Benchmark your computer with Handbrake

[cmdrdredd]

Yeah...to really compare accurately it needs more controlled conditions but...it's not a big deal. I just meant that it isn't the beat indicator for performance testing.

 

[Carfax83]

Wow, I just used the Nightly build, and my score increased by almost 11%!

Previous score:

[08:52:54] work: average encoding speed for job is 346.908142 fps

HandBrake 0.9.9.5530 - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz
Ram: 16322 MB, Screen: 2560x1440

New score with Nightly build:

[15:28:21] work: average encoding speed for job is 384.958954 fps

HandBrake svn5632 (Nightly Build) - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz
Ram: 16322 MB, Screen: 2560x1440

 

[Edgemeal]

Wow, I just used the Nightly build, and my score increased by almost 11%!

Sweeeeet! :thumbsup:

 

[richierich1212]

HandBrake svn5632 (Nightly Build) - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU B980 @ 2.40GHz
Ram: 3941 MB, Screen: 1366x768
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2
[00:00:12] work: average encoding speed for job is 41.970509 fps

 

[Carfax83]

Out of curiousity, I ran the 32 bit version of the Nightly, and it ended up being 11.6% slower than the 64 bit version..

That's not too bad, because I believe 64 bit code is typically slower for the most part due to the increased data footprint, unless you're working with very large data sets that require more than 4GB then 64 bit beats the living crap out of 32 bit.

With a larger file (say a Blu-ray movie), the performance increase would be greater I wager.

 

[Imouto]

With a larger file (say a Blu-ray movie), the performance increase would be greater I wager.

No. x264 uses user defined look ahead functions (like ref frames and mbtree) that doesn't really improve past a certain point which never ever exceeds 4 GB (that limit is way less actually) unless you're using a retarded high amount. You shouldn't have any problems with the 32 bit executable even with 4k video.

And dunno if I got you wrong, but 64 bit soft is almost always faster than 32 bit after all these years.

 

[Edgemeal]

Try the latest Nightly build, I gained almost 5% on ivy i5.

The 4.2GHz battle

[B]
  Name           FPS         CPU       CPU MHz  Ram MHz  Timings      OS / CPU Capabilities[/B]
1 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35215306&postcount=149"]YBS1[/URL]           354.352325  i7-3930K  4200       1866   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX                       
2 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35202792&postcount=55"]SKORPI0[/URL]        324.455719  i7-3930K  4200          -   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX                       
3 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35214137&postcount=142"]Makaveli[/URL]       319.169128  i7-970    4200       1600   7-8-7-20-1T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2                           
4 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35205269&postcount=78"]MrPickins[/URL]      253.857376  i5-4670K  4200       1600   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX AVX2 FMA3 LZCNT BMI2  
5 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35213666&postcount=137"]videogames101[/URL]  221.463760  i5-3570K  4200       1600   9-9-9-24-1T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX                       
6 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35200979&postcount=16"]Edgemeal[/URL]       219.427078  i5-3570K  4200       1600   9-9-9-28-2T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX                       
7 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35213976&postcount=139"]gbeirn[/URL]         216.190186  i7-960    4200       1600   9-9-9-24-2T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2                           
8 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35201346&postcount=23"]nyker96[/URL]        194.348465  i5-2500K  4200       1600   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX

HandBreak Score Chart updated here (for now).

memory timings seem to have net me 2 fps on you edgemeal haha

I'm surprised its only 2 FPS.

I thought memory speed and timings would have a larger impact on the performance when doing work like this.
I tried memory @ 1333-9-9-9-24-1T and my FPS only dropped aprox 2 FPS to around 217.x.

EDIT Updated 4.2GHz list...

