RipBot264 v1.18.3 - Simple and easy to use GUI -> IPOD . PSP . CONSOLES . BLURAY

[Ryushin]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

It is a bug. I will fix that soon.

I was coming to post about this exact same bug.

If I have:
[Subtitles]
File=English;
Default=FORCED;
Forced=FORCED;

The default will always be populated and the Forced will be blank. If I set "Default=;" then it will show up in Forced. But yea, I set both the Default and Forced to be FORCED and I make my MKV files to be the same way.

So having Default and Forced be populated with the forced subtitle would be appreciate it. Also if it's possible to automatically move the Forced subtitle to be the first subtitle would be best too.

Thanks Atak.

[Ryushin]

Originally Posted by hardkhora

Has anyone been able to get RipBot to work with Linux via WINE?
I know a Virtual Machine (VM) option exists but would take more resources... and I'm trying to de-windows my life, but it is soo hard
I saw some interest from a few users (TDS, apol847, dv8r, BLKMGK, Ryushin, and mparade)

Or is there something for Linux that does distributed encoding like RipBot?

No, no success working under WINE when I tried to make it work several years ago. So I settled on using a virtual machine using KVM under Linux which gives near bare metal performance.

[hardkhora]

Originally Posted by Ryushin

No, no success working under WINE when I tried to make it work several years ago. So I settled on using a virtual machine using KVM under Linux which gives near bare metal performance.

I hadn't tried KVM, just VirtualBox since I usually use Nobara or Linux Mint.
I'll have to give that a go.
Thank you for the insight.

[rp1989]

Originally Posted by hardkhora

I hadn't tried KVM, just VirtualBox since I usually use Nobara or Linux Mint.
I'll have to give that a go.
Thank you for the insight.

I’ve made significant progress on macOS by installing the encoding server through CrossOver. Everything launches as expected, but the encoding server cannot access the main shared folder via CrossOver. I suspect this is due to a limitation with Wine when accessing UNC paths. It would be ideal if there were a way to configure the shared folder for each encoding server to use mapped drives instead. Since CrossOver/Wine supports accessing mapped drives, configuring the encoding server to look for a mapped drive instead of directly accessing the shared folder via a UNC path would resolve this issue.

[stryker412]

Looking to build a new Intel PC. What is the best mix of GPU/CPU that helps with Ripbot that won't break the bank? I was thinking of an i7-14700K with a 2070 Ti Super.

[rlev11]

Originally Posted by stryker412

Looking to build a new Intel PC. What is the best mix of GPU/CPU that helps with Ripbot that won't break the bank? I was thinking of an i7-14700K with a 2070 Ti Super.

Can't help with the GPU side as I don't do any gpu based encoding (cpu only), but on the processor side I have the non-K i7-14700 which I push to about 175 watt. This slots in between a ryzen 7700x and a ryzen 7900x. I would imagine you should be able to push a 14700k real close to a 7900x.
Just as a comparison , a cheap i5-14500 I see about 30% slower than a 7900x and similar to the 7700x. I have never run a i9-14900k, but I can't imagine (might be wrong) that 4 extra E cores would make it that much faster than the i7 for the additional price.

[stryker412]

Well this will also be a gaming PC too so it'll be a mix of video encoding and gaming. Does Intel offer anything with their latest generation that AMD can't match when it comes to encoding (Ripbot use)?

Here's an AMD build to compare: https://www.microcenter.com/site/con...5-2ccbcee2e3ba

[rlev11]

Originally Posted by stryker412

Well this will also be a gaming PC too so it'll be a mix of video encoding and gaming. Does Intel offer anything with their latest generation that AMD can't match when it comes to encoding (Ripbot use)?

Here's an AMD build to compare: https://www.microcenter.com/site/con...5-2ccbcee2e3ba

I don't game, but everything I have read is the AMD x3d processors are the king of gaming performance. I have nothing to compare, but I don't think the x3d variants help at all with encoding. They are also a lot more expensive than the non-x3d amd's.

Encoding is more of a CPU/Thread count for performance as opposed to other factors. CPU generations can also affect encoding performance a bit. There is a big jump on the AMD side going from the 5000 series to the 7000 series. 9000 series is a smaller jump from the 7000 series. My 9950x is a tad bit faster than my 7950x , but not significant. I have a i5-13500 and an i5-14500 and they encode identically (they also have the same thread count).

