Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 1st January 2021, 20:33   #21  |  Link
Nico8583
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
Hi, happy new year all
I just have a question : I can read there is an impact on the final quality when the cores number grows up. Is it still happening ? I have a 3700X (8 cores) and I would like to know if I can go to a 3900X/3950X/5900X (12 to 16 cores) without losing quality vs my 3700X.
Thank you !
Nico8583 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2021, 14:11   #22  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 5,708
I've never seen any difference whatsoever, jumped myself from 1800X to 3900X. Even setting -F 1 really did nothing visibly different compared to -F 4. The filesize differences are very small at the same CRF which tells me that the content cannot differ much either.
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2021, 02:12   #23  |  Link
Nico8583
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
Thank you, so perhaps I'll replace my 3700X by 3900X
Nico8583 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2021, 02:11   #24  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico8583 View Post
I just have a question : I can read there is an impact on the final quality when the cores number grows up. Is it still happening ? I have a 3700X (8 cores) and I would like to know if I can go to a 3900X/3950X/5900X (12 to 16 cores) without losing quality vs my 3700X.
The default values of --frame-threads and --lookahead-threads go up with the number of logical cores available. In the past there were significant quality regressions using higher numbers of frame-threads and a few seen with --lookahead threads. Thus, more cores COULD reduce quality, although the gap is much smaller than it used to be. But if those values were set explicitly, quality would be the same regardless of number of threads. Of course, lowering those values also decreases parallelization and thus the maximum number of additional cores that can be productively used.

When I'm doing mission-critical quality encodes at lower resolutions with lots of cores, I'll set -F 1 and use --pmode.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book

Last edited by benwaggoner; 6th January 2021 at 02:13. Reason: Clarifying improvements in quality when using high frame threads
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2021, 22:33   #25  |  Link
blublub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 118
So basically just leave it at auto/default? - frame-thread I mean
blublub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2021, 22:48   #26  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by blublub View Post
So basically just leave it at auto/default? - frame-thread I mean
Sometimes I lower it to squeeze out maximum quality, but I almost never increase it.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2021, 14:36   #27  |  Link
K.i.N.G
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 90
Currently: AMD no doubt.
K.i.N.G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2021, 19:32   #28  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder View Post
I've never seen any difference whatsoever, jumped myself from 1800X to 3900X. Even setting -F 1 really did nothing visibly different compared to -F 4. The filesize differences are very small at the same CRF which tells me that the content cannot differ much either.
The issues with higher -F weren't really seen in ABR, since they only impacted some scene changes. To find those, I would do a --log-level 2 and look at QP spikes or SSIM drops for particular frames. Worse-cases were a lot worse with lots of frame threads.

That said, I've not really seen any reproducible issues with -F >2 for a couple of years, although I've not been testing it much either.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2021, 10:39   #29  |  Link
Forteen88
Herr
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Europe
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico8583 View Post
Thank you, so perhaps I'll replace my 3700X by 3900X
Why not replace it with the new AMD Ryzen 5000-series? That is, if your motherboard supports that (after BIOS update).
Although if you find a used 3900X for a cheap price, it would be a good buy.
Forteen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2021, 10:57   #30  |  Link
Nico8583
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forteen88 View Post
Why not replace it with the new AMD Ryzen 5000-series? That is, if your motherboard supports that (after BIOS update).
Although if you find a used 3900X for a cheap price, it would be a good buy.
Yes, a 5800X or 5900X should be a great choice but at an expansive price now. My CM is a B450M Mortar Max, the november BIOS seems to add the 5000 series support.
Nico8583 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2021, 19:33   #31  |  Link
tormento
Acid fr0g
 
tormento's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,507
In the urge of buying, if 5xxx would be available, I'd probably buy it.

If the choice is 3xxx perhaps much better a Intel CPU with AVX512 support.
__________________
@turment on Telegram
tormento is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2021, 20:57   #32  |  Link
DJATOM
Registered User
 
DJATOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ukraine, Bohuslav
Posts: 377
Unfortunately avx512 is not a panacea.
__________________
Me on GitHub
PC Specs: Ryzen 5950X, 64 GB RAM, RTX 2070
DJATOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2021, 21:29   #33  |  Link
Nico8583
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
I would like to find a real conditions comparison (same x265 version, same settings, 4K slow or slower if possible) between 3700X / 3900X / 5800X / 5900X. Do you know where can I find it ? I would like to know the gain on a whole movie encode (example : a 4K movie - duration 2 hours). Thank you.
Nico8583 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2021, 23:28   #34  |  Link
RanmaCanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico8583 View Post
I would like to find a real conditions comparison (same x265 version, same settings, 4K slow or slower if possible) between 3700X / 3900X / 5800X / 5900X. Do you know where can I find it ? I would like to know the gain on a whole movie encode (example : a 4K movie - duration 2 hours). Thank you.
There was that great benchmark that Sagittaire had created which gave you real world results, it just has not been updated in 3 years.

Techpowerup does all their x265 benchmarking in their reviews at CRF20 preset slow. This is probably the best source, though it is only 1080p. Ideally if the real world x265 benchmark that Sagittaire created could be updated, we could poll the users here for more updated information.

In my opinion the benchmarks that use anything above medium do not represent real world usage. If someone could update the bench Sagittaire created, I am sure it would answer a lot of our questions.
RanmaCanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2021, 23:39   #35  |  Link
Nico8583
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
Thank you for these informations. I'll look at Techpowerup x265 benchmarking in order to have an idea at 1080p.
And I'm agree with you about medium and above.
Nico8583 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2021, 12:28   #36  |  Link
Nico8583
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
The video length is missing from Techpowerup bench or I don't see it ? Thank you.
Thank you w1zzard from Techpowerup, very responsive. Duration : 47 seconds

Last edited by Nico8583; 1st February 2021 at 14:22.
Nico8583 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2021, 14:51   #37  |  Link
Nico8583
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
Video duration (CRF20, slow, 1080p) : 47s -> 2h
i9 9900K : 85.57s (0.55x) -> 3.6h
Ryzen 7 3700X : 77.08s (0.61x) -> 3.3h
Ryzen 9 3900X : 63.76s (0.74x) -> 2.7h
Ryzen 7 5800X : 63.32s (0.74x) -> 2.7h
Ryzen 9 5900X : 53.38s (0.88x) -> 2.3h
Nico8583 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2021, 15:23   #38  |  Link
quietvoid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Canada
Posts: 567
Keep in mind that x265 rarely saturates over 8 cores on its own, regardless of the settings or parallelism optimizations (such as --pme, --pmode, etc.)
With my 5900X, it barely uses over 60% of the CPU with preset slower.
quietvoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2021, 15:50   #39  |  Link
Nico8583
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by quietvoid View Post
Keep in mind that x265 rarely saturates over 8 cores on its own, regardless of the settings or parallelism optimizations (such as --pme, --pmode, etc.)
With my 5900X, it barely uses over 60% of the CPU with preset slower.
Very interesting, it's a temporary limitation ?
So the gain between 3700X and 5900X will not be very very important ?
Nico8583 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2021, 15:57   #40  |  Link
quietvoid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Canada
Posts: 567
I doubt x265 will improve on this, so it's not temporary.
More cores is still better, you can see from your results that the 5900X is 45% faster, 15-20% might be the IPC improvement, the remaining 25% is probably the extra cores.

x265 just doesn't fully load the cores most of the time.
One way I've found that improves around 10% is to use a lower --merange and increase frame threads, but that doesn't improve the core saturation much.
quietvoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.