[FFmpeg-user] libx265 a lot slower

Cecil Westerhof Cecil at decebal.nl
Sun Aug 16 20:02:34 EEST 2020

Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> writes:

> Am 16.08.20 um 16:48 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
>> I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not,
>> because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is
>> several years ago, so I am not sure.)
>> I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts.
>> When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it
>> takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this
>> normal, or a quirk at my side?
>> For the moment I stay with libx264
> what do you expect?

I did not expect anything, just noticed something.

> H264 is also a lot slower and more expensive comapred ot codes from the
> 1990s and you can't expect better quality and smaller files falling free
> from heaven

For the moment I will keep with 264. Especially because these files
are only played once. Just wanted to make sure I was not overlooking

By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265
would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space
taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have
'strange' videos?

Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list