![]() ![]() ![]() Tskip and SAO are also enabled on Tigerlake which I can't disable. On Iris Xe it automatically uses ctu 64 (Gen 9 ctu 32), this can't be changed at the moment. Furthermore ICQ does not really scale over 5 bframes (16 bframes can be worse than 5 at low bitrate) whereas CQP scales really good beyond 5 bframes even at low bitrate. It is the most direct way to access codec capabilities and measure the effects of encoder parameter/algorithm trade-offs and also is the clearest way to evaluate against other codec algorithm implementations.įor a basic user ICQ is easier to handle, there is just one global setting and that's it. CQP operates most closely to reference implementations. CQP often has significant performance advantages as well. ![]() Without question, the best coding efficiency with Intel codecs can be obtained via CQP plus custom content analysis. That said, the H265 CQP results from Turing are really good for a hardware encoder, something like x265 fast-faster with extremely fast encoding times, the CQP quality from Iris Xe is just insane.Ĭonstant QP (CQP) provides the most control and best performance. It might look different with CBR vs CBR which I haven't tried. ![]() Turing has two downsides, only 5 bframes versus 16 bframes on Iris Xe and there is no GPU equivalent mode which is more flexible than a fully fixed function solution, however even the FF mode from Iris Xe looks better. Turing CQP cannot reach Iris Xe CQP quality, subjective and objective the difference is large. I7-1165G7 CRF slower 75.37 81 fps 200 Kbitĭisabled b-adapt is better for this video. Iris Xe CQP balanced 87.18 280 fps 201 Kbit Iris Xe CQP FF speed 76.25 1550 fps 200 Kbit Iris Xe CQP FF balanced 85.66 850 fps 201 Kbit Iris Xe CQP FF best 86.56 550 fps 199 kbit HERO - Blender Open Movie VMAF speed bitrate ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |