x265 does make sense for 4K or 8K, simply because of the size of the files, and the amount of pixels in 4K and 8K to process on a pipe, compressing/decompressing is more efficient

 

GPUs are great for decompressing all of it in parallel, and technically high end GPUs could eat all that data raw uncompressed and not even blink ????

19 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

the encoding/decoding can be performed by both the CPUs and the GPUs, depending on the software you run

 

the real bottleneck is to display all those tiny little pixels at a very high speed on a very large surface, that takes addressing power, more than decoding/encoding some smallres files in x265 (assuming 1080p is smallres these days)

Ok never had those problems but I always use powerful VGA cards. So that might be the reason.

20 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

again why would you bother with HVEC on 1080p? it's not like it will make a difference when needed to save space on your HDD, while on 4K or 8K, you would have a better case

 

let's do x265 on 720p while we are at it, just for the beauty of it, and why not 480p ????

 

save energy, and boycott x265 if you are watching 1080p and below on your laptop or small screen ????

 

 

Did you see me advocating the use of H.265? So why ask me? Did I make a case for it? So why write about me "having a better case"?

The OP asked if the RAM was his problem and the answer is no, it's the CPU.

 

But you chose to argue. You were wrong; the matter is concluded.

 

I have no idea what you are going on about when you state that you won't save space on storage. Of course you would for the same quality.

 

19 hours ago, Eindhoven said:

 

Did you see me advocating the use of H.265? So why ask me? Did I make a case for it? So why write about me "having a better case"?

The OP asked if the RAM was his problem and the answer is no, it's the CPU.

 

But you chose to argue. You were wrong; the matter is concluded.

 

I have no idea what you are going on about when you state that you won't save space on storage. Of course you would for the same quality.

 

 

That is a difference worth trying an other compression format. 

 

 Just in case you had not gotten it the format that is almost twice as much is the one comonly used. I normally did not even consider downloading in this format. Now it just might because a 50% difference in room on a hd is a lot.

17 hours ago, robblok said:

 Just in case you had not gotten it the format that is almost twice as much is the one comonly used. I normally did not even consider downloading in this format. Now it just might because a 50% difference in room on a hd is a lot.

Not to mention quicker download times.

 

 

 I need to see if my NVIDIA shield TV processes it good too. As all my movies go to my NAS so they can be watched everywhere in the house on TV's ect.

 

 

17 hours ago, rcuthbert said:

Not to mention quicker download times.

Most of my downloads go automatic at nigh. I got sickrage on my NAS it will download the series I want totally automatic without me doing a thing (ok at one time i select a series and then every time it checks if there are new episodes). I usually download from newsgroups at blazing speeds. So its not an issue. I got the best fiber internet combined with newsgroups i get downloads over half a Gbps. So that is fast enough.

 

But need to check if my fire tv and shield tv display it good. I have no worries about my PC's

Here’s a quick rundown of well-known hardware that includes dedicated HEVC decoding blocks, which definitely support efficient HEVC playback:

• Intel 6th-generation ‘Skylake’ Core processors or newer
• AMD 6th-generation ‘Carizzo’ APUs or newer
• AMD ‘Fiji’ GPUs (Radeon R9 Fury/Fury X/Nano) or newer
• Nvidia GM206 GPUs (GeForce GTX 960/950) or newer
• Other Nvidia GeForce GTX 900 series GPUs have partial HEVC hardware decoding support
• Qualcomm Snapdragon 805/615/410/208 SoCs or newer. Support ranges from 720p decoding on low-end parts to 4K playback on high-end parts.
• Nvidia Tegra X1 SoCs or newer
• Samsung Exynos 5 Octa 5430 SoCs or newer
• Apple A8 SoCs or newer
• Some MediaTek SoCs from mid-2014 onwards

As you can see, most desktop hardware released in 2015, and most mobile hardware from late 2014 onwards, supports dedicated HEVC playback. Hardware designers have been more focused on getting HEVC decoding blocks into mobile hardware first, as the CPUs in these products typically aren’t fast enough for software decoding. Support in desktop hardware has been marginally slower as most desktop-class parts are powerful enough to decode HEVC without dedicated decoding blocks.

 

https://www.techspot.com/article/1131-hevc-h256-enconding-playback/

 

 

3 hours ago, robblok said:

Most of my downloads go automatic at nigh. I got sickrage on my NAS it will download the series I want totally automatic without me doing a thing (ok at one time i select a series and then every time it checks if there are new episodes). I usually download from newsgroups at blazing speeds. So its not an issue. I got the best fiber internet combined with newsgroups i get downloads over half a Gbps. So that is fast enough.

 

But need to check if my fire tv and shield tv display it good. I have no worries about my PC's

Thanks for the "sickrage" tip.

Yeah, newsgroups are a good source. It has been quite a while since I used them

Cheers.

4 minutes ago, rcuthbert said:

Thanks for the "sickrage" tip.

Yeah, newsgroups are a good source. It has been quite a while since I used them

Cheers.

