Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine

 
DragonDaddyBear
Silver subscriber
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:01 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:52 am

Doing a little more reading and the new NVEC encoder is much better for streaming. That said, all things equal, it still doesn't tough CPU encoding.
This Reddit thread has a link to a video that shows improvement but for streaming vs fast encoding. That makes sense for Nvidia to focus on.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comment ... _encoders/
 
zejibuve
Gerbil In Training
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:57 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:02 am

stfan wrote:
Objective: to get twice the speed out of Handbrake as cheaply as possible. But I don't know how these 2 systems would compare.

OLD: Intel Q8400 4GB ram , XP (4-core prehistoric current system)
NEW: Intel Pentium G5400 4GB-8GB ram (2-core future system?)

Zero interest in modern games, SSDs, etc. Just encoding x264 mp4s in Handbrake at double my current speeds.

Is this a decent upgrade or downgrade? Your thoughts? Alternative budget choices?


Its worth it.
 
joselillo_25
Gerbil
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 2:57 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:23 am

As someone said, just add a modern GPU so you can encode movies. I use a RX460 2GB paired with a Q6600 in handbrake or vegas video, and it encode very fast and with very good quality. It can hardware encode X264 and X265
 
LoneWolf15
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 963
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:36 am
Location: SW Meecheegan

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Sun May 12, 2019 9:33 pm

I would want inexpensive new, but I'd make very sure your CPU supports Intel QuickSync. A G4500 probably won't. Intel worked hard to put some acceleration for Handbrake into Quicksync.

QuickSync has been around for awhile, but cut-down Intel processors don't necessarily support it. Usually you want an i3 minimum.
Personally, I'd be looking at Intel Haswell i5-4xxx CPUs, which have the advantage of being older, inexpensive from eBay or another source if you don't get the fastest one, quad-core, and having Intel QuickSync. I'd probably look at an Intel i5-4570.
i9-9900K @4.7GHz, GIGABYTE Z390 Aorus Pro WiFi, 2 x 16GB G.Skill RipJaws V PC3000
Corsair 650D, Seasonic 1Kw Platinum PSU
2x HP EX920 1TB NVMe, Samsung 850 Pro 512GB 2.5", NEC 7200 DVDRW
Gigabyte RTX 2080 Super Gaming OC, Dell S2719DGF 27" LCD
 
jihadjoe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:34 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Mon May 13, 2019 4:33 am

Did a couple of constant-quality two-pass test encodes with Handbrake h264 and h264 using Quicksync, NVENC and plain CPU. Quality-wise I couldn't tell the resulting files apart (Homer Simpson moment, but I guess that's exactly what 'constant quality' meant). QS and NVENC did use a bit more disk space than x264/x265.
 
DragonDaddyBear
Silver subscriber
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:01 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Mon May 13, 2019 7:10 am

Are those files you can share for us to take a look? I'm most interested in 10-bit HVEC for future proofing purposes. It's possible that Handbrake was keeping the quality consistent based on the settings. If so, what's the bit rate of each file? Also, which GPU do you have? Apparently there is quite a difference between older and newer Nvidia GPU transcodes. Newer stuff should result in a smaller file than the older stuff.

This would be a really good article candidate.
 
LoneWolf15
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 963
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:36 am
Location: SW Meecheegan

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Mon May 13, 2019 8:51 pm

jihadjoe wrote:
Did a couple of constant-quality two-pass test encodes with Handbrake h264 and h264 using Quicksync, NVENC and plain CPU. Quality-wise I couldn't tell the resulting files apart (Homer Simpson moment, but I guess that's exactly what 'constant quality' meant). QS and NVENC did use a bit more disk space than x264/x265.


