Which processor to encode x265 4K ?

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

But still has $300-400 motherboards. :(

You shouldn't need a $300+ motherboard unless you're going to be overclocking that 3950X (source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuyuS04lD4o)).

[mandarinka]

You have to wait for September for 16C and October for 24C/32C/48C/64C.

Yeah, 3950X comes out in september (official info), Threadripper possibly in october (unofficial rumor from Taiwan).

But still has $300-400 motherboards. :(

MSI B450 Tomahawk (or B450 Tomahawk Max which has larger flash for BIOS, so that fufure BIOS updates shoudl be more painless, also this board is made for Ryzen 3000 out of the box) is rather affordable.
Or Asus Crosshair VI Hero (X370) - that one has very beefy VRM and is deeply discounted if you can find it.

[Stereodude]

MSI B450 Tomahawk (or B450 Tomahawk Max which has larger flash for BIOS, so that fufure BIOS updates shoudl be more painless, also this board is made for Ryzen 3000 out of the box) is rather affordable.
Or Asus Crosshair VI Hero (X370) - that one has very beefy VRM and is deeply discounted if you can find it.
If you want to lose ~12% of your Ryzen 3xxx's performance right off the top I guess you could use a B450 motherboard.

[excellentswordfight]

If you want to lose ~12% of your Ryzen 3xxx's performance right off the top I guess you could use a B450 motherboard.
Please provide a source to that claim, cause I have seen lots of people running older mb with the new 3000-series and non have reported lower clockspeeds/performance. As long as your mb can provide enough power, the only loss is pcie 4, which I guess most of us can live without.

[Stereodude]

Please provide a source to that claim, cause I have seen lots of people running older mb with the new 3000-series and non have reported lower clockspeeds/performance. As long as your mb can provide enough power, the only loss is pcie 4, which I guess most of us can live without.
Yup, I just totally made it up with absolutely no backing. You got me. :rolleyes:

Or not: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14603/the-msi-meg-x570-ace-motherboard-review/6

[excellentswordfight]

Yup, I just totally made it up with absolutely no backing. You got me. :rolleyes:

Or not: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14603/the-msi-meg-x570-ace-motherboard-review/6
Well... From your article:

"For our motherboard reviews, we use our short form testing method. These tests usually focus on if a motherboard is using MultiCore Turbo (the feature used to have maximum turbo on at all times, giving a frequency advantage), or if there are slight gains to be had from tweaking the firmware. We put the memory settings at the CPU manufacturers suggested frequency, making it very easy to see which motherboards have MCT enabled by default."

I dont see how that test confirms higher performance in general for the x570 platform, just that the bios settings on different boards are tweaked differently. So the performance difference will vary depending on what boards you test, and might not matter at all if you are willing to tweak some settings for yourself.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3900x-3700x-tested-on-x470/6.html

"The question on your mind will now be whether you lose anything by the way of performance or overclocking headroom. We pulled out an MSI X470 Gaming M7 to find out just that. We are happy to report that you don't lose any performance."

[Stereodude]

Well... From your article:

"For our motherboard reviews, we use our short form testing method. These tests usually focus on if a motherboard is using MultiCore Turbo (the feature used to have maximum turbo on at all times, giving a frequency advantage), or if there are slight gains to be had from tweaking the firmware. We put the memory settings at the CPU manufacturers suggested frequency, making it very easy to see which motherboards have MCT enabled by default."

I dont see how that test confirms higher performance in general for the x570 platform, just that the bios settings on different boards are tweaked differently. So the performance difference will vary depending on what boards you test, and might not matter at all if you are willing to tweak some settings for yourself.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3900x-3700x-tested-on-x470/6.html

"The question on your mind will now be whether you lose anything by the way of performance or overclocking headroom. We pulled out an MSI X470 Gaming M7 to find out just that. We are happy to report that you don't lose any performance."
Try to spin it all you want, but the X470 and the B450 delivered 9-12 percent less performance in Anandtech's Handbrake x264 and x265 tests. Plop in a Ryzen 3xxx CPU in them and that's what you get. Maybe you can narrow the gap if you have a lot of free time to tweak every BIOS setting.

The TechPowerUp test isn't clear what their H.264 and H.265 benchmark is, so its hard to give it any consideration.

