• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Benchmark your computer @4K with Handbrake 1.1 and H265!

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,660
758
126
HandBrake 1.3.0 (2019110900)
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.18362.0
CPU: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-Core Processor
Ram: 130940 MB,
GPU Information:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X - 26.21.14.4187
Screen: 4096x2160

encoded 1806 frames in 113.33s (15.94 fps), 16285.42 kb/s, Avg QP:28.61
Beastly!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fir

Fir

Senior member
Jan 15, 2010
456
168
116
Do you know what frequency your CPU was at during the run?
I did not have HWmonitor open.

I did notice I wasn't using 1.1.1 so I ran again with comparable results:
HandBrake 1.1.1 (2018061800) - 64bit
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.18362.0 - 64bit
CPU: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-Core Processor
Ram: 130940 MB,
GPU Information:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X - 26.21.14.4187
Screen: 4096x2160

encoded 1806 frames in 105.63s (17.10 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09
[09:02:53] mux: track 0, 1806 frames, 106742191 bytes, 11814.30 kbps, fifo 512
[09:02:53] mux: track 1, 3385 frames, 1361648 bytes, 150.71 kbps, fifo 1024
 

ArisVer

Golden Member
Mar 6, 2011
1,248
8
81
CPU at stock with better air cooler and it was running at 3.36GHz

HandBrake 1.1.0 (2018040700) - 64bit
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.18363.0 - 64bit
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Eight-Core Processor

encoded 1806 frames in 496.10s (3.64 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
19,785
7,161
136
It only ran 50% of the cores @ 3 ghz

x265 [info]: frame I: 21, Avg QP:22.45 kb/s: 82429.25
x265 [info]: frame P: 444, Avg QP:23.94 kb/s: 24727.86
x265 [info]: frame B: 1341, Avg QP:30.21 kb/s: 4753.47
x265 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:15.5% UV:11.3%
x265 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 9.2% 5.2% 10.8% 37.6% 37.2%
encoded 1806 frames in 162.97s (11.08 fps), 10567.33 kb/s, Avg QP:28.58
[14:47:16] mux: track 0, 1806 frames, 95430184 bytes, 10562.28 kbps, fifo 512
[14:47:16] mux: track 1, 3385 frames, 1361078 bytes, 150.65 kbps, fifo 1024
[14:47:16] libhb: work result = 0

# Encode Completed ...
win 10 1909 112 gig ram EPYC 7742
 

Fir

Senior member
Jan 15, 2010
456
168
116
Yes handbrake doesn't scale perfectly over a certain number of cores.
There's a lot of applications that have this problem.
It's OK though as neither platform is really focused on running a single application all the time.
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,623
55
91
Updated 1/31/2020

