New advanced Benchmark

[JMX]

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Core i9-7900X | 29.37 | 5.47 | 145 | 4.38 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 2.14 | 2.32 | 3.49 | 3.50 | 4.30 | N/A |



no overclocking of any kind - just a stock computer
some error messages while the auto script ran but I didn't really payed attention.

[RanmaCanada]

Anyone with a Ryzen+ want to run this bench so we can compare apples to apples? It would be interesting to see it benched properly as the review sites aren't doing x265 benchmarks justice.

[TEB]

av_interleaved_write_frame(): Invalid argument
Error writing trailer of pipe:: Invalid argument00:00:04.37 bitrate=4777574.4kbits/s speed=0.123x
frame= 105 fps=2.3 q=-0.0 Lsize= 2551500kB time=00:00:04.37 bitrate=4777574.4kbits/s speed=0.094x
video:2551500kB audio:0kB subtitle:0kB other streams:0kB global headers:0kB muxing overhead: 0.000000%
Conversion failed!
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 7 1800X | 19.96 | 2.85 | 67 | 2.08 | 1.02 | 1.03 | 1.52 | 1.58 | 1.91 | 2.09 | 2.16 | N/A |

[dex8472]

Hi guys, here's my benchmark. Stock config.

Ryzen 7 2700x @ 3.70 GHz
i7-4770k @ 3.50 GHz
i7-4790k @ 4 GHz

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 7 2700X | 21.62 | 3.51 | 124 | 2.78 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.75 | 1.90 | 2.72 | 2.74 | 2.84 | N/A |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Core i7-4770K | 10.03 | 1.84 | 64 | 1.50 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 1.16 | 1.19 | 1.47 | N/A |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Core i7-4790K | 10.76 | 2.03 | 65 | 1.59 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.77 | 0.84 | 1.29 | 1.31 | 1.58 | N/A |

[RanmaCanada]

Is there any way we can get the benchmark updated, as several people with Epyc machines have tried to run it, and it will not run.

[NikosD]

If it doesn't run properly for EPYC it won't run for Threadripper 2, too.

[DotJun]

Will you be adding avx512 to the benchmark?

[Atak_Snajpera]

If it doesn't run properly for EPYC it won't run for Threadripper 2, too.

Why???

[Atak_Snajpera]

Will you be adding avx512 to the benchmark?

avx512 is almost useless
https://networkbuilders.intel.com/docs/accelerating-x265-the-hevc-encoder-with-intel-advanced-vector-extensions-512.pdf

[NikosD]

Why???Due to the similar many core architecture I guess.

Unless of course EPYC has a different problem.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Is there any way we can get the benchmark updated, as several people with Epyc machines have tried to run it, and it will not run.

I doubt that this benchmark is designed to saturate all logical processors on EPYC 1(64threads)/2(96threads) anyway.

2160p is only enough up to 32 threads. You will have to run 2 instances to get 100% usage in this case on EPYC 1 and 3 for EPYC 2.

[RanmaCanada]

I doubt that this benchmark is designed to saturate all logical processors on EPYC 1(64threads)/2(96threads) anyway.

2160p is only enough up to 32 threads. You will have to run 2 instances to get 100% usage in this case on EPYC 1 and 3 for EPYC 2.

True, but the problem is that people are reporting that it won't run on Windows Server SR2. As I don't have an EPYC myself, I sadly can't run the benchmark, and the people are only posting in the threads on reddit, and not creating accounts and posting here to report the issues. :( People have asked them to come here, but to no avail, so it's like a long game of telephone. Hopefully when TR2 is released we will get some good benchmarks :)

[Atak_Snajpera]

tell them to run x265 FHD Benchmark
https://s22.postimg.cc/t2k45na75/Untitled-1.png

Ps. Overclocked 2990x@4GHz should give you ~90fps in 1080p with default settings.

[RanmaCanada]

And even you are having troubles with your benchmark haha :P I guess we need some new software to abuse these multi-core beasts?

[Atak_Snajpera]

And even you are having troubles with your benchmark haha :P I guess we need some new software to abuse these multi-core beasts?

Because numa nodes were not set for each encoder. Who would have thought that lack of direct access to memory by DIE1 and DIE3 will be so devastating for x265 video encoding. Relax. New version will assign each encoder to own NUMA node. This should reduce data traffic on infinity nodes and hence improve speed.