[excellentswordfight]

Try to spin it all you want, but the X470 and the B450 delivered 9-12 percent less performance in Anandtech's Handbrake x264 and x265 tests. Plop in a Ryzen 3xxx CPU in them and that's what you get. Maybe you can narrow the gap if you have a lot of free time to tweak every BIOS setting.

The TechPowerUp test isn't clear what their H.264 and H.265 benchmark is, so its hard to give it any consideration.
No, thats not what the test says, the test says that the MSI MEG X570 is faster then the ITX ASRock B450 and the Gigabyte x470 one. But a x470 board can still be faster then an x570 one cause it just a matter of how the bios is set up, just look at the powerdraw on that board, its just an factory OC. And yes, by default most b450 boards will be a bit slower, but your statment is way to generell cause it will differ from board to board, we dont even know if PBO is working correctly on that b450 board! And eitherway, I would say that the performance gap would need to be even bigger then that to compensate for the price and the fact that most board has an fan to be able to cool the chipset


https://img.purch.com/r/711x457/aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL04vODQ1MDg3L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDExLnBuZw==

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

Perhaps I was too subtle with my post, but there are even X570 motherboards for $200 or less (and no I don't just mean "$199" either) so you can avoid the whole 400-series vs 500-series motherboard debate altogether, and these are being recommended by a renowned extreme overclocker (Buildzoid (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrwObTfqv8u1KO7Fgk-FXHQ/videos)) to boot so it's not like he doesn't know what he talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuyuS04lD4o#t=21m01s

Of the $200-and-less X570 boards Buildzoid recommends, I'd go for the Gigabyte models due to their chipset fan being positioned lower and therefore won't be suffocated by a discrete GPU like has been reported on some Asus and ASRock motherboards (MSI's boards also have a lower-positioned chipset fan which would work just as well, but Buildzoid didn't recommend any specific MSI X570 boards, so...).

tl;dw: (these are PCPartPicker links for your convenience):

full ATX @ $200: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite (https://pcpartpicker.com/product/nHxbt6/gigabyte-x570-aorus-elite-atx-am4-motherboard-x570-aorus-elite) (best all-arounder at this price-point)

full ATX @ $170: Gigabyte X570 Gaming X (https://pcpartpicker.com/product/LJxbt6/gigabyte-x570-gaming-x-atx-am4-motherboard-x570-gaming-x) (cheaper variant with features stripped out)

mini ITX @ $220: Gigabyte X570 i Aorus Pro WiFi (https://pcpartpicker.com/product/NQ7p99/gigabyte-x570-i-aorus-pro-wifi-mini-itx-am4-motherboard-x570-i-aorus-pro-wifi) (...it's mini ITX, 'nuff said; also has wifi)



For reference, this video is the same one I included in my previous post but I had put it as a hyperlink on the text "source". As I mentioned, perhaps that was a bit too subtle on my part and it flew under the radar...

Alternatively maybe it's because the cheaper X570 boards are only covered near the end of the video, and it being a 30 minute video may mean that people didn't realize you don't have to watch the entire video (there are even timestamps provided right in the video itself in the bottom-right corner). Therefore I've modified the link so that it'll start directly at the point where Buildzoid begins talking about $200 X570 motherboards and then the segment right after that is sub-$200 X570 motherboards.

[DJATOM]

You shouldn't need a $300+ motherboard unless you're going to be overclocking that 3950X (source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuyuS04lD4o)).

Yeah, I've bought ROG Crosshair VII Hero for that purpose (~ $330 in my country). Still waiting for 3900X to arrive, no plans for 3950X this year. Probably will pick it with next gen CPUs out, hope there will be reasonable price drop.

[Stereodude]

No, thats not what the test says, the test says that the MSI MEG X570 is faster then the ITX ASRock B450 and the Gigabyte x470 one. But a x470 board can still be faster then an x570 one cause it just a matter of how the bios is set up, just look at the powerdraw on that board, its just an factory OC. And yes, by default most b450 boards will be a bit slower, but your statment is way to generell cause it will differ from board to board, we dont even know if PBO is working correctly on that b450 board! And eitherway, I would say that the performance gap would need to be even bigger then that to compensate for the price and the fact that most board has an fan to be able to cool the chipset
Still, you're using a motherboard designed to handle processors with up to 8 cores for processors that are now up to 16 cores. I think I'd tend to favor a low end X570 over a B450 or X470 even with the fan on the X570.

