Can't current CPUs decode it in real time?
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
411 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
77132 readers
1907 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, because of the ASICs built into them to enable that decoding.
Without that, a 4K HEVC video is in upwards of 100+ billion operations/s to decode on the CPU. Which limits you to high end CPUs getting capped out on something you essentially get for "free" otherwise
I meant without dedicated circuits, obviously. Can't it be parallelised? Many cpus have a lot of relatively idle cores at a given time...
I remember that my 486 had trouble with mp3 files, but soon enough, I got a new machine with many more spare cycles.
That is parallelized... I didn't make mention of threading being the concern here.
The 100+ billion operations per second isn't exactly easy.
4k 60fps = 498 million pixels per second
Each pixel takes a couple hundred logical operations with HEVC.
A modern high end 4GHz, 8 physical core CPU at 4 instructions per cycle, at maximum capacity, can handle 128 billion operations per second.
You probably wouldn't even get your realtime framerate in this scenario.
Well, what the world really needs are laptops with built-in HVAC support!
So, yeah, HP and Dell are fucked - by what you may ask? Why, AI of course, because it's hiked memory prices so far up it's eating up their profit margins. They might be doomed.
They are disabling it because the license cost went up 4 cents? Just pass that cost onto the customer. Even if they mark that up several times, I would rather pay that than have my battery drained because I have to software decode a video.
There is still a lot of H.265 content out there. I have many terabytes of it that I don't want to transcode.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Let me get this straight - people buy a product advertised as having a feature, containing a part also advertised as having that feature, and then they disable it after purchase?
How is that legal?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes this is absolutely ridiculous.
This is also a good reason to avoid proprietary codecs. H.265 may be a great codec, but the licensing fees are basically a tax on the world.
The best solution would be an overall switch to AV1. But silicon support for that is not nearly as widespread.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Imagine buying a "Pro" laptop that can't even play HEVC videos without software transcoding. This is insane penny pinching and infuriating
I don't for a second believe this is about the rising cost. It raised by $0.04. Someone below said that works out to a savings of $600,000.
Alright, but for an individual, it's $0.04.
Just increase the final price by $0.25. You made back your $600,000. Plus whatever $0.21 would equate to as GAINS.
Fuck guys. You suck at business. This is what happens when companies replace their CEO with AI.
load more comments
(5 replies)
So the hardware is capable, but refuses to work until someone pays for the licensing cost. Yay capitalism bringing innovation!
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›