MSU Video Codecs Comparison 2023-2024
Part 5: Hardware 4K 10-bit
Eighteenth Annual Video-Codecs Comparison by MSU
|
|||||||||
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||
compression.ru |
Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU) Graphics and Media Lab |
Dubna International
State University |
MSU Institute of Advanced Studies of Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Systems |
News
- 10.04.2025 Report release
Navigation
- Description
- Results
- Download/Buy report
- Participants
- Rules
- Features
- Discussion
- Thanks
- Contact information
Description
In MSU Hardware Video Codecs Comparison 2023-2024, we analyzed 12 hardware codecs. There were 3 different speed usecases: 30 fps, 60 fps, 120 fps. 19 4K 10-bit video sequences were used for testing.
Results
- The places below are given by quality scores
Fast (30 fps) | Veryfast (60 fps) | Superfast (120 fps) | |
---|---|---|---|
Best quality (YUV-SSIM 6:1:1) |
|||
Best quality (YUV-PSNR avg.MSE 6:1:1) |
|||
Best quality (Y-VMAF 0.6.1) |
|||
Best quality (Y-VMAF-NEG 0.6.1) |
The winners vary for different objective quality metrics. The participants were rated using BSQ-rate (enhanced BD-rate) scores [1].



Download and buy report
Free | Enterprise | |||
12 hardware-accelerated encoders FPGA: Tencent canghaiV2 ASIC: Streamlake-200, BVE1.2, Netint Quadra T1A AV1, Netint Quadra T1A H.265, Netint Quadra T1A H.264 CPU: Reference x265 GPU: NVENC AV1, NVENC H.265, Intel ARC AV1, Intel ARC H265, Intel ARC H264, AMD H.265 |
||||
Number of test sequences |
1 video (4K 10-bit) (120 fps usecase) |
19 videos (4K 10-bit) (30, 60 and 120 fps usecases) |
||
Test video descriptions | ||||
Basic codec info | ||||
Objective metrics | Only 4 metrics | 20+ objective metrics | ||
Test videos download | ||||
Encoders presets description | ||||
HTML report | 12 interactive charts | 4000+ interacive charts | ||
Price | Free | 950 USD | ||
Download/Buy |
Objective comparison of ultra-fast and hardware-accelerated 4K 10-bit video encoders
HTML report (ZIP)
|
You will receive enterprise versions of all 2023-2024 reports (FullHD, Subjective, 4K)
|
Participants
Codec name | Platform | Standard | Usecases | Presets provided | |
1 |
x265
(Reference 30 fps) MulticoreWare, Inc. |
CPU Intel Core i7 12700K |
H.265/HEVC | Fast (30 fps) | by MSU team |
2 |
Tencent canghaiV2
Tencent |
FPGA Xilinx Alveo U250 |
H.266/VVC | Fast (30 fps) | by developer |
3 |
Streamlake-200
Streamlake |
ASIC | H.265/HEVC |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), |
by developer |
4 |
BVE1.2
Bytedance |
ASIC | H.265/HEVC |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by developer |
5 |
Netint Quadra T1A AV1
Netint |
ASIC Netint Quadra |
AV1 |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
6 |
Netint Quadra T1A H.265
Netint |
ASIC Netint Quadra |
H.265/HEVC |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
7 |
Netint Quadra T1A H.264
Netint |
ASIC Netint Quadra |
H.264/AVC |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
8 |
NVENC AV1
Nvidia Corp. |
GPU Nvidia RTX 4070 Ti |
AV1 |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
9 |
NVENC H.265
Nvidia Corp. |
GPU Nvidia RTX 4070 Ti |
H.265/HEVC |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
10 |
Intel ARC AV1
Intel Corp. |
GPU Intel Arc A380 |
AV1 |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
11 |
Intel ARC H.265 (Reference 60 fps, 120 fps) Intel Corp. |
GPU Intel Arc A380 |
H.265/HEVC |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
12 |
Intel ARC H.264
Intel Corp. |
GPU Intel Arc A380 |
H.264/AVC |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
13 |
AMD H.265
AMD |
GPU AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT |
H.265/HEVC |
Fast (30 fps), Veryfast (60 fps), Superfast (120 fps) |
by MSU team |
Comparison Rules
Hardware-accelerated and ultra-fast codecs testing objectives
The main goal of this report is the presentation of a comparative evaluation of the quality of new and existing codecs 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.
Methodology update
We updated our methodology to improve fairness and objectivity in BSQ-rate calculation. The BSQ-rate compares the area under the quality-bitrate curve of a codec to that of a reference codec (Reference x265). This shows how much bitrate a codec can save while keeping the same visual quality. Previously, we calculated the area only over the intersection between each codec and the reference, which resulted in different denominators and gave an advantage to some codecs. This year, we fixed that by calculating the area over the intersection shared by all codecs.

Test Hardware Characteristics for GPU/ASIC encoders
- CPU: Intel Core i7 12700K (Alder Lake)
- SSD: 1Tb
- RAM: 4x16GB (64GB)
- OS: Windows 11 x64, Ubuntu 22.04 LTS
Test Hardware Characteristics for FPGA encoders
- CPU: Intel Core i7 12700K (Alder Lake)
- SSD: 1Tb
- FPGA: Xilinx Alveo U250 Accelerator
- RAM: 4x16GB (64GB)
- OS: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS
See more on Call For Codecs 2023-2024 page
Videos
Videos for testing set were chosen from MSU video collection via a voting among comparison participants, organizers and an independend expert.
Year | # FullHD videos | # FullHD samples | # 4K videos | # 4K samples | Total # of videos | Total # of samples |
2016 | 3 | 7 | 882 | 2902 | 885 | 2909 |
2017 | 1996 | 4638 | 1544 | 4561 | 3540 | 9299 |
2018 | 4342 | 10330 | 1946 | 5503 | 6288 | 15833 |
2020 | 4945 | 12402 | 2091 | 6016 | 7036 | 18418 |
2021 | 4945 | 12402 | 2091 | 6016 | 7036 | 18418 |
2022 | 7379 | 19546 | 2091 | 6016 | 9470 | 25562 |

Final video set consists of 19 sequences including new videos from Vimeo and media.xiph.org derf's collection.

Descriptions of all test videos are presented in a separate PDF provided with the report.
Codec Analysis and Tuning for Codec Developers and Codec Users
Computer Graphics and Multimedia Laboratory of Moscow State University:
- 20+ years working in the area of video codec analysis and tuning using objective quality metrics and subjective comparisons.
- 30+ reports of video codec comparisons and analysis (H.265, H.264, AV1, VP9, 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.
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.Discussion
This study presents a comprehensive comparison of hardware video codecs with a focus on video quality assessed through objective metrics such as PSNR, SSIM, VMAF etc. The research could be helpful in selecting the encoder with the best quality for the community applications. In addition, benchmarking of the encoders can help developers to independently compare the solutions.
However, we acknowledge that the research has some limitations as we only focus on stream quality analysis, while for hardware encoders, business applications latency, density and power consumption may be critical. We are working on adding more parameters to the benchmark.
Thanks
Special thanks to the following contributors of our previous comparisons
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Contact Information
Subscribe to report updates
Other Materials
Video resources:
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