Regardless, I'm in no hurry so I can wait and see how things settle out. I'm waiting at least for the 3950X, maybe even for a TR2.

[DJATOM]

So I've got 3900X onto my hands and we made an encoding speed comparison between it and 2x set of Xeon E5-2687W 0 (Jensen's setup)

SAO3 NCOP1 (full filtering script (AA, denoise, deband) + encode)
3900X: encoded 2208 frames in 0:18:21.28 (2.00 fps), 25531.44 kb/s, Avg QP:15.20
2687W x2: encoded 2208 frames in 0:32:32.68 (1.13 fps), 25506.87 kb/s, Avg QP:15.21

SAO3 NCOP1 (filtering script w/o AA part + encode)
3900X: encoded 2208 frames in 0:07:30.00 (4.91 fps), 26553.97 kb/s, Avg QP:14.98
2687W x2: encoded 2208 frames in 0:15:14.86 (2.41 fps), 26540.64 kb/s, Avg QP:14.99

I'm pretty satisfied with results. Now imagine that there are 16 core chips will come this autumn, it will be even faster.

[Stereodude]

So I've got 3900X onto my hands and we made an encoding speed comparison between it and 2x set of Xeon E5-2687W 0 (Jensen's setup)

SAO3 NCOP1 (full filtering script (AA, denoise, deband) + encode)
3900X: encoded 2208 frames in 0:18:21.28 (2.00 fps), 25531.44 kb/s, Avg QP:15.20
2687W x2: encoded 2208 frames in 0:32:32.68 (1.13 fps), 25506.87 kb/s, Avg QP:15.21

SAO3 NCOP1 (filtering script w/o AA part + encode)
3900X: encoded 2208 frames in 0:07:30.00 (4.91 fps), 26553.97 kb/s, Avg QP:14.98
2687W x2: encoded 2208 frames in 0:15:14.86 (2.41 fps), 26540.64 kb/s, Avg QP:14.99

I'm pretty satisfied with results. Now imagine that there are 16 core chips will come this autumn, it will be even faster.
Is that a first gen E5-2687W (not E5-2687Wv2)? What resolution and x265 preset is the data for?

So it's almost twice as fast as a dual processor E5-2687W system?

[DJATOM]

Is that a first gen E5-2687W (not E5-2687Wv2)? What resolution and x265 preset is the data for?

So it's almost twice as fast as a dual processor E5-2687W system?

Yeah, it's not v2, just E5-2687W 0 (that's how it's identified in apps).
Script - https://pastebin.com/j9GQ7Ykq
Resolution: 1080p Blu-ray (anime).
cmd: .\vaporPortable-r44\vspipe.exe -y NCOP1.vpy - | x265-x64-v3.1+8-aMod-gcc911-opt-zen2 -F 12 --pools "" --hme --hme-search umh,star,star --limit-modes --open-gop --cbqpoffs -2 --crqpoffs -2 --no-rskip --no-tskip --keyint 240 --no-cutree --ref 4 --bframes 9 --bframe-bias 0 --b-pyramid --b-adapt 2 --no-sao --no-sao-non-deblock --aq-mode 4 --aq-strength 0.86 --deblock 1:-1 --tu-intra-depth 2 --tu-inter-depth 2 --me 2 --wpp --subme 5 --crf 15 --qcomp 0.72 --b-pyramid --merange 48 --weightp --weightb --rd 4 --psy-rd 2 --rdoq-level 2 --psy-rdoq 4 --sar 1:1 --info --colorprim bt709 --transfer bt709 --colormatrix bt709 --output "17.hevc" --csv-log-level 2 --csv "17.txt" --y4m -
I also made x265-x64-v3.1+8-aMod-gcc911-opt-sandybridge for encoding on Jensen's server.

[RanmaCanada]

Still, you're using a motherboard designed to handle processors with up to 8 cores for processors that are now up to 16 cores. I think I'd tend to favor a low end X570 over a B450 or X470 even with the fan on the X570.

Regardless, I'm in no hurry so I can wait and see how things settle out. I'm waiting at least for the 3950X, maybe even for a TR2.

