder is limited to,

as such, i decided to normalize the comparison encodes to x265+uf at 12mb/s for the 1080p50 source, when you think about it with 1080p and 50fps 12mb/s isn't all that much bit rate, it would be like using 6mb/s for a 1080p25 source. with these settings x265 achieved 10fps and so i tried to use settings for x264 and divx that were close to that encode speed and bit rate and compared the results.

for the sake of completeness i also included x264 with ultra fast and 12mb/s.

my test setup is a very run of the mill i7 3770k at stock speeds, 8gb dd3, and in order to minimize I/O bottlenecks i used a small 120gb ssd i have laying around for both source and target drive.

the closest to the 10fps encoding speed i could get with divx was 7fps with the "better quality" setting and with x264 with the "slow" preset i saw 9fps, so these are the comparison encodes. i also did an x264 ultra fast encode which was done at an incredible 133fps, unfortunately of all the test encodes this one was the only one i would classify as unwatchable, just pure garbage.

the divx encode with the "fastest" setting was done at 20fps and the quality was quite good.

i will be updating this with the sintel sample encodes in a bit and i think i'm also going to be adding some blu-ray sourced test encodes as well.

the quality differences between x265 and divx hevc are difficult to spot, especially with sources like the sintel or big buck bunny sources, similarly using some blu-rays i have also resulted in encodes i couldn't tell the difference between.

happy fourth, btw, is it legal for me to take the 5th on the 4th? let me know your thoughts.

[poisondeathray]

when you think about it with 1080p and 50fps 12mb/s isn't all that much bit rate, it would be like using 6mb/s for a 1080p25 source.

It's not true because we don't use intra only. Temporal compression is used . You know this already. Neighboring frames have similarities that can be used. Only if it was pure random noise , or pure random frames with different movies /content each frame, would 1080p50 require exactly 2x the bitrate as 1080p25 for the same level of "quality"

But that divx speed seems to be quite a bit faster doesn't it ? That's good news that it's not all hype. I hate it when marketing says "up to XX increase in speed" or whatever. "up to" is meaningless and marketing speak. At least we're moving in the right direction . I haven't tested it recently or with the new release

If you have time, it would be good to throw in one of the slower x265 encodes (and report the speed), just for quality comparisons. I think they have should have some speed optimizations coming up in the roadmap

I'll have a look more closely this weekend

Thanks for the comparison and happy 4th <= no fireworks smiley, closest I could find without "outsourcing" smileys

[deadrats]

But that divx speed seems to be quite a bit faster doesn't it ?

it's shocking just how much faster it is, it's actually fast enough that with an older generation quad core you can actually achieve acceptable encode times with HD content.

and you can't chalk this up to avx2 because my ivy Bridge doesn't support that instruction set, i can only imagine what one of those new upcoming Haswell-E octocores will be able to do.

i don't know what the x265 guys are thinking but they better do something because they are being made to look like chumps.

[poisondeathray]

But I heard some claims that the divx release took a drop in quality as a trade off for that speed. I hate rumours , I'm more of an evidence based guy. ie. "Show me the proof" . I'll take a closer look and report back

[deadrats]

i've been using the divx cli encoder since it was first released, i have not seen any drop at all.

now is it true if you bit rate starve your encode, like trying to use 5mb/s for the park joy source, that you will get poor quality? yes. but the same holds true for x265 and x264, the only difference being that with the latter two they have that deblocking filter that can mask some of the artifacts but you lose a ton of detail, so pick your poison.

honestly, everyone should just download the latest Hybrid build and see for themselves.

ok, here's the sintel encodes using the 720p24 y4m sintel trailer, the divx fastest encode was done at 65fps, the divx higher quality encode was done at 20fps, the x265 ultra fast encode was at 22fps, the x264 ultra fast encode was a blistering 330fps and the x264 slow encode was done at 24fps.

[vhelp]

honestly, everyone should just download the latest Hybrid build and see for themselves.

xp users are out of this.

Version history / Release notes / Changelog: 
DivX265 version 1.3.74
What's new:

Faster encoding, up to 3 times faster (balanced mode)
64 bit and 32 bit version
New options wrt signalling colorspace properties: -709, --colour-primaries, --transfer-characteristics, --matrix-coefficients
Note that this requires the VC 2013 runtime .
It is recommended to use the 32 bit version with AviSynth.

