Question Handbrake 1.3.3 - Benchmark your System - COMPLETE Overhaul of the test

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,664
136
A little background...
Handbrake is a ubiquitous encoding application and happens to be one that makes good use of multicore/thread CPU's when encoding x265. x265 is a widely used and efficient compression scheme that requires significant compute to encode. While hardware encoders are faster, at the same bitrates, CPU (software) encode produces better video quality. Of course this assumes the use of lower bitrates as quality for both hardware and software encodes will be indistinguishable at higher bitrates. But the point of the video encode is to get good quality at low bitrates so we are therefore testing software encode.

fps/GHz/core is a representation of how efficient a given CPU core is at encoding the test file using the x265 format. The number is arrived at by multiplying the number of physical cores by the average frequency they are running at and then dividing by the fps from the Handbrake test. It tells us for a given core how many fps can this core encode the test if it was running at 1GHz. We could consider this an "IPC" of sorts for this test but strictly speaking this would be closer to the word "throughput." And as you know many around here are indeed strict with terminology so I will avoid the word IPC at it denotes Instructions Per Cycle and that is not actually what we are measuring.

Some people will go "all out" and try and run their system as close to the limit as possible and others (like me) just run at stock. All of the data is valuable and informative as long as it is collected from each person in the same manner and there for comparable.

I went through all of the results and created a new table. In respecting everyone's time who participated in the old data I am keeping that data on the 2nd page of this post.

Here's the test file: https://4kmedia.org/lg-new-york-hdr-uhd-4k-demo/


1. Use the following version of Handbrake with the built-in h.265 mkv 2160p60 preset
HandBrake-1.3.3-x86_64-Win_GUI.exe
Don't forget to turn on logging in Handbrake so you can retrieve your time. Tools>Preferences>Advanced>Logging
Once this current version is replaced you'll be able to access this version from the following link.
HandBrake: Nightly Builds
Nightly builds of HandBrake
handbrake.fr

2. Report your encoding time, average CPU frequency, and Package Power. If you have a hybrid CPU you can turn off the E's in the BIOS. For E testing turn off all P's except one in the BIOS, clock it down to 800MHz, and then shut it down with Process Lasso. Or just report your score with 1 P at 800MHz and let me know you did that so I can subtract out that P core's (minor) contribution to the encode.

Here's how to report your average clock and package power so we are all doing it the same way.
Handbrake does some housekeeping right after you start encode and when the progress bar gets to 100%.
This could result in lower than actual average clock.
After you start the encode, wait a few seconds until you see the green Handbrake bar appear, then reset the HWinfo counter.
At the end don't wait to grab the screen shot at 100%, just do it sometime after about 95%.

3. CPU Model, and RAM specs
 

Attachments

  • Handbrake.chart.jpg
    Handbrake.chart.jpg
    581.4 KB · Views: 42
  • Handbrake.new.jpg
    Handbrake.new.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 31
Last edited:

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,664
136
Charts updated. Added a new "confidence level" to the "throughput" results.

Updated the instructions as well. Just kind of waiting for the game...
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
26,538
18,253
146
Golden Cove performing better than Zen 5 in fps/GHz???

Does my isolated Gracemont score agree somewhat with your manually calculated Gracemont score?

I think the average frequency problem can be solved by sharing the text log of the run with only the 12700K P-cores engaged.

Also, one more reason for the lower frequency could be a socket warping issue which if it really is, I don't feel the need to address it coz I'm just looking to get rid of it at the moment and it should be the next guy's problem :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Markfw

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,664
136
Golden Cove performing better than Zen 5 in fps/GHz???

Does my isolated Gracemont score agree somewhat with your manually calculated Gracemont score?

I think the average frequency problem can be solved by sharing the text log of the run with only the 12700K P-cores engaged.

Also, one more reason for the lower frequency could be a socket warping issue which if it really is, I don't feel the need to address it coz I'm just looking to get rid of it at the moment and it should be the next guy's problem :)
My Gracemont, which admittedly was partly from memory (I think 3.8GHz) was around 0.105, yours was much higher.

I don't the warping affects results. Things like that could affect thermals but either it works or it doesn't generally!
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,664
136
Thermals may affect the average frequency.


Makes sense since my Gracemont has higher bandwidth thanks to DDR5-7000.
I don't think that much. If you are confident in your result then it stays. But if you have your Gracemonts at stock should the average frequency have been more like 3.8?
 
Jul 27, 2020
26,538
18,253
146
1739165906038.png

Completed in 174.76s (10.33 fps)

P-core

1739166130790.png

Completed in 204.24s (8.84 fps).

P-core (HT off)

1739166607643.png

Completed in 224.69s (8.04 fps).

BONUS P-core HT off AVX off Prefetching off

1739166607643.png

Completed in 294.38s (6.13 fps).

BONUS run @ 7200 MT/s

1739166823414.png

Completed in 179.36s (10.07 fps).

Apparently, just bandwidth is not enough. Handbrake wants lower latency too.
 

Attachments

  • 1739166448586.png
    1739166448586.png
    994.6 KB · Views: 7
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek
Jul 27, 2020
26,538
18,253
146
Average Clocks for 12 cores
4572.32​
4493.40​
4377.15​
4803.07​
4645.19​
4685.08​
4686.82​
4399.68​
3320.59​
3646.75​
3650.22​
3641.55​
Last four are E-cores.

