HEVC Video Codecs Comparison (Tenth MSU Video Codec Comparison) (original) (raw)
 compression.ru |
in cooperation with |  |
Lomonosov MSU Graphics & Media Lab (Video Group) | Video group head: Dr. Dmitriy Vatolin Project head: Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov Measurements, analysis: Mikhail Erofeev, Vladimir Yanushkovsky |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Dubna State University | |||
 |
Institute for Information Transmission Problems RAS |
| UPDATE 22/02/2016 | 4K video encoders comparison is anounced |
|---|
There is Pro Version of HEVC Comparison 2015 report:
| Free Version | Free 4K video Version | Pro Version (Enterprise) | Pro+ Version (Enterprise + 4K video analysis) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective Metrics | SSIM | SSIM, PSNR | ||
| Different types of analysis | Encoding quality, encoding speed, bitarte handling, speed/quality analysis etc. | Encoding quality, encoding speed, bitarte handling, speed/quality analysis etc. (some graphs) | ||
| ColorPlanes | Y | Y, U, V and overall | ||
| Graphs | Some graphs | All the graphs for all the metrcis, codecs and presets | ||
| Test video sequences | 20 HD video (only description) | 11 4K video (only description) | 20 HD video (available for download) | 20 HD video (available for download) + 11 4K video |
| Hardware used for analysis | Desktop andServer configurations | Desktop configurations | Desktop andServer configurations | |
| Tested uses-cases | 3 different use cases:Fast Transcoding, Universal and Ripping (some graphs) | 1 use case 10 fps ecnoding(some graphs) | 3 different use cases:Fast Transcoding, Universal and Ripping | 3 different use cases:Fast Transcoding, Universal and Ripping + 1 use case 10 fps ecnoding |
| Number of figures | 29 | 11 | 5000+ | 5500+ |
| Price | Free | $850 | $995 | |
| Purchase |  |
|
 |
|
| Hint: You can remove "Extended download" service while purchasing to save money. | ||||
| We can help you to analyze your codec |
Pro version of comparison will be available immediately after report purchasing.
Report Overview
Video Codecs that Were Tested
HEVC
f265 H.265 Encoder
Intel MSS HEVC GAcc
Intel MSS HEVC Software
Ittiam HEVC Hardware Encoder
Ittiam HEVC Software Encoder
Strongene Lentoid HEVC Encoder
SHBP H.265 Real time encoder
x265
Non HEVC
InTeleMax TurboEnc
SIF Encoder
VP9 Video Codec
x264
Overview
Objectives and Testing Tools
HEVC Codec Testing Objectives
The main goal of this report is the presentation of a comparative evaluation of the quality of new HEVC codecs and codecs of other standards using objective measures of assessment. The comparison was done using settings provided by the developers of each codec. Nevertheless, we required all presets to satisfy minimum speed requirement on the particular use case. The main task of the comparison is to analyze different encoders for the task of transcoding video�e.g., compressing video for personal use.
HEVC Codec Testing Rools
The comparison was performed on two platforms:
- Desktop�Core i7 4770R @3.9 GHz, RAM 4 GB, Windows 8.1
- Server�Xeon E5 2697v3, RAM 64 GB, Windows Server 2012
For both platforms we considered three key use cases with different speed requirements.
- Desktop
- Ripping�no minimum speed
- Universal�minimum 10 FPS
- Fast transcoding�minimum 30 FPS
- Server
- Ripping�no minimum speed
- Universal�minimum 30 FPS
- Fast transcoding�minimum 60 FPS
Overall Conclusions
Overall, the leaders in this comparison are x265, Intel MSS Hevc and x264! Here are some overall graphs from report:
Professional Versions of Comparison Report
HEVC Comparison Report Pro 2015 version contains:
- Additional objective metrics (PSNR, SSIM)
- All metrics results for all colorplanes (Y,U,V and overall)
- Results for all the sequences, codecs and presets used in comparison
- Much more figures
- etc.
Acknowledgments
The Graphics & Media Lab Video Group would like to express its gratitude to the following companies for providing the codecs and settings used in this report:
- InTeleMax, Inc.
- Intel Corporation
- Ittiam Sysytems (P) Ltd.
- Strongene Ltd.
- �System house �Business partners� company
- SIF Encoder developper team
- The WebM Project team
- x264 developer team
- MulticoreWare, Inc.
The Video Group would also like to thank these companies for their help and technical support during the tests.
Thanks
Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons
 |
 |
 |
 |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:
- 10 years working in the area of video codec analysis and tuning using objective quality metrics and subjective comparisons.
- 20+ reports of video codec comparisons and analysis (H.264, MPEG-4 MPEG-2, decoders� error recovery).
- Methods and algorithms for codec comparison and analysis development, separate codec�s features and codec�s options analysis.
We could perform next task for codec developers and codec users.
Strong and Weak Points of Your Codec
- Deep encoder parts analysis (ME, RC on GOP, mode decision, etc).
- Weak and strong points for your encoder and complete information about encoding quality on different content types.
- Encoding Quality improvement by the pre and post filtering (including technologies licensing).
Independent Codec Estimation Comparing to Other Codecs for Different Use-cases
- Comparative analysis of your encoder and other encoders.
- We have direct contact with many codec developers.
- You will know place of your encoder between other newest well-known encoders (compare encoding quality, speed, bitrate handling, etc.).
Encoder Features Implementation Optimality Analysis
We perform encoder features effectiveness (speed/quality trade-off) analysis that could lead up to 30% increase in the speed/quality characteristics of your codec. We can help you to tune your codec and find best encoding parameters.
Contact Information
See all MSU Video Codecs Comparisons
MSU video codecs comparisons resources:
- Introduction to Video Codecs Comparison
- Lossless Video Codecs Comparison 2004 (October 2004)
- MPEG-4 SP/ASP Video Codecs Comparison (March 2005)
- JPEG 2000 Image Codecs Comparison (September 2005)
- First Annual MPEG-4 AVC/ H.264 Video Codecs Comparison (January 2005)
- Second Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codec Comparison (December 2005)
- Subjective Comparison of Modern Video Codecs (February 2006)
- MPEG-2 Video Decoders Comparison (May 2006)
- WMP and JPEG2000 Comparison (October 2006)
- Third Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (December 2006) (All versions for free!)
- Lossless Video Codecs Comparison 2007 (March 2007)
- Fourth Annual MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (December 2007) (All versions for free!)
- Options Analysis of MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Codec x264 (December 2008)
- Fifth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2009) (All versions for free!)
- Sixth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2010)
- Seventh MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2011)
- Eighth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (May 2012)
- Ninth MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Comparison (Dec 2013)
- Tenth Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Oct 2015)
- Eleventh Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2016)
- Twelfth Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2017)
- Thirteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Aug 2018)
- Fourteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Sept 2019)
- Cloud Encoding Servoces Comparison 2019 (Dec 2019)
- Fifteen Video Codec Comparison (HEVC) (Dec 2020)
- Sixteen Video Codec Comparison (Dec 2021)
- Seventeen Video Codecs Comparisons (Nov 2022)
- Eighteenth Video Codecs Comparisons (Apr 2025)
- Nineteenth Video Codecs Comparisons (2025)
- Codec Analysis for Companies:
Other Materials
Last updated: 28-May-2025
Server size: 8069 files, 1215Mb (Server statistics)
Project updated by Server Team and MSU Video Group
Project sponsored by YUVsoft Corp.
Project supported by MSU Graphics & Media Lab