Known issues:

XP is not supported

[deadrats]

more test encodes

[deadrats]

people are still using XP? really? it's a 13 year old OS, my God, would you use a 13 year old linux distro?

why would someone stick with no DX10/11, no AVX/AVX2, older thread scheduler, poorer power management, more security issues, it makes no sense to me.

[El Heggunte]

people are still using XP? really? it's a 13 year old OS, my God, would you use a 13 year old linux distro?

Well, the days of "Linux is friendly to legacy hardware" happened "some time before 2005", I'm afraid.

why would someone stick with no DX10/11, no AVX/AVX2, older thread scheduler, poorer power management, more security issues, it makes no sense to me.

Because XP is more friendly to the old-school people like me. In Windows 7, the folder icons of Windows Explorer suck. The built-in search sucks. It's impossible to disable completely the Task Scheduler service, at least in the Ultimate version. The new look of the Control Panel sucks. The infamous TrustedInstaller makes the Registry even more fragile than it already was. There is no difference between "exploring" and "opening" a folder anymore. Too often you have to right-click and choose "Run as administrator". And yes, that animated intro before the logon prompt is incredibly gay

[hello_hello]

ok, here's the sintel encodes using the 720p24 y4m sintel trailer, the divx fastest encode was done at 65fps, the divx higher quality encode was done at 20fps, the x265 ultra fast encode was at 22fps, the x264 ultra fast encode was a blistering 330fps and the x264 slow encode was done at 24fps.

At least you appear to have developed some sort of realistic appreciation for encoding speed. It seems like only yesterday someone posted they were encoding at 75fps using x264 ultrafast and you claimed they were "full of it".
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/365014-x264-vs-x265?p=2327362&viewfull=1#post2327362

people are still using XP? really? it's a 13 year old OS, my God, would you use a 13 year old linux distro?

why would someone stick with no DX10/11, no AVX/AVX2, older thread scheduler, poorer power management, more security issues, it makes no sense to me.

XP SP3 was released in 2008. As far as I'm concerned it was basically a new version of Windows. Remember all the software which suddenly required SP3 be installed? That makes XP SP3 six years old.

I've experienced less security issues than I have with newer versions of Windows and the only time I use a newer version of Windows is if I'm on someone else's computer. I've never had an infection running XP. Almost every time I use Win7 I have to tell it software has permission to do something, or I have to go out of my way to run something as administrator etc.

I've been using computers for too long and I'm getting too old to care about updating just for the sake of it. If I upgraded this PC to Win7 it'd be a lot of hassle and best case scenario would be everything continues to work as it has been. Mind you the time for running a new version of Windows has finally arrived. I've set tomorrow as the date for purchasing a new MB and 4790k CPU. No XP drivers there. And it's finally started to happen.... newer versions of software isn't always XP friendly these days. So Win7 or Win8..... I still haven't decided which one I'll hate the least.

[Lynx_TWO]

Wait, so you are not using Windows 8, and your excuse to use XP over even Windows 7 is "the interface sucks"??? You, sir, are incredibly outdated. Upgrade, or die. Unless you are over 55 years old, and no longer enjoy cognitive plasticity, either way, let us know when your system gets completely hacked apart. I'm sure you are already part of a botnet, but someone with your attitude to software wouldn't even know it... SMH

[hello_hello]

Lynx_TWO, did you read my whole post? ie the part where I said I'll be buying the components to build a new computer tomorrow and it'll be running either Win7 or Win8, or does your need to question my ability to run a newer version of Windows result from your inability to understand something else?

It's not rocket science. This PC is getting old. It's a dual core. It's days of CPU intensive work (ie video encoding) are pretty much over. It really doesn't matter if the latest version of Handbrake won't run on it. It doesn't matter if h265 encoders won't run on it. All the software I'm going to want to keep using will run on XP. You doing your best Chicken Little impersonation won't change that.
My other PC is a similarly old quadcore. It runs XP. If I continue to want to use it for running software which no longer runs on XP I'll probably upgrade Windows at some stage as there'll be an advantage to doing so, but I'll be building a new PC and solving all the problems/annoyances which come with running a newer version of Windows first. What do you do, stick an upgrade disc in your DVD drive and hope for the best?