Then by your logic anyone using an x99 retail motherboard with Xeons are losing performance. Which they are NOT. I mean even my old x79 based Sabertooth was "only designed for 4 cores", yet it worked perfectly fine with up to 10 cores (mine has an 8 core e5-2670).

The motherboard mfg's knew that with AM4 they would have to be prepared for multiple cores, and thus they designed them with the VRMs to handle the power draw.

[Stereodude]

Then by your logic anyone using an x99 retail motherboard with Xeons are losing performance. Which they are NOT. I mean even my old x79 based Sabertooth was "only designed for 4 cores", yet it worked perfectly fine with up to 10 cores (mine has an 8 core e5-2670).

The motherboard mfg's knew that with AM4 they would have to be prepared for multiple cores, and thus they designed them with the VRMs to handle the power draw.
Or not...

Note - The ASRock B450 Gaming ITX-ac model crashed instantly every time the small FFT torture test within Prime95 was initiated. At anything on the CPU VCore above 1.35 V would result in instant instability. The Ryzen Master auto-overclocking function failed every time it tried to dial in settings, but it does however operate absolutely fine at stock, and with Precision Boost Overdrive enabled. Either the firmware is the issue, or the board just isn't capable of overclocking the Ryzen 3700X with extreme workloads with what is considered a stable overclock on the X570 chipset. We will re-test this in the future.

[RanmaCanada]

Or not...

I'd say that is more a problem of the mITX platform just not having any where near enough air moving to keep things cool or the BIOS being horrible. It's funny you'd cherry pick the absolutely worse case scenario to try to prove your point. If the board does work fine with a 2700x, then at that point it would be more a problem with the BIOS lacking, which we know is a serious issue on x4xx platforms as the mfg don't want to "waste" time fixing hardware and software issues when they have fancy new stuff for people to buy. MSI is already telling people to just buy the 570 platform because they don't want to bother fixing the issues that they created in the x4xx series boards.

ASROCK is also the only mfg with 3 phase VRM's on their x4xx series boards. Everyone else has a minimum of 4.

[mparade]

2990WX has very low fps because of broken windows scheduler.


Does anyone know if there is any solution for this yet? The same is happening to my 2990WX at the moment. Maybe if using Coreprio?

[NikosD]

Does anyone know if there is any solution for this yet? The same is happening to my 2990WX at the moment. Maybe if using Coreprio? Did you try latest Windows 10 official version 1903 ?

It has an updated scheduler, but I think not so enhanced for Threadripper to wait for miracles.

If I had a 2990WX I would definitely try Coreprio.

[RanmaCanada]

Does anyone know if there is any solution for this yet? The same is happening to my 2990WX at the moment. Maybe if using Coreprio?

Switch to linux? The scheduler problem doesn't exist there. You can always run windows in an emulator, or use UNRAID as your base and have both Linux and Windows available on your system in native mode, with hardware passthrough.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Does anyone know if there is any solution for this yet? The same is happening to my 2990WX at the moment. Maybe if using Coreprio?
According to guy from level1techs ( https://youtu.be/cTmnyOZ0pE4?t=34m ) you should
1) install Linux
2) setup virtual machine on linux
3) install windows 10 on virtual machine
Done.

[TEB]

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-epyc-7502-7742&num=4

Looks like Phoronix´s benchmark isnt able to saturate all these cores... but nevertheless.. impressive numbers for the new EPYC 7xx2 series ;)

[jfcarbel]

Again
https://p.xfastest.com/~sinchen/AMD-Ryzen-7-3700X-9-3900X/AMD-Ryzen-7-3700X-9-3900X-34.jpg

Was this done on a Windows 7 or Windows 10 machine?

I think I read that Windows 10 performs much faster for the Ryzen 3000

[Atak_Snajpera]

Was this done on a Windows 7 or Windows 10 machine?

I think I read that Windows 10 performs much faster for the Ryzen 3000

Within margin of error. Do not expect miracles.

[jfcarbel]

Within margin of error. Do not expect miracles.

Thanks, so not significant.

So is your windows 7 updater able to get Windows 7 running well with the Ryzen 3000 CPUs?

[-QfG-]

Example for a bad Encoding CPU (i7700k) ~70hours for an 2h video
https://s17.directupload.net/images/190914/v78ur2h9.png


I would say, minimum 8 cores (I9900k or Ryzen 7 3xxx for example)

[Atak_Snajpera]

Thanks, so not significant.

