Comparative Evaluation of VVC, HEVC, H.264, AV1, and VP9 Encoders for Low-Delay Video Applications
Abstract
The evolution of the Internet and wireless communications led real-time applications with high and ultra-high-definition video to flourish. However, due to the fact that video is a bandwidth-greedy media stream, numerous codecs such as AV1 and Versatile Video Coding (VVC) that implement different techniques, have emerged. Indeed, investigating the performance of different compression standards is crucial to select the appropriate codec for a specific application. This paper provides a comparative assessment of the compression efficiency for the above-mentioned standards according to their prominent predecessors VP9, HEVC and H.264. Seven encoder implementations were used for benchmarking AV1, VP9, VVC, HEVC and H.264. i.e. AV1, VP9, VTM, (HM and x265), as well as (JM and x264) respectively. The low-dealy configuration pattern was utilized as it provides the lowest delay in contrast to random-access and all-Intra configurations. Indeed, to address real-time mobile applications, class C video sequences that are very sought after in many applications such as video surveillance or road safety were used for the conducted experiments. The obtained results show that each newly born codec outperforms its predecessor in terms of coding efficiency with an increase in the computational complexity. VVC achieves the highest compression performance in comparison to its predecessors even with the optimized version (x265, x264) with a noticeable increase in encoding run time, while VP9 provides average bit-rate overhead according to its successor AV1 for the industrial standards.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The encoding process of HEVC and VP9 is more complex than H.264/AVC in terms of execution time, CPU consumption, and hardware implementation.
“However, the encoding process of HEVC and VP9 is more complex than the H.264/AVC coding standard in terms of execution time, CPU consumption, and hardware implementation [71].”
From VQProtect: Lightweight Visual Quality Protection for Error-Prone Selectively Encrypted Video Streaming (2022) · cites this paper as [71]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gillani, S. M., Asghar, M. N., Shifa, A., Abdullah, S., Kanwal, N., & Fleury, M. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24060755 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mansri, I., Doghmane, N., Kouadria, N., Harize, S., & Bekhouch, A.
- Affiliations
- Badji Mokhtar-Annaba University (DZ)
- Mohamed-Cherif Messaadia University (DZ)
- Venue
- 2020 Fourth International Conference on Multimedia Computing, Networking and Applications (MCNA)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-10-19
- Pages
- 38-43
- OpenAlex
- W3108254140
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.66
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Conference on Multimedia Computing, Networking and Applications (MCNA) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Video Coding and Compression Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Data Compression Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Keywords
- video coding standards, AV1, Versatile Video Coding, HEVC, H.264/AVC, VP9, x265, x264, video compression efficiency, mobile video surveillance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review