[Forteen88]

I got "av_interleaved_write_frame(): Invalid argument" too, using "Benchmark_auto.bat" file. But the results.log file showed,
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 5 3600 | 20.82 | 3.86 | 118 | 3.13 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.55 | 1.69 | 2.51 | 2.55 | 3.16 | N/A |

AMD Ryzen 3600 with DDR4-3200@3466.

[RanmaCanada]

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3| SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 7 2700 | 17.78 | 2.97 | 99 | 2.34 | 0.96 | 0.90 | 1.47 | 1.59 | 2.22 | 2.31 | 2.34 | N/A |

In comparison to my E5-2670 that I posted exactly 3 years ago!

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Xeon E5-2670 0 | 12.64 | 1.80 | 79 | 1.50 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.94 | 1.02 | 1.46 | 1.50 | N/A | N/A |

Is there anyway we can get the benchmark updated with newer builds of software? I have tried to do it myself, but I failed, badly.

edit: why can't I get the formating to stick...

[Zebulon84]

As there is no CPU like mine yet, I've tried the benchmark. I had some errors, but it seems I'm not the only one so here is the result of my 11 years old i5 750:

|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Core i5 750 | 4.70 | 0.71 | 31 | 0.59 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.37 | 0.39 | 0.57 | N/A | N/A | N/A |


To have a better view of different CPU, I gathered all results posted in this thread, Intel then AMD sorted by x265 value:

|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| 2x Xeon E5-2699 v4 | 37.19 | 9.36 | 118 | 5.48 | 2.13 | 2.12 | 3.25 | 3.48 | 4.90 | 4.89 | 5.28 | N/A |
| Core i9-7980XE @4.7| 44.89 | 9.34 | 186 | 6.84 | 2.48 | 2.46 | 3.69 | 3.86 | 5.25 | 5.75 | 6.71 | N/A |
| Xeon E5-2699 v4 | 31.04 | 6.79 | 135 | 4.95 | 1.72 | 1.73 | 2.66 | 2.88 | 4.21 | 4.22 | 4.87 | N/A |
| Core i9-7900X @4.5 | 32.97 | 6.24 | 157 | 4.70 | 1.57 | 1.58 | 2.50 | 2.74 | 4.07 | 3.98 | 4.82 | N/A |
| Core i9-7900X | 29.37 | 5.47 | 145 | 4.38 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 2.14 | 2.32 | 3.49 | 3.50 | 4.30 | N/A |
| Core i7-8750H | 13.14 | 2.33 | 79 | 1.90 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 1.02 | 1.07 | 1.64 | 1.55 | 1.85 | N/A |
| Core i7-5960X | 18.18 | 3.30 | 116 | 2.66 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 1.23 | 1.33 | 2.09 | 2.09 | 2.58 | N/A |
| Core i7-6700K | 11.95 | 2.28 | 82 | 1.89 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 1.47 | 1.50 | 1.85 | N/A |
| Core i7-4790K @4.4 | 11.70 | 2.10 | 78 | 1.74 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 1.39 | 1.40 | 1.75 | N/A |
| Core i7-4790K | 10.76 | 2.03 | 65 | 1.59 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.77 | 0.84 | 1.29 | 1.31 | 1.58 | N/A |
| Core i7-4770 | 10.30 | 1.89 | 67 | 1.55 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.71 | 0.76 | 1.21 | 1.21 | 1.51 | N/A |
| Core i5-7500 | 9.21 | 1.89 | 64 | 1.55 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.52 | N/A |
| Core i7-4770K | 10.03 | 1.84 | 64 | 1.50 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 1.16 | 1.19 | 1.47 | N/A |
| Xeon E5-2670 | 12.64 | 1.80 | 79 | 1.50 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.94 | 1.02 | 1.46 | 1.50 | N/A | N/A |
| Core i7-6700HQ | 8.96 | 1.75 | 88 | 1.43 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.49 | 0.54 | 1.05 | 1.12 | 1.45 | N/A |
| Core i7-3770K @4.2 | 10.35 | 1.46 | 72 | 1.22 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 1.22 | 1.23 | N/A | N/A |
| Core i7-2600K @4.5 | 9.43 | 1.39 | 62 | 1.13 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 1.14 | 1.18 | N/A | N/A |
| Core i7 920 @3.8 | 7.90 | 1.14 | 49 | 0.96 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.96 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Core i5-7200U | 4.79 | 0.94 | 35 | 0.78 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.77 | N/A |
| Pentium G4560 | 5.02 | 0.77 | 37 | 0.66 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.67 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Core i5 750 | 4.70 | 0.71 | 31 | 0.59 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.37 | 0.39 | 0.57 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 9 3900X | 39.30 | 7.25 | 144 | 5.43 | 1.96 | 1.96 | 3.02 | 3.26 | 4.58 | 4.60 | 5.51 | N/A |
| Threadripper 1950X | 37.59 | 6.50 | 136 | 4.65 | 2.02 | 2.00 | 2.95 | 3.10 | 3.89 | 4.10 | 4.26 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 3700X | 24.25 | 4.58 | 130 | 3.76 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 1.94 | 2.03 | 2.75 | 2.97 | 3.71 | N/A |
| Ryzen 5 3600 | 20.82 | 3.86 | 118 | 3.13 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.55 | 1.69 | 2.51 | 2.55 | 3.16 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 2700X | 21.62 | 3.51 | 124 | 2.78 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.75 | 1.90 | 2.72 | 2.74 | 2.84 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 1800X | 21.28 | 3.42 | 118 | 2.72 | 1.13 | 1.13 | 1.71 | 1.83 | 2.52 | 2.53 | 2.65 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 1800X @4 | 22.35 | 3.41 | 74 | 2.59 | 1.14 | 1.14 | 1.56 | 1.75 | 2.17 | 2.32 | 2.37 | N/A |
| Ryzen 1700 | 18.51 | 2.98 | 103 | 2.32 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 1.41 | 1.54 | 2.11 | 2.05 | 2.08 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 2700 | 17.78 | 2.97 | 99 | 2.34 | 0.96 | 0.90 | 1.47 | 1.59 | 2.22 | 2.31 | 2.34 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 1800X (TEB)| 19.96 | 2.85 | 67 | 2.08 | 1.02 | 1.03 | 1.52 | 1.58 | 1.91 | 2.09 | 2.16 | N/A |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
Note that Selur and TEB have the same CPU (Ryzen 1800X) but with quite different results.