So is your windows 7 updater able to get Windows 7 running well with the Ryzen 3000 CPUs?

Yep. However If you have x570 then you will have to add this step to get USB 3 ports to work
https://www.sevenforums.com/drivers/419688-will-new-amd-x570-chipset-mobos-have-win-7-chipset-drivers-post3441921.html?#post3441921

[NikosD]

For those who are still wondering which is the fastest platform for HEVC encoding:

8K real-time HEVC encoding at 79fps with just one CPU (!)

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-epyc-rome-8k-real-time-encoding,40400.html

[archer75]

I have a question that hopefully someone can help me with.

I have two computers, a PC I built and a 2018 mac mini. Using handbrake on both, using the same settings with the same file and encoding with HEVC 10bit I get very different results.

The PC uses an Intel 5820 and the Mac uses an Intel 8700.

The encode that comes out of the macs 8700 is quite a bit smaller file size than the one produced by the 5820 and it also has noticeably better image quality. Why is that? I'm considering an upgrade and knowing why the file is both smaller with better quality would help me in choosing which processor for a new build.

[Nico8583]

Do you use the same handbrake version with the same third-party tools version ?
The OS are different so executable must be different (I don't know MAC OS very well).

[Nico8583]

I think the OS but I'm not sure.

[RanmaCanada]

Is one using quicksync and the other using pure software? Realistically there should be no difference between the 2 if you are using the exact same settings, profiles, etc.

[benwaggoner]

How big is the file size and quality gap? Does one of the systems have way more cores than the other? There used to be quality regressions using frame threading, although this has gotten quite a big better in recent years.

[DotJun]

Does anyone know why avx2 is being used when set to auto detect on my intel 7820x? I typically set it to avx512, but forgot to do so on my last batch.

[Boulder]

Because AVX512 is not generally recommended, so you need to enable it manually if you want to use it. Basically you should test to see if you benefit from it or not, seems to depend on the case quite a lot.

[DotJun]

Because AVX512 is not generally recommended, so you need to enable it manually if you want to use it. Basically you should test to see if you benefit from it or not, seems to depend on the case quite a lot.


Ok, I didn’t know it was excluded from auto detection, thanks for the info and I tested it a while back. My results showed a slight improvement in FPS, even with a negative offset, so I just stuck with it.

[hajj_3]

Ok, I didn’t know it was excluded from auto detection, thanks for the info and I tested it a while back. My results showed a slight improvement in FPS, even with a negative offset, so I just stuck with it.

AVX512 makes the processor too hot so the clock speed of the AVX portion is reduced and as a result it isn't very fast. I think Intel might have fixed that in their latest processors.

[DotJun]

AVX512 makes the processor too hot so the clock speed of the AVX portion is reduced and as a result it isn't very fast. I think Intel might have fixed that in their latest processors.


Yep, that’s the reason for the negative offset. From the small amount of testing I did, avx512 still came out with slightly higher FPS even with a couple hundred mghz lower clock due to offset.

Though I will admit that I wouldn’t be able to run 512 if my computer wasn’t located in a 65-70f temp room.

[RanmaCanada]

Yep, that’s the reason for the negative offset. From the small amount of testing I did, avx512 still came out with slightly higher FPS even with a couple hundred mghz lower clock due to offset.

Though I will admit that I wouldn’t be able to run 512 if my computer wasn’t located in a 65-70f temp room.
Ha with winter coming, you can just place it outside and run without an offset :P haha.

[DotJun]

I had a chance to do a small sample test and here are my results:

system: 7820x oc'd to 4.4ghz with 32g of memory. A -3 offset was used for both avx2 and avx512 as explained below.

10 minute 1080p sample on auto detect: 5.38fps
10 minute 1080p sample on avx512: 5.72fps

5 minute 4k sample on auto detect: 0.84fps
5 minute 4k sample on avx512: 0.92fps

crf and slower settings were used on all samples.

The odd part is that both auto detect (avx2) and avx512 needed the same -3 offset or windows becomes unstable and crash. Also, avx2 ran 5-10c hotter than avx512, which is the opposite of what I thought would happen.

Results might be different on a longer sample clip, but I really didn't want to invest too much time into it since for whatever reason avx2 was pushing out more heat than what I am comfortable with.

