x265 Ryzen discussion

[hajj_3]

now that ryzen has officially been released is there going to be a new x265 build released with ryzen performance improvements added?

[birdie]

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11170/85887.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11170/85886.png

Not what I expected :-(

The full list of tests on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/19)

....
We see a lot of benchmark results where AMD is clearly equal or above Intel's HEDT parts in both ST and MT. However there are a few edge cases where AMD is lacking behind 10-20% still, even to Broadwell. These edge cases are difficult to anticipate, and can stem from unoptimized code.
...
Senior Engineer Mike Clark says he knows where the easy gains are for Zen 2, and they're already working through the list.
...

[birdie]

Hardware.fr:

x264 r2744: --preset slower --tune grain --crf 20 --ssim --psnr

x265 2.1: --crf 16 --preset slower --me hex --no-rect --no-amp --rd 4 --aq-mode 2 --aq-strength 0.5 --psy-rd 1.0 --psy-rdoq 0.1 --bframes 3 --min-keyint 1 --ipratio 1.1 --pbratio 1.1 --ssim --psnr

[birdie]

A few more benchmarks:

https://3dnews.ru/assets/external/illustrations/2017/03/02/948466/x264.png

https://3dnews.ru/assets/external/illustrations/2017/03/02/948466/x265.png

[benwaggoner]

Hardware.fr:

x264 r2744: --preset slower --tune grain --crf 20 --ssim --psnr

x265 2.1: --crf 16 --preset slower --me hex --no-rect --no-amp --rd 4 --aq-mode 2 --aq-strength 0.5 --psy-rd 1.0 --psy-rdoq 0.1 --bframes 3 --min-keyint 1 --ipratio 1.1 --pbratio 1.1 --ssim --psnr
Why such a customized command line for x265 for benchmarking? I think it's best to use as generic a command line as possible to hit the most used and optimized code paths.

[JohnLai]

Ryzen x265 benchmark :(
Guess the AVX2 2 cycles 128bit pathway is the reason.
Cause Ryzen performs quite well on x264 which make heavy use of AVX.

[pingfr]

@benwaggoner: Poked you a few days ago via messages. ;)

[NikosD]

x264 doesn't make use of AVX at all.
Also x265 doesn't make use of AVX.

x264 is using around 5% AVX2 only (meaning that Haswell is 5% faster in x264 than Ivy at the same clock speed)

The x265 results of RyZen 7 are very good, since it's more than 15% faster than Kabylake 7700K

[Atak_Snajpera]

In my x265 FHD Benchmark (default x265 settings)
Ryzen7 1800x@4.1GHz = 27.5 fps (2500 frames / 91s)
https://youtu.be/P-TBFf3Sk70?t=4m43s

IPC is around SandyBridge/IvyBridge
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/
http://i.imgur.com/1SM0BwW.png

So it looks like Ryzen 7 1700 will have similar performance like my old SandyBridge Xeon E5-2690

[NikosD]

In
IPC is around SandyBridge/IvyBridge
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/


Take a better look at that link you posted.

There are workloads that relative IPC of RyZen is faster than Haswell and even Kabylake (!)

Examples from your link:
7zip , Blackscholes, Cinebench 10,11.5, 15, Euler3D, C-Ray, GCC, NAMD, Vampire Numbers

[Atak_Snajpera]

On average you have worse IPC than Haswell probably due to FMAC 128bit vs FMAC 256bit.

[Motenai Yoda]

The x265 results of RyZen 7 are very good, since it's more than 15% faster than Kabylake 7700K
Yep the 500$ RyZen 1800X is 15% faster than the 340$ i7-7700k

also IPC has no value without power consuption @ same frequencies, and the tune with memory controller, cache l3 and other stuff will go bad on extreme up/down oc

[NikosD]

The RyZen 7@3.6GHz is 15% faster than Kabylake, which actually means RyZen 1700 which is a little cheaper than 7700K and has free and automatic overclocking like all RyZen.

[cojj]

The RyZen 7@4.0GHz is 15% faster than Kabylake, which actually means RyZen 1700 which is a little cheaper than 7700K and has free and automatic overclocking like all RyZen.

