ASIC vs. CPU transcoding: A comprehensive comparison

The demand for high-quality video content has surged, making effective transcoding a critical process for ensuring optimal viewing experiences across diverse platforms and devices. Transcoding entails the conversion of video files from one format to another, adjusting essential parameters such as resolution, bitrate, and codec to align with the specific requirements of various delivery environments.  

Among the primary approaches to video transcoding are ASIC-based (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) and CPU-based (Central Processing Unit) transcoding. Each method offers distinct advantages and challenges that cater to different operational needs. This article delves into a comprehensive comparison of these two transcoding techniques, examining their strengths and weaknesses, providing real-world examples, and guiding you in selecting the most suitable approach for your unique use case. Whether your focus is on flexibility or efficiency, understanding these methods will empower you to navigate the complexities of video content delivery effectively.

In this article, we will explore both methods in detail, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, providing real-world examples, and helping you determine which approach is best suited for your specific use case.

‍

What is transcoding, and why does it matter?

Transcoding is more than just converting a video from one format to another. It involves adapting video files to different resolutions, bitrates, and codecs to ensure compatibility across various devices, bandwidth conditions, and network environments. With the rise of 4K, 8K, HDR, and the increasing variety of playback devices, the need for transcoding has never been more critical.

The two primary methods of transcoding, ASIC-based and CPU-based, offer distinct solutions to this challenge. Let’s explore how each works and where it excels.

‍

What is CPU-based transcoding?

CPU-based transcoding uses general-purpose processors to convert video files. CPUs are designed to handle a wide range of computations, making them versatile tools for transcoding various video codecs and formats. This method is typically employed in software-based transcoding systems like FFmpeg or HandBrake.

‍

Key characteristics of CPU-based transcoding:

‍

• Flexibility: CPUs can support nearly all types of video formats, codecs, and resolutions, from standard definitions to high-definition formats like 4K and even 8K. Their programmability allows for customization and updates through software changes to adapt to new standards. ‍
• Multitasking: CPUs can handle multiple processes simultaneously, enabling them to transcode several video streams at once based on the number of available cores. ‍
• Speed limitations: While modern CPUs are powerful, they are not specifically optimized for transcoding tasks. This often results in slower performance when processing high-resolution video streams compared to specialized hardware like GPUs or ASICs. ‍
• Energy efficiency: CPUs generally consume more power during transcoding since they are general-purpose processors. This can lead to higher energy costs over time, particularly in large-scale operations.

‍

Real-world example: HandBrake

HandBrake is a popular open-source tool for video transcoding, perfect for users who want to convert videos into various formats using their CPUs. It’s a great option for casual video encoding or small projects that need flexibility with different codecs and formats.

However, when working with large files like 4K or 8K videos, using a CPU can slow down the encoding process and consume more power. In these situations, ASIC-based solutions are often faster and more efficient for heavy workloads. HandBrake works best for less demanding tasks where customization is a priority.

‍

What is ASIC-based transcoding?

ASIC-based transcoding uses hardware specifically designed for video processing tasks. Unlike CPUs, which serve general purposes, ASICs are tailored for specific functions such as video compression and encoding. You’ll often find ASICs in specialized hardware like set-top boxes, video encoders, and high-performance transcoding platforms.

‍

Key characteristics of ASIC-based transcoding:

‍

• Speed and efficiency: ASICs are engineered for specific tasks, making them incredibly efficient at transcoding. They can handle high-definition video streams in real time and often outperform CPUs significantly when managing large-scale transcoding tasks.
• ‍Power consumption: Due to their optimization for singular tasks, ASICs consume considerably less power than CPUs. This is particularly beneficial for large data centers where energy efficiency can lead to substantial cost savings.
• ‍Limited flexibility: Unlike CPUs, which can be easily updated to support new codecs and formats, ASICs are designed for specific tasks and can’t be reprogrammed. Adapting ASICs to new standards may require hardware modifications.
• ‍Initial cost: While ASICs typically have a higher upfront cost due to their specialized design, the long-term savings in energy efficiency and speed can outweigh these initial expenses for companies with extensive transcoding needs.

‍

Real-world example: The Argos transcoder

YouTube’s Argos transcoder shows how ASIC-based transcoding can improve video processing. Built for YouTube’s vast library, Argos boosts encoding efficiency while reducing power usage. Reports suggest that Argos achieves 20 to 33 times more compute efficiency than traditional CPU-based systems.

This upgrade has significantly cut YouTube’s operating costs and lets the platform transcode large volumes of video much faster. Users now enjoy smoother streaming with less buffering and quicker video startup times, even for high-resolution content like 4K and 8K.  