I'll confess your prediction that I'll end up "completely hacked" or I'm part of a botnet amused me no end. Upgrade or die? I mean seriously, are you 14 years old? Upgrade or die?? How old are you exactly??

[Atak_Snajpera]

hello_hello
Instal windows 7 or wait for windows 9. Windows 8 looks like downgraded win7. (No aero glass, start menu removed, stupid tiles for half blind people, official support for desktop gadget removed, no classic windows 2000 theme)

[hello_hello]

hello_hello
Instal windows 7 or wait for windows 9.

When it comes to building a new PC I think it'll have to be a case of "install windows 7 and wait for windows 9".
It appears there's no XP drivers for the new Intel chipset.

Windows 8 looks like downgraded win7. (No aero glass, start menu removed, stupid tiles for half blind people, official support for desktop gadget removed, no classic windows 2000 theme)

I can't say I've ever been a fan of Aero, but I think I'll go with Win7. And when Win9 is released I'll move Win7 over to one of the old PCs to replace XP.

I was reading this the other day and found it interesting.
http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-x-usage-declines-7000031181
It seems since XP support has ended it's usage has dropped by a percent or so (obviously the world isn't running scared from XP), but it's Win7 usage which is increasing. I've barely seen a Win8 PC so I hope the rest of the world isn't wrong.....

[racer-x]

True this latest Divx265 encoder is faster @ -aqo 3. True also that given enough bitrate, Divx265 encoder compares well with x265 encoder.

However HEVC only makes sense to use in place of AVC when very low bitrates are desired. In my testing of a short intro clip (1920x1080 @ 1200 kbps), Divx265 had poor quality when compared to x265. Divx265 @ -aqo 3. x265 @ medium. The Divx265 encoder was almost twice as fast as the x265 encoder at those settings on my Q9300.

[deadrats]

hello_hello
Instal windows 7 or wait for windows 9. Windows 8 looks like downgraded win7. (No aero glass, start menu removed, stupid tiles for half blind people, official support for desktop gadget removed, no classic windows 2000 theme)

my only issue with Win 9, and admittedly it's all based on rumors and speculation, is that supposedly it will be a very "cloudy" OS, i.e. it will always be cloud connected and while some may say "so what, you're pc is always connected to the internet?" that different from being connected to microsoft's cloud infrastructure.

even worse are all the rumors that Win 9 may be a subscription model OS, much like microsoft did with office 365, there is no way that i can possibly bring myself to paying a monthly fee for using an OS, i just won't do it.

[deadrats]

However HEVC only makes sense to use in place of AVC when very low bitrates are desired. In my testing of a short intro clip (1920x1080 @ 1200 kbps), Divx265 had poor quality when compared to x265. Divx265 @ -aqo 3. x265 @ medium. The Divx265 encoder was almost twice as fast as the x265 encoder at those settings on my Q9300.

1200kps for 1080p?!? of course divx265 had poor quality compared to x265, it would have poor quality compared to x264.

both x265 and x264 have deblocking filters, in the case of x265 a more advanced deblocking filter that work to mask artifacts so that the video becomes watchable but it loses loads of detail in the process, divx has no deblocking filter. for a fairer test rerun your encodes but disable the deblocking filter in x264 and x265 and then see which one did the better job at 1200kps for 1080p

in all honesty though that's a ridiculous bit rate to use for 1080p, as far as i'm concerned, if i was preparing content to be sold over the net i would use a minimum of 12mbs for 1080p and 8mbs for 720p.