If you are talking about extended frequency range (xfr) - it's not in Ryzen 1700. Only Ryzens with suffix 'x' will have them. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Personally, I would still prefer 1700 over 7700k

[Sagittaire]

Why such a customized command line for x265 for benchmarking? I think it's best to use as generic a command line as possible to hit the most used and optimized code paths.

I make this procedure test with x265 for 1.2 version in 2014 ... ;-)

I use 1080p BD sample with optimized ffmpeg decoding for best possible CPU decoding and best possible x265 encoding (you have 99% charge for CPU for x265 enconding at 100% of charge for each thread)

Anyway don't change anything for result with 265 v2.2 here: Rysen is on par with i7 6900K for x264 and x265 encoding.

ffmpeg\ffmpeg.exe -i sample\sample.ts -an -f rawvideo - | x265\x265_64.exe --input-res 1920x1080 --fps 24000/1001 - -o sample\x265_64.265 --crf 16 --preset slower --me hex --no-rect --no-amp --rd 4 --aq-mode 2 --aq-strength 0.5 --psy-rd 1.0 --psy-rdoq 0.1 --bframes 3 --min-keyint 1 --ipratio 1.1 --pbratio 1.1 --ssim --psnr

[Sagittaire]

I certainly don't believe that.

Well ... you are wrong.

Rysen R7 is on par with i7 6900K for x264 and x265.

CPC Hardware magazine produce complete test since 2 month in preview for show that.

R7 1700 at 350$ will be certainely the best CPU in market for produce 4K x265 stream with good speed with low price, and by far.

[Sagittaire]

Yep the 500$ RyZen 1800X is 15% faster than the 340$ i7-7700k

also IPC has no value without power consuption @ same frequencies, and the tune with memory controller, cache l3 and other stuff will go bad on extreme up/down oc

No it's completely false test, certainely because Anand tech don't sature each thread at 100% in their x264 and x265 test.

If you make x264 and x265 encoding, you know that i7 6900K (8C/16T) is by far better than i7 7700K (4C/8T) for speed in all situation even if you make extreme Overclocking for i7 7700K.

[NikosD]

Well ... you are wrong.


I told you that RyZen architecture due to the 128bit FMACs vs 256 FMACs of Intel is going to be around half speed regarding AVX/AVX2 speed.

This is the proof (one of many around the web)
Look at the same clock@3.8GHz results.
Intel has exactly double speed on this AVX bench

https://s8.postimg.org/539y12csl/AVX.png


Rysen R7 is on par with i7 6900K for x264 and x265.


x264 is a lot different app with almost no AVX2 optimizations and RyZen 7 is very fast on that.

Do you have any proof that RyZen 7 is on par with 6900K on x265 ?

[NikosD]

If you are talking about extended frequency range (xfr) - it's not in Ryzen 1700. Only Ryzens with suffix 'x' will have them. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Personally, I would still prefer 1700 over 7700k

No, I thought that too, but I read that XFR works for all RyZen and all mobo chipsets as you can see in techreport's review (one of many reviews actually)

We found that even AMD's Wraith cooler is enough of a heatsink to let XFR kick in on the Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 1700X, so it seems as though many folks will be able to enjoy some additional out-of-the-box clock speed headroom without overclocking.

But, it seems that RyZen 7 CPUs have already been pushed to some kind of clock limit, because using precision boost (like Intel's Turbo) and XFR, you can go only 100MHz above boost and only if the work load is up to two active cores/ 4 threads.

If the workload is multithreaded, you need good old overclocking to raise the speed of all 8 cores.

Plain 1700 is a good overclocker according to techreport:

On early firmware, we got our $330 Ryzen 7 1700 up to a 3.9 GHz all-core overclock using just the modest AMD Wraith cooler.
With those settings, the mildest Ryzen turns into a rather brisk single-threaded performer and a real fire-breather on the cheap for multithreaded workloads.
We expect buyers willing to tweak a bit will be happy with the performance they can extract from a Ryzen 7 1700 and an affordable tower heatsink like the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo.
We didn't enjoy as much overclocking success with the already-speedy 1700X and 1800X parts, though.


Well ... you are wrong.


I told you that RyZen architecture due to the 128bit FMACs vs 256 FMACs of Intel is going to be around half speed regarding AVX/AVX2 speed.

