Playing 1080p x25 files with 3g of RAM

[GrandPapillon]

6 minutes ago, 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.

 

it's not that common on SmartTV and TV streaming device, since x265 makes more sense for 4K, most of those TV devices do not have the "CPU power" to run 4K files, hence why manufacturers don't carry x265 that much

[GrandPapillon]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

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. 

 

 

everyone hates it because most TV devices, medium range, do not support x265

 

not everyone watch movies on a PC or a gaming machine

[Eindhoven]

16 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

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.

 

Dear GP

 

You seem to that that it is the size of the file that plays a part. It isn't, it is the ability to hardware decode the file.

 

Allow me to demonstrate: https://jell.yfish.us

 

You will note that the HEVC files begin from a mere 11 MB. 

 

Check out johng's quote:

 

Quote

My  9 year old AMD Athlon II X4 640 3GHZ  cpu  struggles to play  the jellyfish-10-mbps-hd-hevc-10bit.mkv

all 4 cores at 100 percent  and lots of dropped frames

but plays the  jellyfish-5-mbps-hd-hevc.mkv  OK   24 gigs ram so that's not the problem.

 

He can play the 18 MB file but not the 36 MB files and he has 24 GB of RAM.

 

That is a CPU issue.

 

Is 36 MB a huge file in your view?

 

Check out fdsa's comment:

Quote

I think the problem is not an amount of RAM, more likely your CPU is too old.

x265 is a hardware encoding that requires a modern CPU (Intel generation 6+, year 2015+) to play efficiently.

There are software x265 players but I haven't tested them and don't know their performance.

 

 

So what is your argument exactly?

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by onthedarkside
personal comment removed

[GrandPapillon]

first, maybe you should stop confusing MB with GB ????

 

now are you also confusing bitrate with storage rate? because that seems to be the source of confusion here

 

bitrate and storage rates are not the same thing, and a lot of people confuse the two

 

I am talking storage rates for the small files,

[onthedarkside]

A temporary lock of this thread to allow its cleanup and related issues has been removed. The thread is open to posting again for on-topic and non-flaming/non-personal comments.

[KannikaP]

On 4/2/2021 at 6:41 PM, Daffy D said:

For some reason Windows Media Player does not come with the Codecs needed to play certain files

Didn't Windows Media Player go out with W7?  Is it not Films & TV app now, or better still VLC.

[Bruno123]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

it's not that common on SmartTV and TV streaming device, since x265 makes more sense for 4K, most of those TV devices do not have the "CPU power" to run 4K files, hence why manufacturers don't carry x265 that much

 

What? You just made that up.

[Bruno123]

  

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

first, maybe you should stop confusing MB with GB ????

 

now are you also confusing bitrate with storage rate? because that seems to be the source of confusion here

 

bitrate and storage rates are not the same thing, and a lot of people confuse the two

 

I am talking storage rates for the small files,

 

Where did they do that? 

 

I see an 18 MB file size. I see a 36 MB file size and I read the tester has 24 GB of RAM.

 

Bit rates are shown as 5 Mbps & 10 Mbps.

 

They were able to play the 18 MB(file size) 5 Mbps(bit rate); but not the 36 MB(file size) 10 Mbps(bit rate), because of their nine year old CPU.

Clearly nothing to do with RAM if they have 24 GB on-board and clearly nothing to do with the size of the file since they are only 18 MB & 36 MB respectively.

 

Did you mean something other than what you wrote? Not quite understanding what you are suggesting to be honest. Can you clarify?

It looks like a CPU issue to me. What makes you think otherwise?

[Bruno123]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

 

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,

 

 

I have gone through the thread and see no reference to 'rendering speed'. Can you show from whence you found that mentioned?

 

"Running 1080p in x265 encoding does not require a lot of CPU". Apologies but I had to stifle laughter before replying.

 

 

Ok....it's not about the resolution, but the bit rate.

 

Taken from the links provided in this thread...

 

This is 1080p HEVC: https://jell.yfish.us/media/jellyfish-3-mbps-hd-hevc.mkv at 11 MB

 

and this is 1080p HEVC: https://jell.yfish.us/media/jellyfish-110-mbps-hd-hevc.mkv File size 401 MB

 

Same 30 second runtime but completely different files sizes. It's not about the resolution.

 

 

[Daffy D]

1 hour ago, KannikaP said:

Didn't Windows Media Player go out with W7?  Is it not Films & TV app now, or better still VLC.

Although I have never used it Windows Media Player is in the Windows Accessories folder

in Win10.

 

 

 

[rcuthbert]

2 hours ago, KannikaP said:

Didn't Windows Media Player go out with W7?  Is it not Films & TV app now, or better still VLC.

MPC-BE is a good choice. It plays HEVC(X265),  MKV, X264, and  many others..