There are a number of sickrage like programs. They usually are installed on NAS drives or on computers that are on all day. They do all the file processing themselves it works quite well. 

19 hours ago, Eindhoven said:

 

Did you see me advocating the use of H.265? So why ask me? Did I make a case for it? So why write about me "having a better case"?

The OP asked if the RAM was his problem and the answer is no, it's the CPU.

 

I have no idea what you are going on about when you state that you won't save space on storage. Of course you would for the same quality.

 

you are welcome to move on with the x265 non-sense about CPU for small res files. That's the whole point of x265 in case you didn't get it, it's to process large resolution production.

 

so there is no big CPU need to decode 1080p in x265, period. The OP doesn't have a RAM or CPU issue, what's so hard to understand? is that because you only think PCs are made of RAM and CPUs and nothing else matters?

5 hours ago, robblok said:

 

Anyway I need to see if my NVIDIA shield TV processes it good too. As all my movies go to my NAS so they can be watched everywhere in the house on TV's ect.

 

is your NAS connect to a WIFI router? when streaming those movies, that might also an impact on the performance since the decompressing will be done before it's streamed to the TV, unless you have a VLC native player in the TV or something like it

1 hour ago, Eindhoven said:

Here’s a quick rundown of well-known hardware that includes dedicated HEVC decoding blocks, which definitely support efficient HEVC playback:

• Intel 6th-generation ‘Skylake’ Core processors or newer
• AMD 6th-generation ‘Carizzo’ APUs or newer
• AMD ‘Fiji’ GPUs (Radeon R9 Fury/Fury X/Nano) or newer
• Nvidia GM206 GPUs (GeForce GTX 960/950) or newer
• Other Nvidia GeForce GTX 900 series GPUs have partial HEVC hardware decoding support
• Qualcomm Snapdragon 805/615/410/208 SoCs or newer. Support ranges from 720p decoding on low-end parts to 4K playback on high-end parts.
• Nvidia Tegra X1 SoCs or newer
• Samsung Exynos 5 Octa 5430 SoCs or newer
• Apple A8 SoCs or newer
• Some MediaTek SoCs from mid-2014 onwards

As you can see, most desktop hardware released in 2015, and most mobile hardware from late 2014 onwards, supports dedicated HEVC playback. Hardware designers have been more focused on getting HEVC decoding blocks into mobile hardware first, as the CPUs in these products typically aren’t fast enough for software decoding. Support in desktop hardware has been marginally slower as most desktop-class parts are powerful enough to decode HEVC without dedicated decoding blocks.

 

https://www.techspot.com/article/1131-hevc-h256-enconding-playback/

 

 

so now you are confirming what I have been telling you from the start, you are listing mostly GPUs above, and most older desktop PCs with older CPUs are powerful enough to decode HEVC

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

is your NAS connect to a WIFI router? when streaming those movies, that might also an impact on the performance since the decompressing will be done before it's streamed to the TV, unless you have a VLC native player in the TV or something like it

NAS connect to the router with a cat 6 cable. The NAS has gigabit connection. Is a qnap 653B. It has reasonable processing power and memory. I think i doubled the internal memory. 

https://www.qnap.com/en/product/ts-653b/specs/hardware

 

I use plex mediaserver for the connection. Too bad the connection from my TV https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/  (not the pro version). But the connection from the shield to the media server is WIFI. 

 

 

I had seen the compression format before (its not that widely used). But most of my shows i download episode by episode (sickrage does it). Not sure if i can set sickrage to only select that compression. Its not as common yet. But yes it saves a lot of space as movies are getting bigger and bigger especially if you get some 4k stuff. (by default i don't often go to 4k) because of the size. (i can tell sickrage what formats but not what encoding).

 

But for my manual movie download i would certainly consider this format more often if i see it.

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

NAS connect to the router with a cat 6 cable. The NAS has gigabit connection. Is a qnap 653B. It has reasonable processing power and memory. I think i doubled the internal memory. 

https://www.qnap.com/en/product/ts-653b/specs/hardware

 

I use plex mediaserver for the connection. Too bad the connection from my TV https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/  (not the pro version). But the connection from the shield to the media server is WIFI. 

 

 

I would use a Synology, they have video server you can stream to your TV with a Chromecast, and you can choose your "Decoding" player like VLC that plugin into the Chromecast, hence streaming in compress format

 

I used to run with Plex, but hate it now. They make it so complex, and heavy, and it's quite buggy, with constant updates and upgrades that breaks. Developers are on a Mac, so they are loons obsessed with new updates ????

Various posts have been removed and edited because of ongoing bickering and flaming comments.

 

Feel free to discuss the topic, but cease with the derogatory comments aimed at fellow forum members.

 

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

I had seen the compression format before (its not that widely used). But most of my shows i download episode by episode (sickrage does it). Not sure if i can set sickrage to only select that compression. Its not as common yet. But yes it saves a lot of space as movies are getting bigger and bigger especially if you get some 4k stuff. (by default i don't often go to 4k) because of the size. (i can tell sickrage what formats but not what encoding).