This is the proof (one of many around the web)
Look at the same clock@3.8GHz results.
Intel has exactly double speed on this AVX bench

https://s8.postimg.org/539y12csl/AVX.png


Rysen R7 is on par with i7 6900K for x264 and x265.


x264 is a lot different app with almost no AVX2 optimizations and RyZen 7 is very fast on that.

Do you have any proof that RyZen 7 is on par with 6900K on x265 ?

[Disturbance]

Do you have any proof that RyZen 7 is on par with 6900K on x265 ?

Just adding to the conversation but there is this graph on hardware.fr (http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-13/encodage-video-x264-x265.html) that for x265 its within 6.6% of the 6900k.

[mandarinka]

No, I thought that too, but I read that XFR works for all RyZen and all mobo chipsets as you can see in techreport's review (one of many reviews actually)

But, it seems that RyZen 7 CPUs have already been pushed to some kind of clock limit, because using precision boost (like Intel's Turbo) and XFR, you can go only 100MHz above boost and only if the work load is up to two active cores/ 4 threads.

The XFR allows going 100 MHz over max turbo on the X SKUs, but only by 50 MHz (half of the value for X SKUs) on the non-X ones. It doesn't go further, even if you cooled it with ice or something.

So basically the max clock (with good cooler) becomes 3,9 GHz for 1700X and 3,75 GHz for 1700.

[NikosD]

And this is only for 2 cores active.

If the workload is properly multithreaded, the speed drops just 100MHz over the base frequency, so the overclocked speed is 3.5GHz for 1700X and 3.1GHz for 1700.

[Sagittaire]

Do you have any proof that RyZen 7 is on par with 6900K on x265 ?

yes ... of course ... ;-)

http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/x265.png

[Atak_Snajpera]

It looks like Ryzen in integer calculations is at the same level with Intel Haswell

4.4GHz/4.1GHz*30.6=32.8 fps (Ryzen 7 1800X@4.4GHz)

[LigH]

According to a German blog post (http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a644bec7), it may be important to support the RyZen architecture specifically; but Windows may not yet be prepared for that completely: an 8 core chip has two "CPU Complex" (CCX) areas, which makes task switching among each of their 4 cores faster than between either complex, so an OS may better handle this CPU like "NUMA-on-a-chip" with two pools. If they can. That may depend on CPU specific drivers for specific operating systems and their awareness of NUMA architectures in their kernels.

It may not be marketing alone that AMD will (at first?) probably not offer drivers for Windows 7, only for Windows 10. Sub-optimal NUMA support per kernel may be another argument. Until proven wrong...

[Atak_Snajpera]

It may not be marketing alone that AMD will (at first?) probably not offer drivers for Windows 7, only for Windows 10. Sub-optimal NUMA support per kernel may be another argument. Until proven wrong...

I wouldn't worry about drivers for windows7.
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/am4-chipset-driver.aspx

[mandarinka]

SMT only harms in games and not in all reviews. I spoke with guy who said he measured both and SMT was not harming particularly. It might only happen with HPET, balanced power profile in Windows, or other factors. Also apparently there are bugs in BIOSes ATM, that can disable SMT and so on.

As for x265/AVX2 - some tests are also showing x265 on Ryzen to be close to Broadwell-E, like x264: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-13/encodage-video-x264-x265.html

But it is possible that some of these tests only run fast settings that don't do as much analysis and don't use big blocks that would benefit from AVX2?

[Sagittaire]

and certainely that x265dev (and x264dev?) will produce specifical optimisation to have even better speed for Rysen 7:

1) At this time default command line for x265 is sub-optimized for massive multithreading (6C/12T and more).

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/5/

The x265 benchmark is slightly different to Cinebench and Handbrake as it does not saturate the full set of threads on eight- or ten-core chips unless an overclock is thrown into the equation. The data has to be sent fast enough for it to be split and divided up to keep all eight or ten cores fully active, and that’s where clock speed has value.