[deadrats]

Because XP is more friendly to the old-school people like me. In Windows 7, the folder icons of Windows Explorer suck. The built-in search sucks. It's impossible to disable completely the Task Scheduler service, at least in the Ultimate version. The new look of the Control Panel sucks. The infamous TrustedInstaller makes the Registry even more fragile than it already was. There is no difference between "exploring" and "opening" a folder anymore. Too often you have to right-click and choose "Run as administrator". And yes, that animated intro before the logon prompt is incredibly gay

more "friendly"? what does it do, give you a reach around after it fox you? the right click and "run as admin" is meant to prevent apps from gaining root privileges even if the use is logged in as root, it's from the *nix world and one of the highly doubted security features of Unix, UNIX and Linux.

that last sentence btw, ROTFLMAO!!! it reminds of of South Park.

the reality is however that XP doesn't support new instruction sets or new features, if you want AVX you need Win 7, if you want AVX2 you need Win 7 SP1, if you want Intel's QSV you need Win 7 (it doesn't work on Vista all that well).

in a couple of years Intel is rumored to be coming out with 512bit SIMD Int and FP and you can be sure that won't be supported by Win 7, maybe not even Win 8.

of course you can always switch over to Red Hat or Novell or Ubuntu or maybe Vector but at some point you're not going to have a choice but leave XP were it belongs...in the past.

[El Heggunte]

For the umpteenth time, I am well-aware of all the limitations inherent to Windows XP. And I do have a Vista-64 laptop and a third-hand machine running 32-bit Windows 7. But I don't like them, period. Also,

1) improvements in the operating system...

are OK, but

2) fäggøtize the user-interface...

is not OK. However the M$ marketing team has managed to convince most people that there is no difference between 1) and 2)

Quite unfortunate indeed.

[poisondeathray]

hahahaha deadrats hijacking his own thread

hint: "x264 vs. DivX265" is the topic

[poisondeathray]

So it's a step in the right direction speed wise, but quality still isn't there. Any HEVC implementation has to offer substantially better compression in order to overcome the shortcomings in terms of reduced compatibility. They need to get better, and encode faster . Still lots of work to be done

In addition to the extreme low bitrate scenario, and smooth animated content, the other situation where HEVC is appropriate for is 4K resolutions. AVC can't compete there

[El Heggunte]

^
^ Blame vhelp --- who refuses to upgrade his XP to Service Pack 3

[racer-x]

I know there is at least one cat lover around here. This Tiger is a cropped and downsized 4k clip to 1080p. The Divx265 encoded twice as fast, but I think the x265 one is slightly sharper to my eyes anyway. Both had similar settings:

[poisondeathray]

3.03MB vs. 2.68MB means 13% more bitrate. That's a significant difference

[racer-x]

It's pretty hard to get the bitrate exact. I used (-qp 25 -aqo 3) on the Divx265 encoder and (--crf 24 --preset medium) on the x265 encoder.

I really hate the results I get when using bitrate mode.

[poisondeathray]

Yeah it sucks, but that's what people do, a series of tests with decimal incremental quantizers... otherwise the testing is invalid . 1-2% difference might be acceptable but >10% definitely isn't

[easyfab]

with x265 you can try --crf 24.2 ou 24.3

[Gravitator]

@racer-x,
It would be interesting to see tests in original 4k, because HEVC directed to this side.
And do not hesitate to share the original file

[racer-x]

@racer-x,
It would be interesting to see tests in original 4k, because HEVC directed to this side.
And do not hesitate to share the original file

I don't like to encode 4k HEVC because my computer doesn't have enough balls to play it at full resolution. You can encode it at the full 4k if you'd like. I downloaded it from Youtube, here is the Tiger Trim source file:

[vhelp]

Blame vhelp --- who refuses to upgrade his XP to Service Pack 3

actually, i am running on sp3 since over month ago, i think. remember my issue w/ that DSL, DNS, wifi network nonsense ? all my issues relate to sp3, only this time, i did not uninstall it. but my pc is much slower because of it. i am just dealing with it. but for what its worth i do have:

laptop: Dell Inspiron 15R, os: win7 home prem 64bit, i3-2370M dual-core 2.4Ghz 3mb cache, 6g ram, 750g hdd, Intel HD graphics, 15.6" display, purchased 2012-09-22.

i don't use it for for the reasons el_heggunte mentioned in post # 9 and some of hello_hello in post # 10. i only use the laptop for testing capture equipment since some devices won't work in xp. therefore, it is just a testing bench for simple things that don't require me to suffer all the points mentioned in post # 9. if there was a way to turn w7 into xp, then i might consider working with it more. but seriuosly, xp is all i use, frustration-free and quite efficiently enough, ty.