RankUserCPUGHzsecondsfps/core/GHzfpsArchitectureCores
1Fir3970x 32/64
4.15​
105.63​
0.129​
17.10​
Zen 232
2DaPoets3960X 24/484.00
123.66​
0.152​
14.60​
Zen 224
3Charlie22911*7980XE 18/36
4.37​
141.12​
0.163​
12.80​
Skylake18
4Micromd2 - Xeon 8260L ES 48/96
2.80​
156.99​
0.086​
11.50​
Cascade Lake48
5YBS1*3950x 16/32
3.98​
162.41​
0.175​
11.12​
Zen 216
6Bavor3950x 16/324.05
169.73​
0.164​
10.64​
Zen 216
7KjboughtonE5-2696 2x18 36/72
3.99​
174.06​
0.072​
10.38​
Broadwell36
8DrMrLordX3900x 12/24
4.35​
191.78​
0.180​
9.42​
Zen 212
78KjboughtonE5-2696 2x16 32/32 (no HT)
3.99​
192.66​
0.073​
9.37​
Broadwell32
9DrMrLordX3900x 12/24
4.10​
198.75​
0.185​
9.09​
Zen 212
10rvborghQuad Opteron (48xK10)
3.00​
200​
0.063​
9.03​
Piledriver48
11Muadib3900x 12/24
4.30​
202.15​
0.173​
8.93​
Zen 212
12Cata407840xe 18/36
3.40​
211​
0.140​
8.56​
Skylake18
13Fir2990WX 32/64
4.10​
216.35​
0.064​
8.35​
Zen+32
14Markfw1950x 16/32
3.80​
242.49​
0.122​
7.45​
Zen16
15mrpiggyE5-2699 18/36
3.70​
253.41​
0.107​
7.13​
Haswell18
16eek21211950x 16/32
4.10​
254.04​
0.108​
7.11​
Zen16
17RobertR19900k 8/16 (52C/47UC)
5.20​
254.98​
0.170​
7.08​
Coffee Lake8
18LexingtonianQuad Opteron 6386
3.50​
275.66​
0.029​
6.55​
Piledriver64
19Kenmitch*Ryzen 7 3700x 8/16
3.97​
279.43​
0.203​
6.46​
Zen 28
20CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.90​
281.8​
0.163​
6.41​
Coffee Lake8
21sdifox3700x 8/16
3.94​
287.06​
0.200​
6.29​
Zen 28
22kmm00009900k 8/164.60
290.96​
0.169​
6.21​
Coffee Lake8
23CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.70​
291.87​
0.165​
6.19​
Coffee Lake8
24Makaveli3800x 8/164.90
292.4​
0.158​
6.18​
Zen 28
25TillausHamburgXeon ES QL1L 20/40
2.00​
297.54​
0.152​
6.07​
Skylake SP20
26sdifox3700x 8/164.00
306.52​
0.184​
5.89​
Zen 28
27Chaotic429700k 8/8
5.00​
311.03​
0.145​
5.81​
Coffee Lake8
28XabanakFanatik5960x 8/16
4.70​
319.84​
0.150​
5.65​
Haswell8
29DooKey7820X 8/16
4.50​
320.75​
0.156​
5.63​
Skylake8
30epsilon 848700K 8/16 (5/4.9)
5.00​
340.42​
0.133​
5.31​
Coffee Lake8
31JoeRambo8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.4)
4.80​
342.38​
0.137​
5.27​
Coffee Lake8
32mjdupuis8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.8)
4.80​
347.5​
0.135​
5.20​
Coffee Lake8
33IEC8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.7)
4.70​
359.41​
0.134​
5.02​
Coffee Lake8
34aclos33600x 6/12
4.04​
367.2​
0.203​
4.92​
Zen 26
35CakeMonster8700k 8/16 (4.9/4.6)
4.90​
379.09​
0.122​
4.76​
Coffee Lake8
36cmdrdredd8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.5)
4.70​
386.65​
0.124​
4.67​
Coffee Lake8
37rgba8700 8/16
4.30​
387.57​
0.135​
4.66​
Coffee Lake8
38MarkfwE5-2696v3 14/28
2.50​
394.29​
0.131​
4.58​
Broadwell14
39Markfw2700x 8/16
4.10​
404.44​
0.136​
4.47​
Zen+8
40Dan057Ryzen 2700 8/164.00
410.08​
0.138​
4.40​
Zen+8
41lightmanekRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4.00​
414.34​
0.136​
4.36​
Zen+8
42.vodkaRyzen 1700x 8/16
3.95​
416.04​
0.137​
4.34​
Zen8
43pjmssnDual Xeon E5-2690 16/32
2.90​
416.47​
0.093​
4.34​
Sandy Bridge EP16
44Bburninatortech42700x 8/164.00
423.9​
0.133​
4.26​
Zen+8
45Franz3162700x 8/16
3.80​
429.95​
0.138​
4.20​
Zen+8
46.vodkaRyzen 1700x 8/16
3.80​
430.69​
0.138​
4.19​
Zen8
47AnnoyedGruntRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4.10​
430.94​
0.128​
4.19​
Zen+8
48richaronRyzen 1700 6/12 (Ubuntu 18.04)
3.70​
434.68​
0.187​
4.15​
Zen6
49CrackRabbit2700x 8/16
3.80​
440.29​
0.135​
4.10​
Zen+8
50DespoilerRyzen 1700 8/16
3.90​
444.03​
0.130​
4.07​
Zen8
51dfentonRyzen 1700 8/16
3.70​
476.9​
0.128​
3.79​
Zen8
52ArisVir2700 8/16
3.36​
496.1​
0.135​
3.64​
Zen+8
53XenonRyzen 5 1600AF 6/12
4.00​
504.29​
0.149​
3.58​
Zen+6
54William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 3200)
3.60​
519.91​
0.161​
3.47​
Zen6
55mjdupuisRyzen 2600x 6/12
4.20​
520.3​
0.138​
3.47​
Zen+6
56ChippyUKi5-8400 6/6
4.00​
558.91​
0.135​
3.23​
Coffee Lake6
57ywasmdi5 8400 6/6
4.00​
562.68​
0.134​
3.21​
Coffee Lake6
58William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 2933)
3.60​
577.26​
0.145​
3.13​
Zen6
59gamervivekRyzen 1600 6/12
3.50​
593.1​
0.145​
3.05​
Zen6
60CronoReverse4790k 4/8
4.50​
644.52​
0.156​
2.80​
Haswell4
61Hulk*4770K 4/8
3.90​
754.96​
0.153​
2.39​
Haswell4
62jones3774770K 4/8
3.90​
768.63​
0.151​
2.35​
Haswell4
63Nathan Gall4770K 4/8
3.90​
775.24​
0.149​
2.33​
Haswell4
64Junky228Xeon w3690 6/12
4.00​
877.63​
0.086​
2.06​
Westmere EP6
65Imported_stryfe2600k 4/8
4.50​
951.72​
0.105​
1.90​
Sandy Bridge4
66Bubbleawsomei5-7300HQ (laptop) 4/4
3.20​
1022.42​
0.138​
1.77​
Kaby Lake4
67Hulk*8250u 4/8 (Surface 2 laptop)
2.50​
1067.13​
0.169​
1.69​
Kaby Lake R4
68NickatNight1980FX8320 4/8
4.16​
1117.63​
0.097​
1.62​
Piledriver4
69Xenoni5-1035G4 4/8
2.10​
1126.01​
0.191​
1.60​
Ice Lake4
70Xenoni5-3570k 4/4
4.00​
1206.06​
0.094​
1.50​
Ivy Bridge4
71mylesromi5-3570 4/4
3.80​
1399.56​
0.085​
1.29​
Ivy Bridge4
72dfentoni5-3570s 4/4
3.60​
1586.81​
0.079​
1.14​
Ivy Bridge4
73XenonFX-6300 6/6
4.10​
1657.66​
0.044​
1.09​
Bulldozer6
74Imported_stryfei5-750 4/4
2.80​
2012.8​
0.080​
0.90​
Lynnfield4
75Slim FanPentium Silver J5005 (NUK) 4/4
2.80​
2631.13​
0.061​
0.69​
Goldmont Plus4
76PeterScottCore 2 Quad Q9400 4/4
3.20​
2655.1​
0.053​
0.68​
Yorkfield4
77ywasmdi5 3210 (Macbook Pro) 2/4
3.10​
3144.79​
0.093​
0.57​
Ivy Bridge2
78Fanatical MeatQ9650 4/4
3.00​
3439.2​
0.044​
0.53​
Yorkfield4
79dfentonCeleron N3450 (laptop) 4/4
2.20​
5099.43​
0.040​
0.35​
Apollo Lake4
80dfentonCeleron 2957U 2/2
1.40​
6027.14​
0.107​
0.30​
Haswell2
 