2) x264 thread optimisation seem really better and Rysen produce result on par with i7 6950K:

http://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=446&n=9

[Atak_Snajpera]

1) At this time default command line for x265 is sub-optimized for massive multithreading (6C/12T and more).
That's why I run 5 instances of x265 in my x265 FHD Benchmark :) One instance can not saturate my Xeon E5-2690 (8C/16T) on default settings. (CPU usage around 65-75%)

[Sagittaire]

That's why I run 5 instances of x265 in my x265 FHD Benchmark :) One instance can not saturate my Xeon E5-2690 (8C/16T) on default settings. (CPU usage around 65-75%)

Yes it's exactly true ...

But you can have really better CPU charge on x265 simply with good command line:
--pmode --pme
-- slices 4

Or use 4K encoding for x265 ... ;-)

[Sagittaire]

Anyway it's sure: Rysen 7 1700 at 350$ will be "the CPU to have" for make video encoding ... :D

[Atak_Snajpera]

Anyway it's sure: Rysen 7 1700 at 350$ will be "the CPU to have" for make video encoding ... :D
keep in mind that OC beyond 3.5 GHz is just a waste of energy
https://hardforum.com/threads/ryzen-7-1700-b350-overclocking-tidbits.1926296/
https://i.imgur.com/FetxQOo.png

[Sagittaire]

keep in mind that OC beyond 3.5 GHz is just a waste of energy
https://hardforum.com/threads/ryzen-7-1700-b350-overclocking-tidbits.1926296/
https://i.imgur.com/FetxQOo.png

no ... keep in mind that R7 1700 is 3.0/3.4/3.7 ghz at 65 Watt and i7 6900K is 3.2/3.4/3.7 Ghz at 140 Watt ... :eek:

with simple O/C at 3.8 Ghz you have better perf and less power energy than i7 6900K @stock at 140 watt

R7 1700 have better O/C potential (in %) than all the other R7

[Atak_Snajpera]

no ... keep in mind that R7 1700 is 3.0/3.4/3.7 ghz at 65 Watt and i7 6900K is 3.2/3.4/3.7 Ghz at 140 Watt ... :eek:

with simple O/C at 3.8 Ghz you have better perf and less power energy than i7 6900K @stock at 140 watt

R7 1700 have better O/C potential (in %) than all the other R7

Still anything beyond 3.5GHz draws too much juice from the wall.
Personally I would stick to sweet spot@3.5GHz.

[Sagittaire]

Still anything beyond 3.5GHz draws too much juice from the wall.
Personally I would stick to sweet spot@3.5GHz.

Well ...

R7 1700X is 3.4/3.6/3.8 Ghz CPU at 95 Watts
R7 1800X is 3.6/3.8/4.0 Ghz CPU at 95 Watts

AMD seem have the same analyse for power limit ... :)

[NikosD]

These are not real power consumption numbers.

The 1800X stock is about 112W in prime small fft test, but even climbs up to 140W with other workloads.

We have to wait for reviews from big sites in order to evaluate power consumption and temperature of Ryzen 7 according to its clocks.

[CruNcher]

Yes its the same with intel it's more SDP then TDP whoever just judges TDP is not understanding modern workloads at all and all the security precautions inside the Design of Hardware today ;)

[Sagittaire]

Yes its the same with intel it's more SDP then TDP whoever just judges TDP is not understanding modern workloads at all and all the security precautions inside the Design of Hardware today ;)

We have to wait for reviews from big sites in order to evaluate power consumption and temperature of Ryzen 7 according to its clocks.

Well it's here (french hardware communauty on top ... ;-)
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-9/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html

command line for x264 v2744
--preset slower --tune grain --crf 20 --ssim --psnr

x264 speed @stock for 1080p encoding
http://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=440&n=1

Power consommation for this x264 encoding
http://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=442&n=1

efficacity for this x264 encoding (higer is better)
http://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=443&n=1

[JohnLai]

Hmmm...Sagittaire, any graph for x265?

[Sagittaire]

Hmmm...Sagittaire, any graph for x265?

No interpretation possible with x265 because all the test in the net use default command line with x265 (certainely with gui like handbrake).

And with default command line all the thread for x265 are not satured and by far, particulary for 8C/16T CPU.