It is my understanding that the intels game a little better than a non-x3d equivalent processor probably due to their higher boost clock rates. There is also a lot of talk lately about issues with intel 13 and 14 gen cpu's having manufacturing issues to consider.

In my opinion, the best bang for your buck just for encoding would be a AMD 7900x. There are plenty of sites with gaming benchmarks out there (and also encoding), so I would look at those and see what works with your price range and has the best balance between the 2.

[Emulgator]

Excactly, and Sagittaire has just made a nice benchmark:
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=185855
On my 2 main encoding systems I am running Intel i9-11900K from September 2021, and there it is:
AMD Ryzen 9950x beats mine easily @ 400% encoding fps. Their price 700$ looks feasible for me as well,
the Intel CPUs in my past systems had always set me back around 1000$ each, but outlasting decades.

On the same sidenote: x3D I would rather consider as a testbed:
Can TMSC's engineers get 2 chips perfectly smooth stacked without any real contact as we are used to ?
Will that design around the "4nm" node outlast decades ?
Thermal diffusion might lead to decaying contact zones, I fear, and still would like to adhere to monolithic...

[rlev11]

Since we are talking about cpu performance with ripbot, below I ran a quick test with all of my current machines just to see where they all stacked out in comparison. This might be useful for someone looking into what processor they want to get. This is taken from a 2.40:1 aspect 4k movie with some light degraining, HEVC 10 bit CRF 18. I did a sample of 3 chunks for each server and averaged them together in the middle of the movie using the result fps number for the chunk in the distributed encoding client window. This is more though about how the numbers compare to each other than the actual numbers....

9950x 20.02
7950x 18.3
7900x 17.37
7700x 11.26
5950x 11.15
5900x 9.07
3950x 9.43
3900x 9.78
i7-14700 13.98
i5-14500 12.44
i5-13500 12.64
i5-12600k 9.59

[GZZ]

Whats more interesting is the power usage. Might be a fast CPU, but if it uses 3 times the power to complete the task, only 1 hour ealier, then it might not be the best CPU. Except if you have free power or dont care. I think the 7900 (non-x) (not on the above list) to be the sweet-spot, I think it will place itself between the 7700x and 7900x and properly closer to the 7900x, but at a much lower wattage.

[Emulgator]

rlev, since you seem to have the most diverse collection of servers to choose from, would you mind enhancing your list by the CPU TDP or even better: real wattage ?
This would help comparing some pJ/cycles.
(Note to self: BTW, TDP I can do myself.)

[rlev11]

This is the total Package Power as reported by CPUID HWMonitor when each server is in the middle of a chunk of a 4k encode. Only thing i do on the Ryzens is set a Thermal Limit in the PBO section of the bios. I set the 9000 and 7000 series to 85c, and the 5000 and 3000 to 75c

First wattage is total package and second is core/ia core watts

9950x 20.02 200w, 146w
7950x 18.3 190w, 144w
7900x 17.37 170w 125w
7700x 11.26 128w, 95w
5950x 11.15 147w, 104w
5900x 9.07 148w, 95w
3950x 9.43 112w, 85w
3900x 9.78 130w, 101w
i7-14700 13.98 175w, 170w
i5-14500 12.44 133w, 130w
i5-13500 12.64 119w, 117w
i5-12600k 9.59 115w, 112w

[Emulgator]

Thanks, rlev!
This is enlightening for everyone choosing a new encoding CPU.

[Ryushin]

Originally Posted by Retired@55

Why ??, doesn't that hinder performance ??

I don't use that setting on any of mine.

When I got my 7950X, I ended up under clocking mine. I found that for that extra 5% encoding boost to get to 100% it required twice the power. So my encoding speed is 95% of what the CPU is capable of all the while using half the power and staying under 70 Celsius while encoding 4K. Not bad to extend the life of the processor and use less power.

I have 40 kWh of battery storage for my solar system and I can keep encoding through the night just fine this way.

[rlev11]

Originally Posted by Ryushin

When I got my 7950X, I ended up under clocking mine. I found that for that extra 5% encoding boost to get to 100% it required twice the power. So my encoding speed is 95% of what the CPU is capable of all the while using half the power and staying under 70 Celsius while encoding 4K. Not bad to extend the life of the processor and use less power.