[tormento]

My results:
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Core i7-2600K @4.5 | 9.43 | 1.39 | 62 | 1.13 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 1.14 | 1.18 | N/A | N/A |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|

[masterkivat]

My results:

(Ryzen 3900x stock, 16gb DDR4@3000MHz)

https://puu.sh/FDetX/1d23de58e8.png

(Sorry for the lazyness in not formatting to text here :D

[benwaggoner]

Because numa nodes were not set for each encoder. Who would have thought that lack of direct access to memory by DIE1 and DIE3 will be so devastating for x265 video encoding. Relax. New version will assign each encoder to own NUMA node. This should reduce data traffic on infinity nodes and hence improve speed.
I've not really found much content below 8K where a single encode materially benefits from multiple sockets(at least not with my dual "Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6240 CPU @ 2.60GHz, 2594 Mhz, 18 Core(s), 36 Logical Processor(s)").

[Greenhorn]

Ryzen 3700x, base clocks:
x264: 24.25
x265: 4.58
LAVC: 130
auto: 3.76
MMX2: 1.26
SSE: 1.26
SSE2: 1.94
SSE3: 2.03
SSE4: 2.75
AVX: 2.97
AVX2: 3.71
All: N/A

[RanmaCanada]

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Core i7-8750H | 13.14 | 2.33 | 79 | 1.90 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 1.02 | 1.07 | 1.64 | 1.55 | 1.85 | N/A |

[RanmaCanada]

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Core i5-9300H | 10.68 | 1.86 | 57 | 1.49 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 1.29 | 1.20 | 1.47 | N/A |

[RanmaCanada]

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU Ryzen 7 5800X | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
|
| 8-Core Processor | 32.44 | 5.67 | 103 | 4.34 | 1.61 | 1.65 | 2.45 | 2.67 | 3.71 | 3.69 | 4.39 | N/A |

[TEB]

Does a linux console version of this benchmark exist? I have alot of new amd servers at work as well as alot of intel servers i can benchmark.. All with red hat ..