Hardware.fr will perhaps change their test protocole to change that ... ;)

I propose these command line with x265 to have better CPU thread saturation:

--preset slower --tune grain --crf 16 --ssim --psnr --pmode --pme
or
--preset slower --tune grain --crf 16 --ssim --psnr --slices 4

[CruNcher]

What was the input here ?

[Sagittaire]

What was the input here ?

frame server from ffmpeg with BD source sample:

ffmpeg\ffmpeg.exe -i sample\sample.ts -an -f rawvideo - | x264\x264_64.exe --input-res 1920x1080 --fps 24000/1001 - -o sample\x264_64.264 --preset slower --tune grain --crf 20 --ssim --psnr

[mandarinka]

These are not real power consumption numbers.

The 1800X stock is about 112W in prime small fft test, but even climbs up to 140W with other workloads.

We have to wait for reviews from big sites in order to evaluate power consumption and temperature of Ryzen 7 according to its clocks.

How was that measured? In my experience, AMD CPUs stick to their TDP limits unless those are disabled in BIOS and/or there is other form of overclocking.

If your numbers are based on wall power consumption, then they are inflated.
TDP (95 W) is only a rating for the CPU itself. When you meassure power draw on the 12V line for the CPU, then the power consumption you see is actually the draw of the CPU itself + losses of the VRM circuits (up to 20 %). If you measure power consumption of the whole PC at the wall, then you have another 15-20 % of power losses added on top, in addition to the inherent lack of precision in such scenario. Also your measured total consumption will include ramped-up CPU cooling fan (2-4 W, some coolers are rated for 0,7A/12V!) or water AIO pump (even more probably).

So when considering high 85% efficiency for both the PSU and VRM, 95W power consumed by CPU becomes 125 W delta measured, for illustration (95*1,15*1,15 = 125,6).

In any case, Ryzen draws considerably less than X99 chips in load, so it can't have 140W TDP.

[CruNcher]

Most interesting will be now the Hexa Core/Octa Core + VEGA IGPU Platform CPU launch :)

Looks not bad so far though not interesting at all overall Intel could beat it tomorrow if they want to, but the combination of a Hexa Core + VEGA IP value will be harder to chuck for Intel they had some time advantage now shrinking and advancing the GPU Core but 2H 17 and 1st H 18 are still a possibility to hit now hard with that Hexa Core (Zen) + IGPU Value combination for AMD on AM4 :D

Also targeting the whole Mobile space and bringing Nvidia under pressure as well in the same hit in combination with VEGA ;)

I still predict AMDs breakthrough there coming with massive success, that intel won't really be able to compensate so fast when it hits soon as a complete Modular MultiGPU solution Ecosystem based on Console Development :)

Ryzen looks nice so far but it's not the efficiency Killer that Raven Ridge gonna be :)

The Overall Value is not really high of that Flagship except the 8 Cores but overall to weak for the Overall complexity rise we are currently under.

The G/S line is very interesting in overall Value vs Intel before Kaby Lake X and Coffe Lake hits as we know intel is suddenly ready to ship it sooner now then expected (binned enough Kaby Lake failures to market) ;)

So we will finaly see Hexa Cores from Intel entering Mainstream as well vs the 8/6 Cores of AMD soon.

https://pics.computerbase.de/7/6/7/3/7/8-1080.2705907299.png

[Boulder]

The only proper way to retain detail is to use --tune grain. That's just the way it is :)

[NikosD]

One more thing regarding x265 performance of Ryzen and the AVX2 optimizations.

All of the above info and architectural theory of Ryzen internals refers to floating point AVX2-FMA3 implementation.

But x265 uses the integer part of AVX2 and I haven't seen that implementation of Ryzen.

How many 128bit integer ADD/MUL execution units does it have and with what latency and throughout?

Maybe the integer part of AVX2 implementation is faster than FP AVX2

[Atak_Snajpera]

https://www.purepc.pl/image/news/2017/02/10_amd_zen_mnostwo_szczegolow_dotyczacych_nowej_architektury_12.jpg

[LigH]

Even though a new CPU generation is interesting for the development of x265, I wonder if such a specific talk about hardware dependencies deserves a thread separate from a rather general and previously more software oriented thread?

@ Moderation: Split?