[B]
   Name           FPS         CPU       CPU MHz  Ram MHz  Timings      CPU Capabilities / OS[/B]
01 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35215306&postcount=149"]YBS1[/URL]           354.352325  i7-3930K  4200       1866   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX
02 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35202792&postcount=55"]SKORPI0[/URL]        324.455719  i7-3930K  4200          -   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX
03 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35214137&postcount=142"]Makaveli[/URL]       319.169128  i7-970    4200       1600   7-8-7-20-1T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2
04 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35226182&postcount=203"]Ajay[/URL]           313.551605  i7-970    4200       1600   9-9-9-24-2T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2
05 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35205269&postcount=78"]MrPickins[/URL]      253.857376  i5-4670K  4200       1600   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX AVX2 FMA3 LZCNT BMI2
06 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35223187&postcount=201"]phillyman36[/URL]    241.328156  i7-3770K  4200       1600   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX
07 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35236865&postcount=217"]xylem[/URL]          228.367584  i7-920    4200       1600   9-9-9-24-2T  -
08 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35213666&postcount=137"]videogames101[/URL]  221.463760  i5-3570K  4200       1600   9-9-9-24-1T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX
09 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35200979&postcount=16"]Edgemeal[/URL]       219.427078  i5-3570K  4200       1600   9-9-9-28-2T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX
10 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35213976&postcount=139"]gbeirn[/URL]         216.190186  i7-960    4200       1600   9-9-9-24-2T  MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2
11 [URL="http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35201346&postcount=23"]nyker96[/URL]        194.348465  i5-2500K  4200       1600   -            MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX

 

[MrPickins]

Out of curiousity, I ran the 32 bit version of the Nightly, and it ended up being 11.6% slower than the 64 bit version..

That's not too bad, because I believe 64 bit code is typically slower for the most part due to the increased data footprint, unless you're working with very large data sets that require more than 4GB then 64 bit beats the living crap out of 32 bit.

With a larger file (say a Blu-ray movie), the performance increase would be greater I wager.

It's likely due to the increased resources available in x64 (namely more registers).

 

[MrPickins]

C2Q Q9400 @ 3.2GHz
8GB DDR2 800


HandBrake 0.9.9.5530 - 64bit Version
[info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.1 Cache64
work: average encoding speed for job is 107.953468 fps

 

[Makaveli]

C2Q Q9400 @ 3.2GHz
8GB DDR2 800


HandBrake 0.9.9.5530 - 64bit Version
[info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.1 Cache64
work: average encoding speed for job is 107.953468 fps

Hey can you also try the nightly build I want to see how much of an improvement on a C2Q.

 

[Carfax83]

No. x264 uses user defined look ahead functions (like ref frames and mbtree) that doesn't really improve past a certain point which never ever exceeds 4 GB (that limit is way less actually) unless you're using a retarded high amount. You shouldn't have any problems with the 32 bit executable even with 4k video.

Really? That's surprising. I thought video encoding/transcoding could be memory intensive depending on the size of the files you were working with.

And dunno if I got you wrong, but 64 bit soft is almost always faster than 32 bit after all these years.

I was talking about 64 bit code in general. From what I read it does tend to be slightly slower because it takes up more space in the cache due to the increased size of the pointers (whatever the hell that is).

With x86-64 processors however, you get a doubling of registers in 64 bit mode which offsets the inherent performance penalties associated with 64 bit code.

 

[MrPickins]

C2Q Q9400 @ 3.2GHz
8GB DDR2 800

HandBrake 0.9.9.5530 - 64bit Version
[info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.1 Cache64
work: average encoding speed for job is 107.953468 fps

Hey can you also try the nightly build I want to see how much of an improvement on a C2Q.

HandBrake svn5632 (Nightly Build) - 64bit Version
work: average encoding speed for job is 108.084122 fps

Almost no change.

 

[SKORPI0]

Did 5 "benchmarks" today out of curiosity.
Notice the decreasing results. Looks like I need a better cooling system.
Note: I was getting from 295-326 fps running it various times with no change in system specs. Not sure why the results were so different.
Idle temp - 45°C - Load temp- 71°C .

HandBrake 0.9.9.5530 - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7600 Service Pack 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz (4200MHz)
Ram: 32744 MB, Screen: 2560x1440

1. [13:45:08] starting job
[13:45:49] work: average encoding speed for job is 349.830109 fps

2. [13:55:53] starting job
[13:56:35] work: average encoding speed for job is 341.267731 fps

3. [13:58:28] starting job
[13:59:11] work: average encoding speed for job is 333.413116 fps

4. 14:02:00] starting job
[14:02:44] work: average encoding speed for job is 332.387421 fps

5. [14:07:05] starting job
[14:07:49] work: average encoding speed for job is 322.124054 fps
-------------------------------------------------------
HandBrake svn5632 (Nightly Build) - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7600 Service Pack 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz (4200 MHz)
Ram: 32744 MB, Screen: 2560x1440

1. [14:19:42] starting job
[14:20:27] work: average encoding speed for job is 325.444458 fps

2. [14:26:46] starting job
[14:27:32] work: average encoding speed for job is 316.010345 fps

3. [14:29:46] starting job
[14:30:32] work: average encoding speed for job is 313.073822 fps

4. [14:32:35] starting job
[14:33:22] work: average encoding speed for job is 312.578674 fps

5. [14:35:01] starting job
[14:35:48] work: average encoding speed for job is 307.313416 fps

 

[24601]

Did 5 "benchmarks" today out of curiosity.
Notice the decreasing results. Looks like I need a better cooling system.
Note: I was getting from 295-326 fps running it various times with no change in system specs. Not sure why the results were so different.
Idle temp - 45°C - Load temp- 71°C .