[aymanalz]

The odd part is that both auto detect (avx2) and avx512 needed the same -3 offset or windows becomes unstable and crash. Also, avx2 ran 5-10c hotter than avx512, which is the opposite of what I thought would happen.

Results might be different on a longer sample clip, but I really didn't want to invest too much time into it since for whatever reason avx2 was pushing out more heat than what I am comfortable with.

This may have more to do with your processor being overclocked, than any quirks of AVX2.

Have you tried the same tests on stock clocks?

[nevcairiel]

Have you tried the same tests on stock clocks?

Noone runs a Skylake X series on stock clocks, that would be a waste of those CPUs, since they OC extremely well. As such any tests on stock really don't tell you anything useful.

For the question at hand, yes, AVX512 can run overall cooler then AVX2, because it does twice the work in the same time, or needs less time to do the same work, which means the AVX units are overall less busy, and don't heat up as much, since software like x265 isn't pushing pure AVX512 load, it still has loads of other things to compute.

[DotJun]

Noone runs a Skylake X series on stock clocks, that would be a waste of those CPUs, since they OC extremely well. As such any tests on stock really don't tell you anything useful.

For the question at hand, yes, AVX512 can run overall cooler then AVX2, because it does twice the work in the same time, or needs less time to do the same work, which means the AVX units are overall less busy, and don't heat up as much, since software like x265 isn't pushing pure AVX512 load, it still has loads of other things to compute.

Ok that makes sense. Is that also why I'm seeing increased performance with avx512, because it has time to do other things since it's overall less busy due to finishing avx stuff sooner?

[nevcairiel]

Ok that makes sense. Is that also why I'm seeing increased performance with avx512, because it has time to do other things since it's overall less busy due to finishing avx stuff sooner?

Thats generally how all SIMD speedup works, you make it spend less time in typical DSP functions, which are easy to optimize, so the overall process runs faster.

[aymanalz]

Noone runs a Skylake X series on stock clocks, that would be a waste of those CPUs, since they OC extremely well. As such any tests on stock really don't tell you anything useful.


Yes, running an X series on stock clocks would be a waste of money. But I was suggesting that as a test to eliminate overclocking issues as a likely culprit in the unstability and crashing that he mentioned. I don't see how AVX-2 can cause crashes at this point, as x265 has been pretty well optimized for AVX2 by now. A bad overclock on the other hand...

If those crashes and unstability occur at stock settings, then he can be sure that it's not related to hardware issues.

[DotJun]

Yes, running an X series on stock clocks would be a waste of money. But I was suggesting that as a test to eliminate overclocking issues as a likely culprit in the unstability and crashing that he mentioned. I don't see how AVX-2 can cause crashes at this point, as x265 has been pretty well optimized for AVX2 by now. A bad overclock on the other hand...

If those crashes and unstability occur at stock settings, then he can be sure that it's not related to hardware issues.

It wouldn't crash at stock speeds if it isn't crashing at 4.4 with a -3 offset.

[NikosD]

The Ryzen 9 3900X 12C/24T was already too fast, faster than any Intel desktop processor.

But the Ryzen 9 3950X 16C/32T is even faster, a lot faster.

But you can always wait for the Threadrippers that will be released this month. (if you can afford the price premium)

https://i.postimg.cc/63T8y7Gq/handbrake-3950x.png

[Stereodude]

It's looking good. Can you give us more details on that graph? Like what resolution / settings were used in handbrake?

Personally, I want to see how the 3960X and 3970X compare before buying something. I presume reviews will drop by the 25th when they all go on sale though I don't plan to be a day 1 buyer anyhow.

[NikosD]

It's looking good.
Can you give us more details on that graph?
Like what resolution / settings were used in handbrake? It's a graph from legitreviews.com review.
We used Big Buck Bunny as our input file, which has become one of the world standards for video benchmarks.

For our benchmark scenario we used a standard 2D 4K (3840×2160) 60 FPS clip in the MP4 format and used Handbrake version 1.2.2

[Stereodude]

It's a graph from legitreviews.com review.
So based on their picture in the review they're taking a 2160p60 input clip and converting it to 1080p30 (x264) using the "Fast 1080p" preset in Handbrake 1.2.2. I'm guessing the x265 test is also a 1080p encode.

Edit: This is probably not correct.