[CruNcher]

Is it possible to correct the color change between the screen shots below? The first is the source from bluray and the second is using x265 v 2.3+6. I've updated to v2.3+17 with no change...

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/202364

My settings are below which I pulled from MediaInfo.

cpuid=1173503 / frame-threads=6 / numa-pools=32 / wpp / no-pmode / no-pme / no-psnr / no-ssim / log-level=2 / input-csp=1 / input-res=1920x1080 / interlace=0 / total-frames=1470 / level-idc=0 / high-tier=1 / uhd-bd=0 / ref=6 / no-allow-non-conformance / no-repeat-headers / annexb / no-aud / no-hrd / info / hash=0 / no-temporal-layers / open-gop / min-keyint=24 / keyint=240 / bframes=8 / b-adapt=2 / b-pyramid / bframe-bias=5 / rc-lookahead=40 / lookahead-slices=6 / scenecut=40 / no-intra-refresh / ctu=32 / min-cu-size=8 / rect / amp / max-tu-size=32 / tu-inter-depth=4 / tu-intra-depth=4 / limit-tu=3 / rdoq-level=2 / dynamic-rd=0.00 / signhide / no-tskip / nr-intra=0 / nr-inter=0 / no-constrained-intra / no-strong-intra-smoothing / max-merge=5 / limit-refs=2 / limit-modes / me=3 / subme=3 / merange=26 / temporal-mvp / weightp / weightb / no-analyze-src-pics / deblock=0:0 / no-sao / no-sao-non-deblock / rd=5 / no-early-skip / rskip / no-fast-intra / no-tskip-fast / no-cu-lossless / b-intra / rdpenalty=0 / psy-rd=2.00 / psy-rdoq=2.00 / no-rd-refine / analysis-mode=0 / no-lossless / cbqpoffs=0 / crqpoffs=0 / rc=crf / crf=21.0 / qcomp=0.65 / qpstep=4 / stats-write=0 / stats-read=0 / ipratio=1.40 / pbratio=1.30 / aq-mode=1 / aq-strength=1.00 / cutree / zone-count=0 / no-strict-cbr / qg-size=16 / no-rc-grain / qpmax=69 / qpmin=0 / sar=1 / overscan=0 / videoformat=5 / range=0 / colorprim=2 / transfer=2 / colormatrix=2 / chromaloc=0 / display-window=0 / max-cll=0,0 / min-luma=0 / max-luma=1023 / log2-max-poc-lsb=8 / vui-timing-info / vui-hrd-info / slices=1 / opt-qp-pps / opt-ref-list-length-pps / no-multi-pass-opt-rps / scenecut-bias=0.05 / no-opt-cu-delta-qp / aq-motion / no-hdr / no-hdr-opt / Capture-colorprim=3

A side from the coloring I've tried to improve pic quality without just throwing more bits at it. I've tried dozens of tweaks rd, max merge, ref, rect, amp, aq mode, limit-tu, et cetera.

Even when I increase the CRF from 21 -> 20 or even 19, it doesn't improve much...

Thanks in advance!

Such output differences also make me wonder lately see this difference over here between AMD/NVIDIA and Intel outputs ;)

https://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1796861&postcount=207

though in your case the source is surely bt 709 and it seems you also flag it that way so it looks like a real chroma difference based on the encoder difference, overall pixel lose can be percepted as a color/lighting difference in your case 3rd Generation.


Most interesting is how his beard changes the perception of it becoming more brownish in your output then black

same for the stony background it gets warmer more saturated as well

Though overall the scene most probably should overall be rather dark it might be you getting a overall wrong picture of how it is supposed to look @ all due to being not correctly calibrated to bt 709, thus why you percepting the difference now stronger with a higher luminance level ?.

If you look really close you see how x265 Psy changed overall the whole appearance of the original overall ;)

First you can see it reconstructed something that is sharper then the original input overall ;)

hmm i guess that is more AQ-Motion it looks like a temporal super resolution like reconstruction ?

[birdie]

Ryzen 1800X does consume significantly more than advertised:

At least 117W:
https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-02-27/power.png

At least 125W:
http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/Article/2588/content/power-1.png

At least 106W:
https://i2.wp.com/www.eteknix.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Ryzen-1800x-12.png