HandBrake 0.9.9.5530 - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7600 Service Pack 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz (4200MHz)
Ram: 32744 MB, Screen: 2560x1440

1. [13:45:08] starting job
[13:45:49] work: average encoding speed for job is 349.830109 fps

2. [13:55:53] starting job
[13:56:35] work: average encoding speed for job is 341.267731 fps

3. [13:58:28] starting job
[13:59:11] work: average encoding speed for job is 333.413116 fps

4. 14:02:00] starting job
[14:02:44] work: average encoding speed for job is 332.387421 fps

5. [14:07:05] starting job
[14:07:49] work: average encoding speed for job is 322.124054 fps
-------------------------------------------------------
HandBrake svn5632 (Nightly Build) - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7600 Service Pack 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz (4200 MHz)
Ram: 32744 MB, Screen: 2560x1440

1. [14:19:42] starting job
[14:20:27] work: average encoding speed for job is 325.444458 fps

2. [14:26:46] starting job
[14:27:32] work: average encoding speed for job is 316.010345 fps

3. [14:29:46] starting job
[14:30:32] work: average encoding speed for job is 313.073822 fps

4. [14:32:35] starting job
[14:33:22] work: average encoding speed for job is 312.578674 fps

5. [14:35:01] starting job
[14:35:48] work: average encoding speed for job is 307.313416 fps

I don't know why anyone would think a 212 evo would be sufficient for overclocking a 3930k.......

Test your cooling in Prime95 small fft and Intel Linpack, that's overclocking 101.

 

[SKORPI0]

I don't know why anyone would think a 212 evo would be sufficient for overclocking a 3930k.......

Test your cooling in Prime95 small fft and Intel Linpack, that's overclocking 101.

You're right, the 212 evo (with 2 fans-push/pull config.) is not sufficient. I've been looking to get this air cooler (with 3 fans) for quite a while since I've built the system Sept. last year, Water cooling is not an option right now.

Phanteks PH-TC14PE 140mm UFB (Updraft Floating Balance) CPU Cooler

 

[24601]

You're right, the 212 evo (with 2 fans-push/pull config.) is not sufficient. I've been looking to get this air cooler (with 3 fans) for quite a while since I've built the system Sept. last year, Water cooling is not an option right now.

Phanteks PH-TC14PE 140mm UFB (Updraft Floating Balance) CPU Cooler

It's a good choice, though expensive and loud(ish)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?sr...rmalright-archon-sb-e-x2/zchart_table_big.png

 

[Carfax83]

Did 5 "benchmarks" today out of curiosity.
Notice the decreasing results. Looks like I need a better cooling system.
Note: I was getting from 295-326 fps running it various times with no change in system specs. Not sure why the results were so different.
Idle temp - 45°C - Load temp- 71°C .

HandBrake 0.9.9.5530 - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7600 Service Pack 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz (4200MHz)
Ram: 32744 MB, Screen: 2560x1440

1. [13:45:08] starting job
[13:45:49] work: average encoding speed for job is 349.830109 fps

2. [13:55:53] starting job
[13:56:35] work: average encoding speed for job is 341.267731 fps

3. [13:58:28] starting job
[13:59:11] work: average encoding speed for job is 333.413116 fps

4. 14:02:00] starting job
[14:02:44] work: average encoding speed for job is 332.387421 fps

5. [14:07:05] starting job
[14:07:49] work: average encoding speed for job is 322.124054 fps
-------------------------------------------------------
HandBrake svn5632 (Nightly Build) - 64bit Version
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7600 Service Pack 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz (4200 MHz)
Ram: 32744 MB, Screen: 2560x1440

1. [14:19:42] starting job
[14:20:27] work: average encoding speed for job is 325.444458 fps

2. [14:26:46] starting job
[14:27:32] work: average encoding speed for job is 316.010345 fps

3. [14:29:46] starting job
[14:30:32] work: average encoding speed for job is 313.073822 fps

4. [14:32:35] starting job
[14:33:22] work: average encoding speed for job is 312.578674 fps

5. [14:35:01] starting job
[14:35:48] work: average encoding speed for job is 307.313416 fps

Your scores had me confused for a bit, since you apparently got higher performance with the standard build as compared to the nightly.