I have 40 kWh of battery storage for my solar system and I can keep encoding through the night just fine this way.

Back when I first got my 5950x and before I put a NH-d15 cooler on it, what I did was just in the windows power plan was change max processor from 100% to 99%. What this did was disable the cpu from going into it's boost clock speeds and just run at the base speed. Don't remember exactly how much, but this dropped the output wattage by quite a bit, and like you, only noticed a slight drop in performance. This might be a quick way to test other than changing the bios to eco mode. Back then I made a powerplan desktop shortcuts that let me switch between 100% and 99% on the fly for when I was encoding. Might be something I look into again just to see with the whole farm encoding how much performance drop I really see now.

In fact yesterday I tried setting eco mode using ryzen master as a test and ended up having to pull the cmos battery and rest the bios after ryzen master rebooted and nothing came up. Screwed it all up, so I gave up on that idea.

[Wishbringer]

For example:
5950X with 99% Powerplan = 3.4 Ghz for all cores (Stock clock)
5950X with 100% Powerplan = 4.25 GHz for all cores (value is different for each processor)
So you get around 20% higher clock.
If power consumtion is 20% higher too, there is no implact on IPW, else lower clocks with much lower wattage have a higher IPW.
Encoding is slower but takes lower power (cheaper) overall.

In Bios there are settings for THM, TDC, EDC and PPT to play around.
And with curve optimizer you can reduce wattage too (or increase clock at stock wattage).
My core values differ from -17 to -24 with stable encoding.

[Ryushin]

Originally Posted by rlev11

Back when I first got my 5950x and before I put a NH-d15 cooler on it, what I did was just in the windows power plan was change max processor from 100% to 99%. What this did was disable the cpu from going into it's boost clock speeds and just run at the base speed. Don't remember exactly how much, but this dropped the output wattage by quite a bit, and like you, only noticed a slight drop in performance. This might be a quick way to test other than changing the bios to eco mode. Back then I made a powerplan desktop shortcuts that let me switch between 100% and 99% on the fly for when I was encoding. Might be something I look into again just to see with the whole farm encoding how much performance drop I really see now.

I was using Ryzen Master to make the change manually for a few weeks when the system was rebooted. After I was sure it was stable I manually changed it in the EFI/BIOS. I did not know Windows itself had the option to drop the speed of the processor. I'll need to look into that.

Originally Posted by Wishbringer

For example:
5950X with 99% Powerplan = 3.4 Ghz for all cores (Stock clock)
5950X with 100% Powerplan = 4.25 GHz for all cores (value is different for each processor)
So you get around 20% higher clock.
If power consumtion is 20% higher too, there is no implact on IPW, else lower clocks with much lower wattage have a higher IPW.
Encoding is slower but takes lower power (cheaper) overall.

In Bios there are settings for THM, TDC, EDC and PPT to play around.
And with curve optimizer you can reduce wattage too (or increase clock at stock wattage).
My core values differ from -17 to -24 with stable encoding.

At least for me, that last 5% performance boost literally consumed 100% more power. So for me it was worth it to under clock the processor.

[chainring]

Before setting the Windows Balanced power plan to 99% for the CPU max, my girlfriend would remark that the four machines participating in DE sounded like a vortex. They also pumped out quite a bit of heat. Now, they're silent, cooler and still get plenty of FPS.

[stryker412]

Originally Posted by rlev11

This is the total Package Power as reported by CPUID HWMonitor when each server is in the middle of a chunk of a 4k encode. Only thing i do on the Ryzens is set a Thermal Limit in the PBO section of the bios. I set the 9000 and 7000 series to 85c, and the 5000 and 3000 to 75c

First wattage is total package and second is core/ia core watts

9950x 20.02 200w, 146w
7950x 18.3 190w, 144w
7900x 17.37 170w 125w
7700x 11.26 128w, 95w
5950x 11.15 147w, 104w
5900x 9.07 148w, 95w
3950x 9.43 112w, 85w
3900x 9.78 130w, 101w
i7-14700 13.98 175w, 170w
i5-14500 12.44 133w, 130w
i5-13500 12.64 119w, 117w
i5-12600k 9.59 115w, 112w

How do you think the 5700X or 5700X3D might do? I've had a few people suggest I just upgrade my 3700X to the 5700X and call it a day without having to do a full build.