Comparison of H.265 and H.264 standards
Comparison of H.265 and H.264 standards
IIRC YouTube doesn't use Flash anymore. It uses VC-1 iirc and HTML5. And it runs like crap! At least on Google Chrome, can't talk about other browsers though.
I understand, but I still prefer it more, even though encoding requires more power. WebM files are roughly 256 MB for about 5 minutes at 1600 x 900 with 24 fps. (SSR Simple Screen Recorder)
Since bandwidth expenses money, they ignore your CPU usage or battery life.
The issue isn't related to the browser itself; it's about third-party streaming services. Most platforms use Flash for playback, acting as a wrapper around the player. This approach remains unchanged regardless of the content type. Even advertisements depend heavily on Flash, which explains why we're still using it despite alternatives.
The problem lies in how browsers handle Flash. Chrome, for instance, has its own built-in Flash decoder, while other browsers use plugins like plugin-container.exe. This inconsistency means that if you switch browsers, the player might change completely.
Flash isn't just a relic—it's deeply embedded in media playback. HTML5 offers many advantages, but adapting to it isn't straightforward. It's not something I'm comfortable with as a content creator or developer. The reality is that HTML5 has many features, but it hasn't simplified things enough for widespread adoption.
Searching for recent insights still reveals outdated information, with results from over five years ago. The challenge remains until major companies invest more in Flash support or hardware, making it more accessible.
The core issue is market decisions. Once large companies commit resources to better implementations, adoption will accelerate. The real hurdle is licensing costs and the technical requirements of various codecs—like H.264, VP9, AAC, or others.
Codecs such as XVID, MP3, OGG, and AAC are essential, but they all have licensing complexities. XVID sits in a gray area similar to DivX, which had its own platform before being acquired by YouTube. When YouTube pulled support for DivX, it went bankrupt.
The situation has evolved, but it still hinges on which companies prioritize future-proofing their platforms. The key factor is storage efficiency and infrastructure improvements, not just device power. This affects everyone, not just users on specific devices.
Please let me know if you'd like to clarify any point.
You didn't analyze the same file twice, which means your comparison isn't valid. If you want to evaluate differences between two codecs, use identical samples. H265 requires more processing power now because most devices don’t support it natively, and GPU decoders typically only handle H264 or older formats. This usually led to higher CPU usage during playback. H265 is similar to H264 a few years back; it once took much longer than MPEG4, but with current hardware and software support, H264 is nearly as quick. Likewise, H265 will eventually match or surpass H264 in speed once it’s widely adopted. I plan to install Handbrake and perform some encoding tests to verify the results. Keep in mind that H265’s main benefit isn’t speed—it’s better compression, resulting in files about half the size of H264 for equivalent quality. This is what matters most. When comparing similar settings, H264 usually outperforms H265, but as compression increases, H265 maintains quality while reducing size further.
Caution: Large images detected! You were warned. The same video was used consistently—your original file is a 1-minute 36-second recording of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 at 1920x1080p, encoded in H264 with a CQ of 16 using the fast preset. It’s 75.5MB, with flawless quality and no artifacts.
The first test used 1920x1080p at CQ 20 with medium preset for both codecs. File size: 52.6MB for H264, 53.4MB for H265. Quality matched perfectly, no visible loss.
The second test ran at the same resolution with CQ 20 and medium preset for both. Sizes: 52.6MB (H264) vs 53.4MB (H265). H264 was slightly smaller, but quality was nearly identical. H264 led by a tiny margin due to marginally better compression.
The third comparison was at 1920x1080p with CQ 30 and medium preset. Sizes: 26.5MB (H264) vs 24.9MB (H265). H265 offered better quality, but details faded in both, with noticeable artifacts. It still outperformed H264 slightly, though not enough to change my mind.
In summary: H264 remains the stronger choice in most scenarios, while H265 shines in compression efficiency. Keep an eye on future updates—H265 may improve, but right now it’s not quite ready to replace H264.