| Bofferbrauer2 said: @bolded: But that's just locally. You don't stream textures after all, you stream images. And in that regard, the bigger the image the more data it consumes per unit of time. |
Indeed. Hence why I made the two separate points.
| Bofferbrauer2 said: I know HEVC (h.265 for those who don't know what it is) is efficient. But is used for streaming by Sony? I don't expect Sony to output native h.265, especially not considering the age of the service (if it would use Playstation Now). MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) or even VP9 is much more likely there. Also, as far as I know HEVC is pretty heavy on the hardware in higher resolutions. Full HD should be fine with mobile hardware, bit it took an Ivy Bridge i7 running at full speed to get 29fps in 4K resolution in 2014. That being said, I think for a handheld 1080p would suffice, but if you want to stream to an UHD TV this might become a limitation - although modern chips have hardware decoders for HVEC, so that problem may be gone by now. Also, looking at the open-souce, royalty-free successor of VP9, AV1, my 20mbit expectation for 1080p60fps seems largely correct here (level 4.1). |
The Playstation 4 has native support for HEVC/H.265 in hardware, hence why Netflix is able to use it.
It doesn't need to rely heavily on the CPU.
Either way, resolution is only part of the equation is what I am trying to convey.
I was originally hoping that H.266 would be ready for prime time for next-gen consoles, but it doesn't look like it at this stage.. That would have brought with it 50% improvements (Or so they say.) in compression efficiency.
AV1 might gain traction as well, who knows? That has an edge of H.265 and VP9 too.
Either way, 8k is coming whether we like it or not.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