 

But for my manual movie download i would certainly consider this format more often if i see it.

keep in mind that some SmartTV and other devices to play movies files will not run on x265, some streaming app will not run x265

 

but no problem with x264,

3 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

I would use a Synology, they have video server you can stream to your TV with a Chromecast, and you can choose your "Decoding" player like VLC that plugin into the Chromecast, hence streaming in compress format

 

I used to run with Plex, but hate it now. They make it so complex, and heavy, and it's quite buggy, with constant updates and upgrades that breaks. Developers are on a Mac, so they are loons obsessed with new updates ????

These NAS drives are not cheap. The one i have is about 30k (without drives) so I won't be switching over anytime soon. I used to hear that QNAP is better then Synology. But I think with my NVIDIA shield (one of the most powerful streaming devices) it should be ok. But I havent used this file format often as it is still quite rare.

 

To be honest never had a problem with plex, though your right about the updates. I don't update all the time. Because I have no errors with it. 

2 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

keep in mind that some SmartTV and other devices to play movies files will not run on x265, some streaming app will not run x265

 

but no problem with x264,

Just read up on my shield streaming device. It will run x265 (most of them anyway). 

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Just read up on my shield streaming device. It will run x265 (most of them anyway). 

high end devices will usually do, low-end devices, or older devices, not going to happen, despite x265 being over 10 years old, it has not been adopted as much as x264, a lot of stability issues in the early days of x265

50 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

so now you are confirming what I have been telling you from the start, you are listing mostly GPUs above, and most older desktop PCs with older CPUs are powerful enough to decode HEVC

 

 

Nope. You simply don't understand what you are reading. It's not mostly GPU you can see. You haven't explained to the OP quite why he is having issues. In fact you have not even asked what CPU is installed and with which files he is having an issue.

2015 onwards does not cover ""most Desktop PCs". Is the OP's setup from 2015 onwards? Have you asked?

Your arguments appear to be straw clutching and jumping to incorrect conclusions.

 

You have totally ignored the space saving argument and now are jumping on to GPU as if it bolsters your argument. It doesn't.

 

The OP claimed that there was a CPU issue for decoding x265 files in 1080p. The small file size for 1080p is not going to impact CPU speed.

 

if you want to download x265 to save disk space, fine, but that's not because there are CPU issues

 

19 minutes ago, Eindhoven said:

 

 

Nope. You simply don't understand what you are reading. It's not mostly GPU you can see. You haven't explained to the OP quite why he is having issues. In fact you have not even asked what CPU is installed and with which files he is having an issue.

2015 onwards does not cover ""most Desktop PCs". Is the OP's setup from 2015 onwards? Have you asked?

Your arguments appear to be straw clutching and jumping to incorrect conclusions.

 

You have totally ignored the space saving argument and now are jumping on to GPU as if it bolsters your argument. It doesn't.

 

 

the OP asked regarding rendering speed being slow in x265 for 1080p, and if RAM or CPU was involved. The answer is neither. Small file size for download was irrelevant at that stage, that was not the question, and doesn't not impact the speed of rendering of 1080p in x265 encoded files.

21 minutes ago, robblok said:

I had seen the compression format before (its not that widely used). But most of my shows i download episode by episode (sickrage does it). Not sure if i can set sickrage to only select that compression. Its not as common yet. But yes it saves a lot of space as movies are getting bigger and bigger especially if you get some 4k stuff. (by default i don't often go to 4k) because of the size. (i can tell sickrage what formats but not what encoding).

 

But for my manual movie download i would certainly consider this format more often if i see it.

 

H.265 is very common. I'm not sure why you think it is not. I often spend time filtering out H.265/H.264 in MKV container, as I can stream H.264 in an MP4 container directly via my TV without the need to transcode.

 

18 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

The OP claimed that there was a CPU issue for decoding x265 files in 1080p. The small file size for 1080p is not going to impact CPU speed.

 

if you want to download x265 to save disk space, fine, but that's not because there are CPU issues

 

 

The files size has nothing to do with it.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Eindhoven said:

You have totally ignored the space saving argument and now are jumping on to GPU as if it bolsters your argument. It doesn't.

 

 

The space saving argument was never in play for the question of CPU speed for rendering 1080p files encoded x265

 

I really don't see what's so hard to understand that CPU is not the issue, as I originally stated.

 

if file size matters, that's another question.

Just now, Eindhoven said:

 

H.265 is very common. I'm not sure why you think it is not. I often spend time filtering out H.265/H.264 in MKV container, as I can stream H.264 in an MP4 container directly via my TV without the need to transcode.

 

Not common where i download my stuff the newsgroups. Maybe more common on torrents. The times i see it on the message boards is limited. Also the groups im subscribed too the members don't seem to like it. So not common where i source my downloads from might be a better reply. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Eindhoven said:

 

The files size has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

for the OP, yes it was the question of "rendering" speed, hence why the file size argument for x265 is not relevant here

 

so back to the OP running 1080p in x265 encoding does not require a lot of CPU,