Which processor to encode x265 4K ?

[Stereodude]

And what does the XFASTEST x264/x265 test consist of?

Their data for x265 looks promising, but shows it's not faster in x264.

Others show improvements in both (from Legit Reviews):

[Warrex]

And what does the XFASTEST x264/x265 test consist of?

As already discussed in this thread XFASTEST use Atak's benchmarks:

https://forum.pclab.pl/topic/1184884...FHD-Benchmark/

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details...1-1-64bit.html

[RanmaCanada]

I personally feel no benchmark is valid unless they are using at least the slow preset. I will wait until I see someone running with those, like techpowerup did for the Ryzen 3700x and 3900x. Though they used time to encode, and did not give us the fps, nor the time of the actual clip they used. I really hate how no one properly benches encoding. Tell us how long the clip is, how many frames it has, and what type of media it is. I would honestly say using one of the test pattern clips, or even any of the open source/Creative Commons movies, like Tears of Steel. I mean how else are we the public supposed to replicate the results if we don't know what reviewers are using to test with.

[nevcairiel]

Originally Posted by RanmaCanada

I mean how else are we the public supposed to replicate the results if we don't know what reviewers are using to test with.

You are not, because otherwise there would be fanbois from both sides showing up playing point and counter-point showing how the results the website posted is wrong in either direction.

Thats why you keep benchmarks at least slightly opaque. If you want to do your own benchmarks, you need to make your own references to benchmark against.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Even 3950X is extremely good in x265

[NikosD]

And SVT-AV1 too

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

Originally Posted by NikosD

And SVT-AV1 too

I know you can't compare setups, but how the heck did Tom's get such ridiculously faster numbers than Phoronix? Windows vs Linux shouldn't cause that much of a difference!

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...0x-3970x&num=8

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

I know you can't compare setups, but how the heck did Tom's get such ridiculously faster numbers than Phoronix? Windows vs Linux shouldn't cause that much of a difference!

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...0x-3970x&num=8

Easier to compress sample? Different ENC mode? Hard to tell...

[NikosD]

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

I know you can't compare setups, but how the heck did Tom's get such ridiculously faster numbers than Phoronix?

I know nothing of SVT-AV1 but I must say that according to Phoronix Enc4 vs Enc8 has one order of magnitude (x10) difference regarding absolute numbers (!)

I think we must focus on relative performance for each test of Tom's and Phoronix regarding to Enc4.

For example, in both tests of Enc4 the new Threadripper 32C is about two times faster than Core i9 18C and 2.5 to 3 times faster than previous gen Threadripper 32C.

The absolute performance could probably be more important for those who actually use the specific AV1 encoder and not using it just for benchmarks.

[TEB]

So... i got access to a Lenovo SR630 with Epyc 7742 on at work now running RHEL 8.1. Any benchmarks u guys want me to run on it?

processor : 127
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 23
model : 49
model name : AMD EPYC 7742 64-Core Processor
stepping : 0
microcode : 0x830101c
cpu MHz : 2332.947
cache size : 512 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 128

[RanmaCanada]

Try running Sagitare's benchmark. https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=174393 It's a little old.

You could also run a 1080p or 4k benchmark of say Tears of Steel at CRF 18-20 and go from Placebo all the way to ultra fast (if you have time) Because this would be a real world workload and let people see the difference in each preset.

[Atak_Snajpera]

This https://forum.pclab.pl/topic/1184884...FHD-Benchmark/

[TEB]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

This https://forum.pclab.pl/topic/1184884...FHD-Benchmark/

Running RHEL 8.x

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by TEB

Running RHEL 8.x

Windows in VM maybe?

[blublub]

If anyone wants me to run a test on a Threadripper 3960X let me know.

Conditions:
Windows based
easy to setup - best specify the source with link, programm to encode with wanted preset

[RanmaCanada]

Originally Posted by blublub

If anyone wants me to run a test on a Threadripper 3960X let me know.

Conditions:
Windows based
easy to setup - best specify the source with link, programm to encode with wanted preset

For simplicity I would say to do Tears of Steel with each preset at CRF 16-18 (what most people here use). If you have time do 1080p to 1080p and 4k to 4k.

If that's too long, do the good old Park Joy.

You could use handbrake, or staxrip, your choice. No filtering, no extras, just let the presets do what they are supposed to.

