I'm really surprised that because something is in Rust and not in C, it would lead people to ignore a 5% performance degradation.
Seriously... when you get something that's 5% faster especially in the video codec space, why would you dismiss it just because it's not in your favorite language... That does sound like a silly reason to dismiss a faster implementation.
Kind of a strawman argument though. The question is, is the 5% difference (today) worth the memory safety guaranties? IE, would you be OK if your browser used 5% more power displaying video, if it meant you couldn't be hacked via a memory safety bug.
Because it also means your battery drains 5% faster, it gets hotter, you will need to upgrade your media player device etc etc etc.
Seen on the scale of the actual deployment, this is HUGE.
Also glancing over the implementation of rav1d, it seems to have some C dependencies, but also unsafe code in some places. This to me makes banging the drum of memory safety - as it is often done whenever a Rust option is discussed, for obvious reasons since it's one of the main selling point of the language - a bit moot here.