But then I'm sure you made a simple error and switched them around by accident

And yeah, for overclocking the 3930K on air, the larger coolers are definitely the best. On my Noctua NH-D14, transcoding the video barely broke 60c, and that was on two cores only out of six.

And mine is clocked higher than yours, at 4.4ghz.

 

[Saffron]

I honestly didn't think anything of it until you mentioned something. So I ran Handbrake two more times and this is what I got:

Run#2:
[08:05:22] starting job
[08:06:10] work: average encoding speed for job is 304.600189 fps

Run#3:
[08:07:27] starting job
[08:08:14] work: average encoding speed for job is 305.948273 fps

Almost double the performance as my first run. I might have had my notebook unplugged without realizing it or something.

My MSI GT70 Notebook benchmark is above in the quote. The core specs are:
- i7-4700QM
- 16GB DDR3-1600MHz
- GTX 770M

Now that I am back at home with some time to spare, I decided to run Handbrake on my desktop computer. I didn't change any settings, just started handbrake and ran it 3 times. My desktop specs are listed in my signature, but here is the core specs:

- i5-3570K @ 3.4GHz (4.4GHz Boost)
- 16GB DDR3-1600MHz
- GTX 680

Run #1:
[16:43:32] starting job
[16:44:10] work: average encoding speed for job is 376.350952 fps

Run #2:
[16:44:22] starting job
[16:45:01] work: average encoding speed for job is 369.732788 fps

Run #3
[16:45:13] starting job
[16:45:52] work: average encoding speed for job is 371.353424 fps

*The average between the three runs are: 372.479054*

 

[Makaveli]

My MSI GT70 Notebook benchmark is above in the quote. The core specs are:
- i7-4700QM
- 16GB DDR3-1600MHz
- GTX 770M

Now that I am back at home with some time to spare, I decided to run Handbrake on my desktop computer. I didn't change any settings, just started handbrake and ran it 3 times. My desktop specs are listed in my signature, but here is the core specs:

- i5-3570K @ 3.4GHz (4.4GHz Boost)
- 16GB DDR3-1600MHz
- GTX 680

Run #1:
[16:43:32] starting job
[16:44:10] work: average encoding speed for job is 376.350952 fps

Run #2:
[16:44:22] starting job
[16:45:01] work: average encoding speed for job is 369.732788 fps

Run #3
[16:45:13] starting job
[16:45:52] work: average encoding speed for job is 371.353424 fps

*The average between the three runs are: 372.479054*

Was this using the andriod preset?

your score seem far higher than rest with this chip.

 

[Jodell88]

Was this using the andriod preset?

your score seem far higher than rest with the chip.

Pretty sure he isn't.

 

[leper84]

The chart in this thread just makes me sad and wonder, what if AMD had just taken all that BD effort and used it to die shrink Thuban, add the same instructions BD has, and work on the power efficiency a little bit?

 

[monstercameron]

The chart in this thread just makes me sad and wonder, what if AMD had just taken all that BD effort and used it to die shrink Thuban, add the same instructions BD has, and work on the power efficiency a little bit?

it would still be slower and larger than bulldozer/piledriver...also I am no engineer but I am sure amds engineers would have though of your suggestion and implemented it if it was faster, just like intel core uarch, it will take time for amd to iron out the wrinkles.

 

[24601]

it would still be slower and larger than bulldozer/piledriver...also I am no engineer but I am sure amds engineers would have though of your suggestion and implemented it if it was faster, just like intel core uarch, it will take time for amd to iron out the wrinkles.

It would have been larger, but it definitely would not have been slower.

Thuban is much wider than Bulldozer in every sense.

 

[NostaSeronx]

It would have been larger, but it definitely would not have been slower.

10h cores are slower than 15h cores.

 

[24601]

10h cores are slower than 15h cores.

The chart in this thread just makes me sad and wonder, what if AMD had just taken all that BD effort and used it to die shrink Thuban, add the same instructions BD has, and work on the power efficiency a little bit?

Good job stripping the entire context.

Go lurk somewhere else.