The reason I ask this is because I feel Atak's benchmark uses a preset that no one will use in real life, and every site that does benchmark it does not give us the length, frames, etc of the source they are using, which makes their benchmarks useless.

By using these well known, open source/royalty free videos, the results can be properly compared with other processors, and results can be replicated.

[Atak_Snajpera]

For simplicity I would say to do Tears of Steel with each preset at CRF 16-18 (what most people here use). If you have time do 1080p to 1080p and 4k to 4k.

You also make blind assumptions that most people use your settings. You have zero data to prove your claim so stop saying that my benchmark using default settings is unrealistic. Furthermore yours CRF16-18 is total overkill for most users (bitrate will go through the roof). Another issue. handbreak won't saturate all 48 threads on 1080p and probably also in 4k. Chunked encoding is the only effecting way of achieving constant 100% CPU usage. With 3990x chunked encoding is basicaly required.

[RanmaCanada]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

You also make blind assumptions that most people use your settings. You have zero data to prove your claim so stop saying that my benchmark using default settings is unrealistic. Furthermore yours CRF16-18 is total overkill for most users (bitrate will go through the roof). Another issue. handbreak won't saturate all 48 threads on 1080p and probably also in 4k. Chunked encoding is the only effecting way of achieving constant 100% CPU usage. With 3990x chunked encoding is basicaly required.

Just go through all the treads in the various subs here and almost EVERYONE uses slow or slower for their encodes, with an average CRF of 18. You will have the odd person who is "blind" and thinks 22 or higher are fine, but the majority of people use CRF's in the teens.

Remember, this is a forum for the 1% of encoders and enthusiasts. Most people want archival quality of their encodes.

I am sorry you feel offended by what I said about your benchmark, but in real world scenarios your benchmark doesn't hold up. For example on your benchmark it states my 2700 gets 21+ fps, which I've never EVER seen in encoding at slow or slower. Not even at medium have I seen it at that speed, and I run with a pretty bare command line. Benchmarks are supposed to be about real world performance, and no one who cares about quality would be using fast and higher presets.

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by RanmaCanada

Just go through all the treads in the various subs here and almost EVERYONE uses slow or slower for their encodes, with an average CRF of 18. You will have the odd person who is "blind" and thinks 22 or higher are fine, but the majority of people use CRF's in the teens.

Remember, this is a forum for the 1% of encoders and enthusiasts. Most people want archival quality of their encodes.

I am sorry you feel offended by what I said about your benchmark, but in real world scenarios your benchmark doesn't hold up. For example on your benchmark it states my 2700 gets 21+ fps, which I've never EVER seen in encoding at slow or slower. Not even at medium have I seen it at that speed, and I run with a pretty bare command line. Benchmarks are supposed to be about real world performance, and no one who cares about quality would be using fast and higher presets.

I'm not "blind" and use CRF 21 in 10-bits and it looks totally fine. In fact, I can't see a (major) difference between 21 and 18 or 19, except for the bitrate. I must be blind, then?

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by RanmaCanada

Just go through all the treads in the various subs here and almost EVERYONE uses slow or slower for their encodes, with an average CRF of 18. You will have the odd person who is "blind" and thinks 22 or higher are fine, but the majority of people use CRF's in the teens.

Remember, this is a forum for the 1% of encoders and enthusiasts. Most people want archival quality of their encodes.

I am sorry you feel offended by what I said about your benchmark, but in real world scenarios your benchmark doesn't hold up. For example on your benchmark it states my 2700 gets 21+ fps, which I've never EVER seen in encoding at slow or slower. Not even at medium have I seen it at that speed, and I run with a pretty bare command line. Benchmarks are supposed to be about real world performance, and no one who cares about quality would be using fast and higher presets.

Because this benchmark uses samples containing a lot of motion and details!
crowd_run_1080p50.yuv
ducks_take_off_1080p50.yuv
in_to_tree_1080p50.yuv
old_town_cross_1080p50.yuv
park_joy_1080p50.yuv

Looks at this as worse case scenario.

Besides, You are probably encoding at cropped 1920x800 resolution instead of full 1920x1080.

This benchmark shows you what you can expect from CPU A vs CPU B. For example. Should I buy Ryzen 3950x or Intel core i9 10980xe. Do not look at raw numbers because it does not make sense.

PS. 2700x gets 28 fps in my benchmark so be more precise next time ,ok?