Last edited:

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
3,974
43
91
The table needs some clean up.

You should only have a single score per user per processor type and their fastest.
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,623
55
91
Updated - 2/7/20
* indicates average frequency during test verified with HWiNFO

RankUserCPUGHzsecondsfps/core/GHzfpsArchitectureCores
1Fir3970x 32/64
4.15​
105.63
0.129​
17.10​
Zen 232
2DaPoets3960X 24/48
4.00​
123.66
0.152​
14.60​
Zen 224
3Charlie22911*7980XE 18/36
4.37​
141.12
0.163​
12.80​
Skylake18
4Micromd2 - Xeon 8260L ES 48/96
2.80​
156.99
0.086​
11.50​
Cascade Lake48
5YBS1*3950x 16/32
3.98​
162.41
0.175​
11.12​
Zen 216
6MarkfwEPYC 7742 64/128
3.00​
162.97
0.058​
11.08​
Zen64
7Bavor3950x 16/32
4.05​
169.73
0.164​
10.64​
Zen 216
8KjboughtonE5-2696 2x18 36/72
3.99​
174.06
0.072​
10.38​
Broadwell36
9DrMrLordX3900x 12/24
4.35​
191.78
0.180​
9.42​
Zen 212
10rvborghQuad Opteron (48xK10)
3.00​
200.00
0.063​
9.03​
Piledriver48
11Muadib3900x 12/24
4.30​
202.15
0.173​
8.93​
Zen 212
12Cata407840xe 18/36
3.40​
211.00
0.140​
8.56​
Skylake18
13Fir2990WX 32/64
4.10​
216.35
0.064​
8.35​
Zen+32
14Markfw1950x 16/32
3.80​
242.49
0.122​
7.45​
Zen16
15mrpiggyE5-2699 18/36
3.70​
253.41
0.107​
7.13​
Haswell18
16eek21211950x 16/32
4.10​
254.04
0.108​
7.11​
Zen16
17RobertR19900k 8/16 (52C/47UC)
5.20​
254.98
0.170​
7.08​
Coffee Lake8
18LexingtonianQuad Opteron 6386
3.50​
275.66
0.029​
6.55​
Piledriver64
19Kenmitch*Ryzen 7 3700x 8/16
3.97​
279.43
0.203​
6.46​
Zen 28
20CricketSP9900k 8/16
4.90​
281.80
0.163​
6.41​
Coffee Lake8
21kmm00009900k 8/16
4.60​
290.96
0.169​
6.21​
Coffee Lake8
22Makaveli3800x 8/16
4.90​
292.40
0.158​
6.18​
Zen 28
23TillausHamburgXeon ES QL1L 20/40
2.00​
297.54
0.152​
6.07​
Skylake SP20
24sdifox3700x 8/16
4.00​
306.52
0.184​
5.89​
Zen 28
25Chaotic429700k 8/8
5.00​
311.03
0.145​
5.81​
Coffee Lake8
26XabanakFanatik5960x 8/16
4.70​
319.84
0.150​
5.65​
Haswell8
27DooKey7820X 8/16
4.50​
320.75
0.156​
5.63​
Skylake8
28epsilon 848700K 8/16 (5/4.9)
5.00​
340.42
0.133​
5.31​
Coffee Lake8
29JoeRambo8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.4)
4.80​
342.38
0.137​
5.27​
Coffee Lake8
30mjdupuis8700k 8/16 (4.8/4.8)
4.80​
347.50
0.135​
5.20​
Coffee Lake8
31IEC8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.7)
4.70​
359.41
0.134​
5.02​
Coffee Lake8
32aclos33600x 6/12
4.04​
367.20
0.203​
4.92​
Zen 26
33CakeMonster8700k 8/16 (4.9/4.6)
4.90​
379.09
0.122​
4.76​
Coffee Lake8
34cmdrdredd8700K 8/16 (4.7/4.5)
4.70​
386.65
0.124​
4.67​
Coffee Lake8
35rgba8700 8/16
4.30​
387.57
0.135​
4.66​
Coffee Lake8
36MarkfwE5-2696v3 14/28
2.50​
394.29
0.131​
4.58​
Broadwell14
37YeroonRyzen 3600 6/12
3.60​
402.25
0.208​
4.49​
Zen 26
38Markfw2700x 8/16