Quality-wise, I don't think you'd see a difference. Speed of encode should be faster with a QuickSync CPU than a plain one, though NVENC should likely be as well.
i9-9900K @4.7GHz, GIGABYTE Z390 Aorus Pro WiFi, 2 x 16GB G.Skill RipJaws V PC3000
Corsair 650D, Seasonic 1Kw Platinum PSU
2x HP EX920 1TB NVMe, Samsung 850 Pro 512GB 2.5", NEC 7200 DVDRW
Gigabyte RTX 2080 Super Gaming OC, Dell S2719DGF 27" LCD
 
jihadjoe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:34 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Tue May 14, 2019 10:28 am

Re-ran the rest using a smaller raw. Files are still quite large though.. The raw I used was a sample file used to demo 4k TVs. You can get it here:
http://uhdsample.com/39-download-panaso ... video.html

Handbrake was configured using a modified 1080p30 preset, meaning the encodes would resize the 4k original down to 1080P. Resulting files would be much too large otherwise. I set everything to use Constant Quality 22QP, framerate fixed to same as source, with all filters off, audio track completely ignored (so the bitrate of the resulting file is all video).

So keeping the same settings and only changing the encoder I added each one as a new batch job then ran everything. The encode times are basically from taking the very first and very last timestamp in the log file. Codecs used: x264 8-bit and 10-bit encoder level 5.0, x265 8-bit and 10bit, NVENC h264, NVENC h265, QSV h264, QSV h265. I didn't bother testing 10-bit QSV or 12-bit x265.

Excel of my encode results:
Image

Google Drive of the resulting files + logs (some files might still be uploading):
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-CRk- ... zJPi4Ul5U8

Machine configuration:
i9-9900k @ 5GHz (MCE), 16GB DDR4 3600
RTX 2060
2x Samsung 860 Evo

Handbrake version 1.2.2
Nvidia Driver version 430.64
Intel IGP Driver version 25.20.100.6373
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Tue May 14, 2019 11:59 am

That data is fascinating. Thanks. I'm surprised that h.265 is closer to the 10% space savings in that example vs closer to 25% like I expected. Also, the NV files are huge in comparison to the other 2 options. 4 times the file size for half the encoding time is a steep tradeoff, assuming the same practical quality.
 
jihadjoe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:34 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Tue May 14, 2019 12:29 pm

Forgot to say but these were two-pass encodes. I think for a single-pass (as it would be for a streaming setup) the NVENC and QSV encoders will be even faster. IIRC the first pass is basically single-core.

The logfiles also have a framerate value given which is slightly higher than my calculated fps, but I decided to go by the timestamps instead in order to include all aspects of the job. Anyhow all the data is there for you gerbils to see and the files should be downloadable now should you want to go to any specific frame to peek and poke at the pixels.
 
DragonDaddyBear
Silver subscriber
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:01 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Tue May 14, 2019 2:44 pm

Thank you for doing that. I'm surprised that QSV was better than NVENC with the same quality. That really helps narrow down my Plex build options.
 
Redocbew
Gold subscriber
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:44 am

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Tue May 14, 2019 3:14 pm

jihadjoe wrote:
Quality-wise I couldn't tell the resulting files apart (Homer Simpson moment, but I guess that's exactly what 'constant quality' meant).


Constant quality just means the encoder uses a constant rate factor to guide the encoding process instead of targeting a specific bit rate or file size. The bit rate is adjusted depending on the source material to match the quality set by the CRF. A CRF of 0 will result in an entirely lossless file, but it'll be huge and won't look any better than encoding with a CRF in the usual 17-28 range.
Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and you won't hear them coming.
 
Voldenuit
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:10 pm

Re: Handbrake: expensive old CPU versus new budget CPU

Tue May 14, 2019 3:33 pm

mikewinddale wrote:
My suspicion is that you'll want at least as many cores. Plus, thanks to the Ryzen revolution, cores are cheap. Look at a cheap 4 core Ryzen.

A Pentium G5400 is $80 on Newegg. A quad core Ryzen 3 2200G is $95. Plus you get Integrated Vega graphics with that.


The architectural and instruction set improvements from Conroe are pretty significant.

From bench's x264 HQ numbers.

Conroe E6400 2C/2T: 3 fps. We can expect a Q8400 to get double that, so, say 6 fps.
Kaby Lake Pentium G4620 2C/4T: 14 fps.

So that's double the encoding performance from what the OP has.

But yeah, the Ryzen 2200G (4C/4T) gets 19.9 fps, so even better performance for a similar cost.
Wind, Sand and Stars.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
GZIP: On