[benwaggoner]

Ryzen 3700x, base clocks:
x264: 24.25
x265: 4.58
LAVC: 130
auto: 3.76
MMX2: 1.26
SSE: 1.26
SSE2: 1.94
SSE3: 2.03
SSE4: 2.75
AVX: 2.97
AVX2: 3.71
All: N/A
Is it time to add an AVX-512 test as well? I know that won't work on lots of systems, and probably makes things slower in general for most use cases (on my Cascade Lake I only see speedups on 8K or 4K around veryslow). But perhaps things are different with the new Intel designs?

It'd be nice to have the test track that to see how AVX-512 perf improves over time.

[RanmaCanada]

Does a linux console version of this benchmark exist? I have alot of new amd servers at work as well as alot of intel servers i can benchmark.. All with red hat ..

AFAIK, no. We also need the exe files updated as they are ancient. I've attempted to do it on my own, but I have no clue what I am doing :D

[Sagittaire]

Is it time to add an AVX-512 test as well? I know that won't work on lots of systems, and probably makes things slower in general for most use cases (on my Cascade Lake I only see speedups on 8K or 4K around veryslow). But perhaps things are different with the new Intel designs?

It'd be nice to have the test track that to see how AVX-512 perf improves over time.

I will try to update that.

Anyway Zen3 is incredible update if you compare at Zen2 or Zen1 (All CPU are 8C/16T here): AVX2 produce terrible boost
I will try to use AV1 benchmark with 4K source.

|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 7 5800X | 32.44 | 5.67 | 103 | 4.34 | 1.61 | 1.65 | 2.45 | 2.67 | 3.71 | 3.69 | 4.39 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 3700X | 24.25 | 4.58 | 130 | 3.76 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 1.94 | 2.03 | 2.75 | 2.97 | 3.71 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 2700X | 21.62 | 3.51 | 124 | 2.78 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.75 | 1.90 | 2.72 | 2.74 | 2.84 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 1800X | 21.28 | 3.42 | 118 | 2.72 | 1.13 | 1.13 | 1.71 | 1.83 | 2.52 | 2.53 | 2.65 | N/A |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|

[jriker1]

If we are collecting these still, below is a run thru of my old dual Xeon server. Note it did fail at one point:

x265 [info]: frame B: 35, Avg QP:23.89 kb/s: 17745.37 PSNR Mean: Y:49.108 U:52.469 V:56.906 SSIM Mean: 0.991256 (20.583dB)
x265 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:0.0% UV:0.0%av_interleaved_write_frame(): Invalid argument
x265 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 61.5% 26.2% 9.2% 3.1% 0.0% frame= 105 fps=2.6 q=-0.0 size= 2551500kB time=00:00:04.37 bitrate=4777574.4kbits/s speed=0.11x
Error writing trailer of pipe:: Invalid argument
video:2551500kB audio:0kB subtitle:0kB other streams:0kB global headers:0kB muxing overhead:SIM Mean Y: 0.9897323 (19.885 dB)frame= 105 fps=1.9 q=-0.0 Lsize= 2551500kB time=00:00:04.37 bitrate=4777574.4kbits/s 0.000000%87x
Conversion failed!


|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Xeon X5680 | 18.03 | 2.29 | 74 | 1.81 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 1.21 | 1.30 | 1.80 | N/A | N/A | N/A |

Also isn't some of this dependent on the speed of the drive/ssd the data's being read/written to?

[excellentswordfight]

If we are collecting these still, below is a run thru of my old dual Xeon server. Note it did fail at one point:




|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Xeon X5680 | 18.03 | 2.29 | 74 | 1.81 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 1.21 | 1.30 | 1.80 | N/A | N/A | N/A |

Also isn't some of this dependent on the speed of the drive/ssd the data's being read/written to?
I havnt looked at this benchmark specifically, but I assume that the sources are rather compressed, if thats the case then I doubt that it will have much effect as long as the drive is in a somewhat idle state. For example, if you have UHD-bluray soruce at 60Mbps, thats only 7,5MB/s reads if you can encode at realtime (24fps) and most people cannot even reach that for 2160p with hevc, and usually with x264/x265 you encode to something smaller so writes shoudlnt be an issue either.

[jriker1]

is it just me or is my system keeping up with i7 CPU's from some of the consolidated info I have? I also have an i7-7700k so guessing that system would output at a similar speed even though my server has 24 threads and my i7 has 8 threads. Haven't tested the i7 yet but seems like similar i7's get similar results in the x265 space.

[benwaggoner]

I will try to update that.