4.10​
404.44
0.136​
4.47​
Zen+8
39Dan057Ryzen 2700 8/16
4.00​
410.08
0.138​
4.40​
Zen+8
40lightmanekRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4.00​
414.34
0.136​
4.36​
Zen+8
41.vodkaRyzen 1700x 8/16
3.95​
416.04
0.137​
4.34​
Zen8
42pjmssnDual Xeon E5-2690 16/32
2.90​
416.47
0.093​
4.34​
Sandy Bridge EP16
43Bburninatortech42700x 8/16
4.00​
423.90
0.133​
4.26​
Zen+8
44Franz3162700x 8/16
3.80​
429.95
0.138​
4.20​
Zen+8
45AnnoyedGruntRyzen 7 2700x 8/16
4.10​
430.94
0.128​
4.19​
Zen+8
46richaronRyzen 1700 6/12 (Ubuntu 18.04)
3.70​
434.68
0.187​
4.15​
Zen6
47CrackRabbit2700x 8/16
3.80​
440.29
0.135​
4.10​
Zen+8
48DespoilerRyzen 1700 8/16
3.90​
444.03
0.130​
4.07​
Zen8
49ArisVir*2700 8/16
3.80​
454.14
0.131​
3.98​
Zen+8
50dfentonRyzen 1700 8/16
3.70​
476.90
0.128​
3.79​
Zen8
51CuriousMike9600k 6/6
4.40​
477.30
0.143​
3.78​
Coffee Lake6
52XenonRyzen 5 1600AF 6/12
4.00​
504.29
0.149​
3.58​
Zen+6
53monkeydelmagico*Ryzen 1600 AF 6/12
4.09​
504.45
0.146​
3.58​
Zen6
54William GaatjesRyzen 2600 6/12 (memory 3200)
3.60​
519.91
0.161​
3.47​
Zen6
55mjdupuisRyzen 2600x 6/12
4.20​
520.30
0.138​
3.47​
Zen+6
56ChippyUKi5-8400 6/6
4.00​
558.91
0.135​
3.23​
Coffee Lake6
57ywasmdi5 8400 6/6
4.00​
562.68
0.134​
3.21​
Coffee Lake6
58gamervivekRyzen 1600 6/12
3.50​
593.10
0.145​
3.05​
Zen6
59CronoReverse4790k 4/8
4.50​
644.52
0.156​
2.80​
Haswell4
60Hulk*4770K 4/8
3.90​
754.96
0.153​
2.39​
Haswell4
61jones3774770K 4/8
3.90​
768.63
0.151​
2.35​
Haswell4
62Nathan Gall4770K 4/8
3.90​
775.24
0.149​
2.33​
Haswell4
63Junky228Xeon w3690 6/12
4.00​
877.63
0.086​
2.06​
Westmere EP6
64Imported_stryfe2600k 4/8
4.50​
951.72
0.105​
1.90​
Sandy Bridge4
65Bubbleawsomei5-7300HQ (laptop) 4/4
3.20​
1022.42
0.138​
1.77​
Kaby Lake4
66Hulk*8250u 4/8 (Surface 2 laptop)
2.50​
1067.13
0.169​
1.69​
Kaby Lake R4
67NickatNight1980FX8320 4/8
4.16​
1117.63
0.097​
1.62​
Piledriver4
68Xenoni5-1035G4 4/8
2.10​
1126.01
0.191​
1.60​
Ice Lake4
69Xenoni5-3570k 4/4
4.00​
1206.06
0.094​
1.50​
Ivy Bridge4
70Xenon*FX-6300 6/6
4.10​
1336.18
0.055​
1.35​
Piledriver6
71mylesromi5-3570 4/4
3.80​
1399.56
0.085​
1.29​
Ivy Bridge4
72dfentoni5-3570s 4/4
3.60​
1586.81
0.079​
1.14​
Ivy Bridge4
73Imported_stryfei5-750 4/4
2.80​
2012.80
0.080​
0.90​
Lynnfield4
74Slim FanPentium Silver J5005 (NUK) 4/4
2.80​
2631.13
0.061​
0.69​
Goldmont Plus4
75PeterScottCore 2 Quad Q9400 4/4
3.20​
2655.10
0.053​
0.68​
Yorkfield4
76ywasmdi5 3210 (Macbook Pro) 2/4
3.10​
3144.79
0.093​
0.57​
Ivy Bridge2
77Fanatical MeatQ9650 4/4
3.00​
3439.20
0.044​
0.53​
Yorkfield4
77dfentonCeleron N3450 (laptop) 4/4
2.20​
5099.43
0.040​
0.35​
Apollo Lake4
78dfentonCeleron 2957U 2/2
1.40​
6027.14
0.107​
0.30​
Haswell2
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ElFenix

