x264 video encoding benchmark

Discussion about Intel CPUs and overclocking. Need help with that new Intel processor? Not sure which one is right for you? Like to void your warranty? This is the place for you! Please keep the topic on Intel Processors!
graysky
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:03 pm

x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by graysky » Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:42 pm

I put together a self-contained x264 video encoding benchmark. Techarp kindly agreed to host the file and results at this URL.

Basically, you run the test encode and it will report back frames-per-second values for your machine @ it's clock/overclock level. You can run it at your stock settings and at your overclock settings to see how your machine compares to others in the database.

The database is small right now (as of 08-sep), but as you guys report in results, I will populate it. My goal is to have a representative set of data for many different chips and chipsets. Hopefully, we'll get some Penryn and Phenom data when they become available. Also, if anyone out here has some of the high end AMD chips, please contribute. Instructions and the file are at that url.

Also, please report your results here in this thread. I will keep the data at that url to keep things simple.

Thanks all.
http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Image

User avatar
DMB2000uk
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7095
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: UK

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by DMB2000uk » Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:09 am

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 68.00 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 68.30 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 68.50 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 68.42 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 68.09 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.61 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.91 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.66 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.55 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.63 fps, 1826.38 kb/s
Intel E6600 (272*9)
Abit AW9D (975X)
2GB 4-4-4-12 @ 408
XP Pro

Man that benchmark was a lot of messing about to get setup >_<

I think you should get a clever installer now that the program is complete. And I think you should change whatever the dependencies are to relative links so that it doesn't have to run from C:\work2 (I don't like having program folders in the root C: :P)

Dan
Image (<- Clickable)

graysky
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:03 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by graysky » Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:51 am

Thanks for the result. Problem with an auto installer is that people don't trust them (myself included). Forcing people to do it manually is much more transparent. About your comment on rel paths. The d2v file requires a known path to the mpg file (just edit it in notepad to see) so it's pretty much required. I chose c:\ because the vast majority of windows systems out there will have a c: to write to :)
http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Image

User avatar
DMB2000uk
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7095
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: UK

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by DMB2000uk » Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:09 am

ok, well you could just leave it like that then 8-)
(I just think more people might be inclined to test if they didnt have to muck around so much :P)

I suppose it is overkill to get the program to tempararily copy the mpg to the c: while it is in use? That way the main program can be anywhere.

Dan
Image (<- Clickable)

User avatar
ibleet
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1529
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:40 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by ibleet » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:22 am

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 69.53 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 69.79 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 69.83 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 69.70 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 69.87 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.87 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.80 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.88 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.86 fps, 1826.32 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.90 fps, 1826.38 kb/s
See specs in my Sig

graysky
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:03 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by graysky » Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:11 am

@ibleet - Thanks for running the benchmark... I need a few more things....
1) mem timings and mem core speed you're running it
2) which o/s
3) cpu multiplier and FSB
Asus Crosshair 590 SLI
AMD X2 5200+ Windsor
Evga 7900 GS
Corsair 520w PSU
Corsair xms2 2Gb DDR2 800
http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Image

User avatar
kenc51
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 5167
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Contact:

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by kenc51 » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:28 pm

Dell Inspiron 6400 Laptop (945PM Chip Set)
Intel T5500 (1.66GHz C2D) 166x10
2GB DDR667 5-5-5-15
X1400 GFX
XP Media Center Edition
Running two instances of FAH, E-Mail and Bittorrent in the backround

Code: Select all

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.86 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.97 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.08 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.07 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.30 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.26 fps, 1826.21 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.32 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.27 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.30 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.29 fps, 1826.33 kb/s
When I get the main rig back up, I'll post more results but it won't be this month!
PS. You made me boot into windows for this :( ;)

graysky
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:03 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by graysky » Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:01 pm

kenc51 wrote:Dell Inspiron 6400 Laptop (945PM Chip Set)
Intel T5500 (1.66GHz C2D) 166x10
2GB DDR667 5-5-5-15
X1400 GFX
XP Media Center Edition
Running two instances of FAH, E-Mail and Bittorrent in the backround

When I get the main rig back up, I'll post more results but it won't be this month!
PS. You made me boot into windows for this :( ;)
Thanks for the results dude. You had to boot into windows, eh :)
http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Image

User avatar
ibleet
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1529
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:40 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by ibleet » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:43 pm

graysky wrote:@ibleet - Thanks for running the benchmark... I need a few more things....
1) mem timings and mem core speed you're running it
2) which o/s
3) cpu multiplier and FSB


1) 5-5-5-18, 2612 MHz
2) windows pro MCE
3) x13, 200.9

I have not done any overclocking whatsoever, so its all stock as per my SIG. Hope this helps.

graysky
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:03 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by graysky » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:15 am

ibleet wrote:
graysky wrote:@ibleet - Thanks for running the benchmark... I need a few more things....
1) mem timings and mem core speed you're running it
2) which o/s
3) cpu multiplier and FSB


1) 5-5-5-18, 2612 MHz
2) windows pro MCE
3) x13, 200.9

I have not done any overclocking whatsoever, so its all stock as per my SIG. Hope this helps.
THanks man... only one follow-up... your memory is clocked @ 2612??? Are you sure?
http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Image

User avatar
DMB2000uk
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7095
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: UK

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by DMB2000uk » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:13 am

lol, I think he means that his CPU is at 2612, and his RAM being at stock will be (close to) 400Mhz.

