>>106999901
>It’s inefficient because it take more computation.
That's more tricky to answer because YES, hardware accelerated JPG encoders will leave Webp in the dust. However their compression efficiency is also really dogshit so Webp ends up with 40-60% better compression efficiency instead of just 20-30% vs nvjpeg.
Can Webp's huge compression efficiency over nvjpeg make up for the latter churning 6 million JPG images per hour? I dunno.
4chan Search
2 results for "44cd29cc96ca2ef0fbdc48658f68dc9f"
>>106483952
No, many internet jpeg 4:2:0 images are encoded via a GPU instead of a CPU. Similar to video, an image GPU encoder like Nvjpeg will either produce unreasonably huge file sizes or piss poor quality. If it's the former then a webp encode can produce an archival quality via lossy compression and reduce the file size by 20-30% because libwebp is exclusively a CPU encoder.
The image codec situation on the web is an absolute fucking mess desu.
https://developer.nvidia.com/nvjpeg
No, many internet jpeg 4:2:0 images are encoded via a GPU instead of a CPU. Similar to video, an image GPU encoder like Nvjpeg will either produce unreasonably huge file sizes or piss poor quality. If it's the former then a webp encode can produce an archival quality via lossy compression and reduce the file size by 20-30% because libwebp is exclusively a CPU encoder.
The image codec situation on the web is an absolute fucking mess desu.
https://developer.nvidia.com/nvjpeg