‍

Performance metrics: CPU vs. ASIC transcoding

Understanding performance differences between CPU-based and ASIC-based transcoding is important, especially when dealing with high-resolution video streams such as 4K and 8K. Performance is typically measured in terms of frames per second (FPS) or video throughput for different codecs. Here’s a detailed comparison based on common scenarios:

‍

1. Encoding speed (FPS) for high-resolution video:

• CPU-based transcoding: CPUs, though highly flexible, tend to perform slower when handling high-resolution video streams like 4K or 8K. For instance, a modern multi-core CPU could process around 30-50 FPS for a 1080p H.264 stream. When handling a 4K HEVC stream, the performance can drop to around 15-20 frames per second, depending on the CPU’s design and how many cores it has. ‍
• ASIC-Based Transcoding: ASICs are optimized specifically for video tasks, allowing them to achieve significantly higher performance. In real-world applications, ASICs can transcode 4K streams in real-time at 60 FPS or higher, with some systems processing 8K HEVC or AV1 streams at over 100 FPS. This makes ASICs particularly well-suited for high-volume, high-resolution workflows such as live streaming.
  ‍

2. Codec performance comparison:

• H.264 vs. HEVC vs. AV1: ‍
  • ‍H.264: Both CPU and ASIC systems handle H.264 well, but ASICs do it faster and more efficiently, especially with 4K streams. CPUs perform decently with lower resolutions, like 480p and 720p, but they can’t match the speed of ASICs for high-definition tasks. ‍
  • HEVC: When it comes to HEVC (H.265), CPU-based transcoding can struggle with the increased complexity, especially at higher bitrates and resolutions, resulting in slower speeds—around 15-20 FPS for 4K. In contrast, ASICs are specifically built for this type of processing, enabling them to maintain real-time encoding at over 60 FPS. This makes ASICs a much better option for handling demanding video formats. ‍
  • AV1: AV1 is an emerging codec with even higher compression efficiency than HEVC, but it’s computationally intensive. CPU-based systems often experience significant slowdowns when transcoding AV1, sometimes processing at rates as low as 5-10 FPS for 4K streams. ASICs, when available for AV1, can handle these loads with minimal performance degradation, processing AV1 4K streams at around 50-60 FPS.
    ‍

3. Throughput and large-scale operations:

In data centers or cloud environments processing hundreds of streams simultaneously, ASIC-based solutions often outperform CPUs dramatically. While CPUs require increased cores and additional power to scale, ASICs are designed for such workloads and can handle multiple 4K or 8K streams in parallel with minimal overhead.

‍

Differences: ASIC vs. CPU-based encoding

‍

‍

Optimizing CPU-based transcoding

‍

Multi-core processors

To maximize performance in CPU-based transcoding, developers should use multi-core processors. This involves designing software to distribute tasks across multiple cores effectively, allowing simultaneous processing of video streams. Techniques such as thread pooling and task scheduling can help optimize resource usage, ensuring that all cores are engaged during transcoding tasks.
‍

Cloud infrastructure

Cloud environments offer scalable resources that can be dynamically allocated based on transcoding demands. Developers should consider using cloud services that support auto-scaling to handle peak loads efficiently. Additionally, utilizing cloud-based transcoding services can reduce the need for on-premises hardware, providing flexibility in managing workloads without upfront investments.
‍

Parallel processing techniques

Implementing parallel processing techniques is crucial for enhancing CPU-based transcoding efficiency. This can be achieved through data parallelism, where large video files are divided into smaller segments processed concurrently, or task parallelism, where different transcoding tasks are executed simultaneously. Developers can utilize libraries such as OpenMP or MPI to facilitate parallel processing in their applications.

‍

‍

Optimizing ASIC-based transcoding

‍

Choose the right ASIC
For ASIC-based transcoding, optimizing performance involves selecting the right ASICs specifically designed for video processing tasks. These chips should be capable of handling multiple streams simultaneously while minimizing latency. Developers should also ensure that the firmware running on these devices is optimized for the specific codecs and formats being used.

‍

Minimize energy usage
Energy efficiency is a key consideration in large-scale transcoding operations using ASICs. Developers should focus on implementing power-saving modes and optimizing the workload distribution to prevent overheating and excessive power consumption. Utilizing advanced cooling solutions and monitoring tools can also help maintain optimal operating conditions while reducing energy costs.

‍

Advanced considerations for developer

‍

Error recovery and fault tolerance

In real-time video workflows, handling transcoding errors is critical. Developers should implement good error recovery mechanisms that allow for seamless recovery from failures without interrupting the user experience. Techniques such as checkpointing, where the state of a process is saved at intervals, can facilitate quick recovery from errors.

Customization and maintenance

When comparing CPU and ASIC transcoding methods, customization and maintenance play significant roles. CPU-based systems offer greater flexibility for developers to modify algorithms and workflows as needed. In contrast, ASIC systems, while less flexible due to their specialized nature, often require less maintenance and provide consistent performance over time.

‍

Which transcoding method should you choose?

Choosing between ASIC and CPU-based transcoding ultimately depends on your specific use case:

‍

• CPU-based transcoding is ideal for smaller-scale operations or scenarios where video content and codecs frequently change. CPU flexibility makes it suitable for on-demand transcoding where various formats must be adapted based on the target platform. ‍
• ASIC-based transcoding works best in large environments where the same formats are used often, like broadcasting or cloud services that need real-time processing of high-res video streams. The speed, efficiency, and energy savings of ASICs make them a smart long-term choice for organizations with heavy transcoding demands.

‍

Final thoughts

While tools like HandBrake showcase the flexibility of CPU-based transcoding, they often fall short when dealing with large-scale, high-resolution videos. FastPix offers a comprehensive solution that bridges the gap between flexibility and high-performance transcoding. Our video API quickly handles video transcoding using efficient methods that skip the usual limits of CPU-based systems, all without draining extra power.

FastPix’s infrastructure is optimized for both VOD and live streaming, providing real-time processing and adaptive bitrate streaming. Whether you need to transcode content for multiple devices or ensure minimal latency during live broadcasts, FastPix’s scalable architecture ensures that your transcoding needs are met efficiently.