Dan
Image (<- Clickable)

User avatar
ibleet
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1529
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:40 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by ibleet » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:09 am

DMB2000uk wrote:lol, I think he means that his CPU is at 2612, and his RAM being at stock will be (close to) 400Mhz.

Dan
Ya, exactly what Dan said. LoL :lol:

graysky
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:03 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by graysky » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:41 pm

As of 20-Sep-2007, we have data on over 100 Intel-based systems and on over 40 AMD-based systems. There are a few trends I picked-up on while browsing through the database. I put them into a single table and color coded them to make them easier to see. If you see a trend I missed, lemme know and I'll add it to the table.

Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit.

On to the table:

Image

Yellow: Nearly 1:1 increase by adding an additional processor to a dual-chip MB
Orange: Some operating systems seem to handle x264 more efficiently than others
Red: Insignificant gain by upping the DRAM speed by 50 %
Blue: For the most part, these chips scale in a pretty linear fashion
Green: Tighter/looser memory timings have a pretty insignificant effect
Purple: Keeping the same over-all clock speed using a different combo of multiplier and FSB can give pretty insignificant gains

Again, I only gave this a once-over look; please point out any trends you see that I missed and also don't forgot about the O/S request!

Thanks again to all who contributed!
Last edited by graysky on Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Image

User avatar
ibleet
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1529
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:40 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by ibleet » Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:20 am

Without me having to hurt my head analyzing all this data, what exactly did you hope to learn from this vs. what you actually did learn? Yes, I'm lazy that way. :lol:

User avatar
DMB2000uk
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7095
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: UK

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by DMB2000uk » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:45 am

ibleet wrote:Without me having to hurt my head analyzing all this data, what exactly did you hope to learn from this vs. what you actually did learn? Yes, I'm lazy that way. :lol:
I second for a lazy man's summary paragraph :P

Dan
Image (<- Clickable)

graysky
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:03 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by graysky » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:49 pm

Updated the Intel table. It now contains several Yorkfield ES chips including:

Xeon E5330 (Dual board)
Q9550
Q9350
http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Image

User avatar
DMB2000uk
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7095
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: UK

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by DMB2000uk » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:06 am

do you still need a vista vs xp benchmark difference?

Dan
Image (<- Clickable)

graysky
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:03 pm

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by graysky » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:57 pm

DMB2000uk wrote:do you still need a vista vs xp benchmark difference?
Not anymore... now I'm interested in capturing some new AMD and Intel chips. Thanks for the offer!
http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Image

User avatar
Zertz
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: Magog, Quebec

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by Zertz » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:12 pm

Gigabyte P35-DS3L
E4400 @ 3.2Ghz (10x 320)
2x 1GB PC2-8500 5-5-5-15
32bit Vista

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 89.33 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 90.78 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 89.13 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 90.27 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 90.20 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 22.30 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 22.20 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 22.37 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 22.35 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 22.48 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

User avatar
kenc51
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 5167
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Contact:

Re: x264 video encoding benchmark

Post by kenc51 » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:51 am

I thought I'd do some testing with memory speeds & latencies to see if this improves encoding times!

E6885 @ 3.6GHz (9x400)
2GB 1:1 @ DDR800 Cas 3-3-3-10
Vista Ultimate 32bit

Code: Select all

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 95.25 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 92.39 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 95.79 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 96.31 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 95.97 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.94 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.67 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 24.04 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 24.22 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.97 fps, 1826.37 kb/s
E6850 @ 3.6GHz (8x450)
2GB 2:3 @ DDR1080 Cas 4-4-4-10
Vista Ultimate 32bit

Code: Select all

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 100.47 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 101.91 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 100.70 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 101.17 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 101.76 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.05 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 24.98 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 24.98 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.02 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.09 fps, 1826.37 kb/s
E6850 @ 3.6GHz (7x514)
2GB 1:1 @ DDR1030 Cas 4-4-4-10
Vista Ultimate 32bit

Code: Select all

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 101.60 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 101.44 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 101.29 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 102.17 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 102.16 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.03 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 24.81 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.07 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.09 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.10 fps, 1826.21 kb/s
It looks like high RAM speed is more important than low latencies.

Post Reply