Anyway Zen3 is incredible update if you compare at Zen2 or Zen1 (All CPU are 8C/16T here): AVX2 produce terrible boost
I will try to use AV1 benchmark with 4K source.

|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 7 5800X | 32.44 | 5.67 | 103 | 4.34 | 1.61 | 1.65 | 2.45 | 2.67 | 3.71 | 3.69 | 4.39 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 3700X | 24.25 | 4.58 | 130 | 3.76 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 1.94 | 2.03 | 2.75 | 2.97 | 3.71 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 2700X | 21.62 | 3.51 | 124 | 2.78 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.75 | 1.90 | 2.72 | 2.74 | 2.84 | N/A |
| Ryzen 7 1800X | 21.28 | 3.42 | 118 | 2.72 | 1.13 | 1.13 | 1.71 | 1.83 | 2.52 | 2.53 | 2.65 | N/A |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|

Do I read this as AVX2 being SLOWER than the ALL? What is the difference?

[benwaggoner]

I havnt looked at this benchmark specifically, but I assume that the sources are rather compressed, if thats the case then I doubt that it will have much effect as long as the drive is in a somewhat idle state. For example, if you have UHD-bluray soruce at 60Mbps, thats only 7,5MB/s reads if you can encode at realtime (24fps) and most people cannot even reach that for 2160p with hevc, and usually with x264/x265 you encode to something smaller so writes shoudlnt be an issue either.
The only time I can recall where read speed was a bottleneck was having to do some uncompressed 4K over USB 2.0 some years back. As slow as x265 4K was at the time, the USB bottleneck still made it three times slower.

[Nico8583]

Hi,
Here are my results :
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 7 3700X | 26.99 | 5.16 | 147 | 4.10 | 1.38 | 1.36 | 1.91 | 2.30 | 3.35 | 3.40 | 4.10 | N/A |

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Core i7-8700 | 19.49 | 3.73 | 119 | 3.03 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 1.45 | 1.57 | 2.38 | 2.41 | 2.99 | N/A |

All CPU @ stock, RAM 2x8GB 3200Mhz for 3700X and 2x8GB 2666Mhz for 8700

Edit : The same benchmark with slow preset instead of medium for x265 :

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 7 3700X | 28.24 | 2.07 | 140 | 1.35 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.83 | 0.91 | 1.07 | 1.07 | 1.37 | N/A |

[Loomes]

Here are the results for my Ryzen 9 3900x, 16GB DDR4 3200Mhz CL16:

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 9 3900X | 40.68 | 7.73 | 189 | 5.81 | 2.04 | 2.04 | 3.12 | 3.41 | 4.67 | 4.74 | 5.66 | N/A |

...not too shabby but I was thinking about swapping my RAM for better 3600MHz CL 14 -- would there be significant improvements?

[Boulder]

Memory speed doesn't matter much. You could also probably overclock to 3600MHz anyway, and I think the sweet spot for that chip's FCLK is 1800MHz so you should definitely test it. Any extensive filtering and 4K sources may require upping the Avisynth+ default cache size a lot so 16GB might not cut it in all cases. I recall a few times when I ran out of memory and had to restrict the cache size which then lowered the performance in multithreaded mode. With 32GB, it's easy to just allow max 20GB for the cache (or which Avisynth+ uses around 10-12GB most of the time).

[RanmaCanada]

I would have to agree with Boulder. I swapped from 3200MHz regular ram to 2400MHz ECC and I did not see a measurable difference in regards to encode speeds on my 5800x. The only thing you can do is just get more ram to ensure you don't run out haha, which I've had happen more than once! If anyone has good leads on 2x32GB DDR4 ECC for desktops (unbuffered I believe), it would be appreciated haha.

Maybe it's time to ping Sagittaire again and ask them kindly if they can update this with more modern builds. haha.

[excellentswordfight]

On that subject, it's a bit intresting that with Alder Lake, video encoding is one of the areas that has a performance uplift when comparing ddr4 to ddr5.

https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17047/126998.png
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-ddr4-vs-ddr5/images/premiere-pro.png
https://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/24897?key=6802cbedbbdb26b1dfdfb39297ec46a8

But here for techpowerups x265 test there isnt much difference

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-ddr4-vs-ddr5/images/encode-h265.png

I suspect that the faster you encode the more impact it will have, so when doing sub real time encodes there isnt enough traffic to RAM to make a difference.