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
3,974
43
91
Since mark results are each from different processors I think they should all stay.

You just don't want more than 1 entry per processor type which you cleaned up.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
19,785
7,161
136
@Hulk My 7742 EPYC, which should be about number 4 or 5 on your list, is not there. Post 229
 

CuriousMike

Platinum Member
Feb 22, 2001
2,948
348
136
encoded 1806 frames in 477.30s (3.78 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

9600k @ 4.3 (stock), 16GB @ 2666
 
Last edited:

Xenon

Senior member
Oct 16, 1999
767
8
81
Couple of quick comments about the fx-6300. Even though this thing sits unused and is terrible I felt those results weren't fair, so I will be running them again to try to get slightly better scores. Also, isn't this CPU piledriver and not bulldozer? Another thing is that although the boost frequency is listed as 4.1 it doesn't hit that frequency at all during encoding. Running it along with hwmonitor it showed all cores at 3.5 for the entire test even though temps never got above 50c. Weird.
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,623
55
91
Couple of quick comments about the fx-6300. Even though this thing sits unused and is terrible I felt those results weren't fair, so I will be running them again to try to get slightly better scores. Also, isn't this CPU piledriver and not bulldozer? Another thing is that although the boost frequency is listed as 4.1 it doesn't hit that frequency at all during encoding. Running it along with hwmonitor it showed all cores at 3.5 for the entire test even though temps never got above 50c. Weird.
Let me know the stats and I will correct the table.
 

monkeydelmagico

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2011
3,961
142
106
encoded 1806 frames in 504.45s (3.58 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

HandBrake 1.1.0 - 64bit
Windows 10
AMD ryzen 1600AF 6/12 average Ghz 4.09
Ram 16gb @ 3200

not bad for a cheap build
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xenon

ArisVer

Golden Member
Mar 6, 2011
1,248
8
81
Second pass at 3.8 GHz through software overclock

HandBrake 1.1.0 (2018040700) - 64bit
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.18363.0 - 64bit
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Eight-Core Processor
Ram: 16332 MB, (2x8) at 3200 MHz

encoded 1806 frames in 454.14s (3.98 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09
 

Bavor

Member
Nov 11, 2001
73
16
81
I did some experimentation with Handbrake 1.3 to see how the CPU speed can change the results. I assume the results would scale similarly in older versions of handbrake. PPT was set to 4096 W, TDC was set to 4096 A and EDC was set to 512 A to prevent issues with power limits.

3950x CPU cores varying speed: encoded 1806 frames in 191.32s (9.44 fps), 16285.42 kb/s, Avg QP:28.61
Set the two best cores to 400 MHz, the next two best to 4300 MHz, and the rest to 4100 HMz.
3950x CPU cores all 4.0 GHz: encoded 1806 frames in 179.96s (10.04 fps), 16285.42 kb/s, Avg QP:28.61
3950x CPU cores all 4.1 GHz: encoded 1806 frames in 178.04s (10.14 fps), 16285.42 kb/s, Avg QP:28.61
3950x CPU cores all 4.2 GHz: encoded 1806 frames in 171.55s (10.53 fps), 16285.42 kb/s, Avg QP:28.61
3950x CPU cores all 4.25 GHz: encoded 1806 frames in 171.60s (10.52 fps), 16285.42 kb/s, Avg QP:28.61

