When it comes to video compression, two of the most popular codecs that come to mind are x264 and x265. Both have been widely used in the video encoding industry, but the question remains, which one is better? In this article, we’ll delve into the world of video compression, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of each codec, and ultimately, determine which one comes out on top.
The Birth of x264 and x265
Before we dive into the comparison, it’s essential to understand the history behind these two codecs.
x264, also known as H.264, was first introduced in 2003 by a team of developers led by Loren Merritt. It was designed to be a more efficient and effective successor to its predecessor, x263 (H.263). x264 quickly gained popularity due to its ability to compress video files while maintaining high quality, making it an ideal choice for streaming and broadcasting.
On the other hand, x265, also known as HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding), was first introduced in 2013 by the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC). x265 was designed to be an improvement over x264, offering even better compression ratios and quality.
Compression Efficiency
One of the most critical aspects of a codec is its compression efficiency. The goal is to achieve the highest possible quality at the lowest possible bitrate. So, how do x264 and x265 compare in this regard?
x264: x264 is still an excellent choice for compression, offering impressive results at lower bitrates. However, as the bitrate increases, x264’s efficiency begins to decline. This means that to achieve high-quality video, x264 requires higher bitrates, resulting in larger file sizes.
x265: x265, on the other hand, offers significantly better compression efficiency than x264. It achieves the same quality at lower bitrates, resulting in smaller file sizes. This makes x265 an excellent choice for applications where storage space is limited, such as mobile devices or streaming platforms.
Bitrate Savings
To give you a better idea, here’s a rough estimate of the bitrate savings you can expect from x265 compared to x264:
| Resolution | x264 Bitrate | x265 Bitrate | Bitrate Savings |
| — | — | — | — |
| 1080p | 5000 kbps | 3000 kbps | 40% |
| 4K | 20000 kbps | 12000 kbps | 40% |
As you can see, x265 offers significant bitrate savings, making it an attractive option for applications where bandwidth is limited.
Computational Complexity
Another crucial aspect to consider is the computational complexity of each codec. This refers to the amount of processing power required to encode and decode video using each codec.
x264: x264 is relatively lightweight, making it an excellent choice for real-time encoding applications such as live streaming. It requires less processing power, which means faster encoding times and lower hardware requirements.
x265: x265, on the other hand, is significantly more computationally complex than x264. This means that encoding times are slower, and hardware requirements are higher. However, this increased complexity also leads to better compression efficiency, as we discussed earlier.
Licensing and Patents
When it comes to licensing and patents, x264 and x265 have different approaches.
x264: x264 is an open-standard codec, which means that it’s free to use for anyone, without any licensing fees. This has contributed to its widespread adoption in the industry.
x265: x265, on the other hand, is a patented codec, which means that users need to pay royalties to the patent holders. This can be a significant cost for large-scale implementations, making x264 a more attractive option for some users.
Hardware Support
Hardware support is essential for efficient video encoding and decoding. Let’s see how x264 and x265 compare in this regard.
x264: x264 has been widely adopted by hardware manufacturers, and most modern CPUs, GPUs, and SoCs (Systems-on-Chip) support x264 encoding and decoding.
x265: x265, although less widespread, is still supported by many modern hardware platforms. However, the adoption rate is slower due to the increased computational complexity and licensing costs.
Software Support
Software support is also crucial for video encoding and decoding. Let’s see how x264 and x265 compare in this regard.
x264: x264 is widely supported by most video encoding and decoding software, including FFmpeg, Handbrake, and Adobe Premiere Pro.
x265: x265 is also supported by many software applications, including FFmpeg, Handbrake, and Adobe Premiere Pro. However, the adoption rate is slower due to the increased computational complexity and licensing costs.
Conclusion
So, which codec is better, x264 or x265? The answer depends on your specific use case and requirements.
If you prioritize:
- Fast encoding times
- Low computational complexity
- Open-standard licensing
- Wide hardware and software support
Then x264 might be the better choice for you.
