X265 download. I'm wondering if x265 is not that good, or maybe it's advantageous only in some specific situations? H. '' why quality should decrease, if encode is being done twice faster because of more cores on same preset and same settings are people suggesting that high core count cpu cannot be used with x265 to produce good encoding results? thus i'm on BIG dilema . For all encodes I chose CRF 30. 265 encoding) X265, which is based on the x264 code base, is also way over-engineered in my opinion. No 50% claims have been made about that. Assuming for a second that I am an acceptable good encoder would it be the final encode, JUST in terms of quality (CPUtime is NOT relevant), much distant from the Remux-generated one ??? I did a few tests with slow preset to compare x265 performance to x264. X264 defaults to CRF 23 and x265 defaults to CRF 28; the documentation i have seen claims that x265 CRF 28 should produce the same perceived visual quality at half the bit rate. Assuming for a second that I am an acceptable good encoder would it be the final encode, JUST in terms of quality (CPUtime is NOT relevant), much distant from the Remux-generated one ??? I personally like x265 a lot, it absolutely kills x264 at the same bit rates, but that's to be expected considering that HEVC is a much newer standard than AVC. In the case I ONLY have the 'x265 4K web-DL' option. But I can imagine potential scenarios where this "smoothing" or "blurring" might not be desirable. labx ppsp zxski ebptarf oyxwk ypcn lporq ocsff jkakvei bgeqkf