The odd thing that happened when I had the cores at varying speed was some cores would never hit their maximum speed and sit below 3.5 GHz the entire time of the encode. At 4.25 GHz some of the cores would throttle back their speed on a regular basis for a few seconds at the time when I watched them in Ryzen Master.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Bavor

Member
Nov 11, 2001
73
16
81
New result with Handbrake 1.1 and 3950X @ 4.2 GHz all cores

HandBrake 1.1.0 (2018040700) - 64bit
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.18363.0 - 64bit
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Ram: 32685 MB,
GPU Information:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti - 26.21.14.4187

encoded 1806 frames in 161.83s (11.16 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

3950X 4.2 GHz all cores
32GB DDR4 3600 MHz
Windows 10 Pro

I tried 4.3 GHz all cores and it wasn't stable enough to make it all the way through the endode at a voltage I was comfortable with using.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Xenon

Senior member
Oct 16, 1999
767
8
81
Let me know the stats and I will correct the table.
Here is after an OC. FX-6300 @4.1 1336.18s (1.35 fps). Temps still stay below 50c during this run so I may try a higher overclock. This is with a terrible stock cooler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Yeroon

Member
Mar 19, 2017
102
45
71
r5 3600 on linux lite (ubuntu 18.04 base, kernel 5.4) , all boosting options in bios turned off
clock 3600mhz
32gb LPX 3000mhz 2x16 micron e-die @ 2933
handbrake 1.1.0
encoded 1806 frames in 402.25s (4.49 fps), 11725.82 kb/s, Avg QP:29.05
 

YBS1

Golden Member
May 14, 2000
1,897
52
91
New result with Handbrake 1.1 and 3950X @ 4.2 GHz all cores

HandBrake 1.1.0 (2018040700) - 64bit
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.18363.0 - 64bit
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Ram: 32685 MB,
GPU Information:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti - 26.21.14.4187

encoded 1806 frames in 161.83s (11.16 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

3950X 4.2 GHz all cores
32GB DDR4 3600 MHz
Windows 10 Pro

I tried 4.3 GHz all cores and it wasn't stable enough to make it all the way through the endode at a voltage I was comfortable with using.
That 4.2GHz all core result is just about as identical to my 3.98GHz core average PBO result as it can be. I wonder if it's purely down to my memory speed advantage making up the 200MHz per core disadvantage or if it's something else (Infinity Fabric, motherboard differences, BIOS settings, etc.)? I'm going to run a 4.2 all core run and maybe a run with my memory brought down to 3600MHz and see what happens.
 

YBS1

Golden Member
May 14, 2000
1,897
52
91
3950X with 4.2GHz all core OC
encoded 1806 frames in 154.72s (11.67 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

There is something wonky going on with using this as a benchmark though. The "all core" 4.2GHz overclock wasn't static at all, I was watching Ryzen Master as it was encoding and seeing the clock speeds jump around all over the place. Thought that a bit odd so I fired up CB R20 and it acted just as it was supposed to with all cores holding a solid 4.2GHz. So I decided to run the Handbrake encode again with that HWiNFO64 program running again to watch the average effective clocks.....Just a hair over 3.5GHz. *Shrug*
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
19,785
7,161
136
3950X with 4.2GHz all core OC
encoded 1806 frames in 154.72s (11.67 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09

There is something wonky going on with using this as a benchmark though. The "all core" 4.2GHz overclock wasn't static at all, I was watching Ryzen Master as it was encoding and seeing the clock speeds jump around all over the place. Thought that a bit odd so I fired up CB R20 and it acted just as it was supposed to with all cores holding a solid 4.2GHz. So I decided to run the Handbrake encode again with that HWiNFO64 program running again to watch the average effective clocks.....Just a hair over 3.5GHz. *Shrug*
This benchmark is highly flawed on todays high core count processors. My 64 core Rome processor was so "all over the place" that I guessed at 3 ghz, but it only used less than 50% of the power. I only got a little over 11 fps, so you beat me with 16 cores ! CB20 was much better in using all the cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

ASK THE COMMUNITY