Average clocks for P-cores
4553.37​
4578.53​
4460.13​
4450.81​
4128.22​
4215.86​
4562.68​
4089.06​

All above runs were done without using Intel XTU.
 

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
378
794
136
Charts updated. Added a new "confidence level" to the "throughput" results.

Updated the instructions as well. Just kind of waiting for the game...
Sorry but I insist: 285K data (frecuency and power consumption) is misleading
 
  • Like
Reactions: Det0x

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,664
136
View attachment 116672

Completed in 174.76s (10.33 fps)

P-core

View attachment 116673

Completed in 204.24s (8.84 fps).

P-core (HT off)

View attachment 116675

Completed in 224.69s (8.04 fps).

BONUS P-core HT off AVX off Prefetching off

View attachment 116675

Completed in 294.38s (6.13 fps).

BONUS run @ 7200 MT/s

View attachment 116677

Completed in 179.36s (10.07 fps).

Apparently, just bandwidth is not enough. Handbrake wants lower latency too.
Thanks. Give me some time to crunch the numbers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,664
136
View attachment 116672

Completed in 174.76s (10.33 fps)

P-core

View attachment 116673

Completed in 204.24s (8.84 fps).

P-core (HT off)

View attachment 116675

Completed in 224.69s (8.04 fps).

BONUS P-core HT off AVX off Prefetching off

View attachment 116675

Completed in 294.38s (6.13 fps).

BONUS run @ 7200 MT/s

View attachment 116677

Completed in 179.36s (10.07 fps).

Apparently, just bandwidth is not enough. Handbrake wants lower latency too.
Igor,

Are running these tests with AVX512 enabled using the "asm=avx512" command? The reason I ask is that you note it is off in one run? Tests should be without avx512.

Also can you test your 245KF again with all cores running? I never got the package power on that.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,664
136
No. That's just AVX/AVX2 off. My ADL isn't one of the lucky ones to avoid castration :)

Will try to do the 245KF all cores run.
Got it! I had one of the early ones that could do it but it's long gone now.

Hey I know it's a long run but could you run the E's on your 245KF again just to be sure? Maybe even run it with 1 P at 800Hz that we can sub out?
 
Jul 27, 2020
26,538
18,253
146
Hey I know it's a long run but could you run the E's on your 245KF again just to be sure? Maybe even run it with 1 P at 800Hz that we can sub out?
Sure but I will exclude the P core with Process Lasso. Don't know how to force a certain core to run at a fixed speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,664
136
Sure but I will exclude the P core with Process Lasso. Don't know how to force a certain core to run at a fixed speed.
I forget exactly where it is but you can set the multiplier for all of the P cores. You just disable all but one and set it to 8. But if you are getting Process Lasso to shut it down that should work.

But to be sure, try this. Try shutting all of the P's down with Process Lasso (keep them on in BIOS) and see if you get the same result to turning off all P's but one in the BIOS and shutting that one down with Process Lasso.
 
Jul 27, 2020
26,538
18,253
146
But if you are getting Process Lasso to shut it down that should work.
It doesn't shut the core down. The core will do anything except whatever Handbrake is doing. There will be minor less than 2% activity on the lone P-core but it's nothing to do with Handbrake. This is how it looks:

1739212270621.png

But yeah, this time I will change the multiplier to 8 too, if the Gigabyte BIOS lets me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
JFC idling 37s? Like I didn't clarify when asked? You can't even see the time stamp.

New run. I changed voltages for P cores (PL1/PL2/Amps increasing wattage), so won't mirror.

Same config P51 E50 R40 N34 D36

1739218126288.png1739218161955.png
 
Last edited:

Det0x

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,461
4,985
136
Now numbers seem more believable 👍

Average powerdraw went from "198.9w" to real 264w
Average clocks went from "4672/4872mhz" to real 5100/5000mhz

This makes alot of difference for the average numbers in the chart, especially for fps/GHZ and watts per fps
 
Last edited:

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
Now numbers seem more believable 👍

Average powerdraw went from "198.9w" to real 264w
Average clocks went from "4672/4872mhz" to real 5100/5000mhz

This makes alot of difference for the average numbers in the chart, especially for fps/GHZ and watts per fps
Dude. I just tuned it. It wasn't running at 5100/5000mhz (constant) when I ran the previous test because it needed more wattage.

The P-cores were getting insufficient wattage, causing them and the E-Cores to run unstable. There was also thermal throttling, which I eliminated.

The issue with the 1st screen cap is that HWinfo was reset prior to hitting the encode button rather than after, and there was a delay using the snip tool to snap the pic afterward by a couple seconds instead of using Alt-printscreen for the 2nd run. The wattage was real and it was insufficient - the few seconds delay also affected the average.
 
Last edited:

Det0x

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,461
4,985
136
Dude. I just tuned it. It wasn't running at 5100/5000mhz (constant) when I ran the previous test because it needed more wattage.

The P-cores were getting insufficient wattage, causing them and the E-Cores to run unstable. There was also thermal throttling, which I eliminated.

The issue with the 1st screen cap is that HWinfo was reset prior to hitting the encode button rather than after, and there was a delay using the snip tool to snap the pic afterward by a couple seconds instead of using Alt-printscreen for the 2nd run. The wattage was real and it was insufficient - the few seconds delay also affected the average.
Dont know why your getting defensive, my intention was to show Hulk that he should not use average numbers for a system that had been idling for 37s before/after the benchmark-run was completed
 
  • Like
Reactions: MangoX