And on the Alderlake subject, 12700k is quite a bit faster than 5800X in x265 it seems, and rather close to 5900X. Looks like a reasonable option for x265.

[tormento]

On that subject, it's a bit intresting that with Alder Lake, video encoding is one of the areas that has a performance uplift when comparing ddr4 to ddr5.
I'd really like to see x265 performance with disabled E-cores, thus activating AVX-512.

[RanmaCanada]

On that subject, it's a bit intresting that with Alder Lake, video encoding is one of the areas that has a performance uplift when comparing ddr4 to ddr5.

https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17047/126998.png
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-ddr4-vs-ddr5/images/premiere-pro.png
https://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/24897?key=6802cbedbbdb26b1dfdfb39297ec46a8

But here for techpowerups x265 test there isnt much difference

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-ddr4-vs-ddr5/images/encode-h265.png

I suspect that the faster you encode the more impact it will have, so when doing sub real time encodes there isnt enough traffic to RAM to make a difference.

And on the Alderlake subject, 12700k is quite a bit faster than 5800X in x265 it seems, and rather close to 5900X. Looks like a reasonable option for x265.

Techpowerup uses the slow preset where as everyone else usually uses fast or worse, because "bigger numbers are better!" Anandtech has also been garbage ever since they sold out to Intel, when they were bought by Purch (Intel) back in the day (2014).

[excellentswordfight]

I'd really like to see x265 performance with disabled E-cores, thus activating AVX-512.
I would strongly assume that you would loose performance, by a lot. You are disabling eight cores with similar IPC as skylake @ 3,7GHz in a load that actually uses those. For what? A few percent gain from avx512?

All xeons I've tested have had negative performance when using avx512 just cause of a few hundreds megahertz downclock.

Techpowerup uses the slow preset where as everyone else usually uses fast or worse, because "bigger numbers are better!"
I'm aware, hence my remark of encoding speed.

Could be absolutely valid testing faster encoders/presets, depends what you wanna test. In this case I found it rather nice, as it demonstrates that very fast encoders can benefit from higher memory bandwidth.

Anandtech has also been garbage ever since they sold out to Intel, when they were bought by Purch (Intel) back in the day (2014).
Ian still writes the best in-depth articles of any media outlet though. Not that this has anything to do with the subject.

[tormento]

You are disabling eight cores with similar IPC as skylake @ 3,7GHz in a load that actually uses those.
We don't know exactly how Alder Lake behaves with high and continuous loads. If it uses P-cores only (as I suspect), perhaps some AVX-512 could be useful.

[excellentswordfight]

We don't know exactly how Alder Lake behaves with high and continuous loads. If it uses P-cores only (as I suspect), perhaps some AVX-512 could be useful.
The techpowerup test actually had tests with e-cores disabled, and it makes ut quite a bit slower, I doubt avx512 will make up for a 30% performance loss.

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-12th-gen/images/encode-h265.png

[Selur]

|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| CPU | x264 | x265 | LAVC | auto | MMX2 | SSE | SSE2 | SSE3 | SSE4 | AVX | AVX2 | All |
|---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor | 44.76 | 7.77 | 118 | 5.67 | 2.46 | 2.47 | 3.61 | 3.86 | 5.01 | 5.01 | 5.58 | N/A |

Cu Selur

[Loomes]

The Ryzen 9 3950X has 25% more cores (16) than the Ryzen 9 3900X (12) and is only about 10% faster. Hm, what to make of that regarding to x265's multithreading?

[Selur]

My guess is that the higher the core count you will need a higher resolution content to saturate the cores fully.
Also I'm on Windows 11 so that might play into it.

[Boulder]

My guess is that the higher the core count you will need a higher resolution content to saturate the cores fully.

This is the most likely reason. With a 1080p source and the default CTU 64, the cores might not get fully utilized. With a 4K source, it's a very different story (or by switching to CTU size 32).

[kolak]

My guess is that the higher the core count you will need a higher resolution content to saturate the cores fully.
Also I'm on Windows 11 so that might play into it.

I noticed that scaling is faaaar from linear with higher cores number. At some point it's basically pointless to try to use so more cores even for UHD. You should rather switch into some chunked encoding and use eg. 16 cores per chunk.

[Loomes]

You should rather switch into some chunked encoding and use eg. 16 cores per chunk.
Sounds interesting. Could you please give a bit more information / sources about chunk encoding? I get the idea but how to approach this technically?