If you prioritize:
- High compression efficiency
- Low bitrate requirements
- High-quality video
- Are willing to invest in more powerful hardware
Then x265 might be the better choice for you.
In conclusion, x264 and x265 are both excellent codecs, each with their strengths and weaknesses. While x264 is still a widely used and efficient codec, x265 offers better compression efficiency and quality. Ultimately, the choice between these two codecs depends on your specific needs and requirements.
What is the main difference between x264 and x265 codecs?
The main difference between x264 and x265 codecs is the compression efficiency and the algorithm used to compress video data. x264 is a more established codec that uses the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC compression standard, while x265 uses the newer H.265/HEVC compression standard. x265 is designed to provide higher compression efficiency than x264, which means it can compress video data to a smaller size while maintaining the same video quality.
In general, x265 is more efficient at compressing video data, especially for high-resolution and high-quality video content. However, this increased efficiency comes at the cost of increased computational complexity, which can make x265 more demanding on computer hardware. This means that x265 may not be suitable for all devices or applications, especially those with limited processing power.
Which codec is more widely supported, x264 or x265?
x264 is currently more widely supported than x265, due to its earlier adoption and wider deployment in various devices and applications. Many devices, including smartphones, tablets, and smart TVs, support x264, and it is widely used in online video streaming services such as YouTube and Netflix.
x265, on the other hand, is still gaining traction and is not yet as widely supported as x264. While it is gaining popularity, it may not be supported by all devices or applications, especially older ones. However, as the adoption of 4K and high-resolution video content grows, x265 is likely to become more widely supported in the future.
Is x265 better than x264 for 4K video compression?
Yes, x265 is generally better than x264 for 4K video compression. x265 is designed to handle the higher resolution and bit depth of 4K video content, and it provides more efficient compression for this type of content. x265 can compress 4K video data to a smaller size while maintaining the same video quality, making it a more suitable choice for 4K video applications.
In addition, x265 is better suited to handle the higher bit rates and color depths of 4K video content, which can be challenging for x264 to compress efficiently. x265’s more advanced compression algorithms and higher compression efficiency make it a better choice for 4K video compression.
Can I use x265 for live video streaming?
While x265 is well-suited for offline video compression, it may not be the best choice for live video streaming due to its higher computational complexity and encoding latency. x264 is often preferred for live video streaming due to its lower latency and faster encoding times, which are critical for real-time video transmission.
However, some modern live streaming encoders and software are beginning to support x265, and some even offer real-time x265 encoding. These encoders often use advanced optimization techniques and specialized hardware to reduce the computational complexity and encoding latency of x265, making it possible to use x265 for live video streaming.
Is x265 more power-hungry than x264?
Yes, x265 is generally more power-hungry than x264 due to its increased computational complexity. x265 requires more processing power and memory to encode and decode video data, which can increase power consumption and heat generation.
This means that devices using x265 may consume more battery power and generate more heat than those using x264. However, this increased power consumption can be mitigated by using more efficient hardware and optimized software that can handle x265 encoding and decoding more efficiently.
Can I convert x264 video files to x265?
Yes, it is possible to convert x264 video files to x265 using video transcoding software. Transcoding involves re-encoding the video data from one codec to another, which can be a time-consuming process.
However, it’s worth noting that transcoding from x264 to x265 may not always result in better video quality or smaller file sizes, as the original video data may not be optimized for x265 encoding. In some cases, it may be better to re-encode the original video content using x265 from scratch to achieve the best possible results.
Will x264 become obsolete with the rise of x265?
While x265 is gaining popularity, x264 is unlikely to become obsolete anytime soon. x264 is still widely supported and remains a popular choice for many video applications, especially those that require lower computational complexity and faster encoding times.
x264 will likely continue to be used for many years to come, especially in applications where x265 is not necessary or is not supported. Even as x265 adoption grows, x264 will remain a viable option for many users and applications.