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

Page 13 - 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
3,660
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: 41
  • Handbrake.new.jpg
    Handbrake.new.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 31
Last edited:

MS_AT

Senior member
Jul 15, 2024
739
1,492
96
Wouldn't it be easier to collect logs from hwinfo at predetermined sampling rate? Then it's less important when people click as you can agree to look +/-2 samples after load dropped below 50% or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek
Jul 27, 2020
26,029
17,958
146
But yeah, this time I will change the multiplier to 8 too, if the Gigabyte BIOS lets me.
Tried it and the P-core did run at 0.8 GHz BUT the entire Skymont cluster next to it decided to take a nap too. Only the 2nd Skymont cluster handled the encode even though all eight E-cores were selected in Process Lasso. Not sure if this is how Intel designed it or whether it's a BIOS limitation.
 
Jul 27, 2020
26,029
17,958
146
pcore 231.01s (7.82 fps).png

P-cores 231.01s (7.82 fps)

Average clocks

5296.64​
5290.76​
5287.39​
5285.71​
5284.03​
5271.43​

ecore 267.24s (6.76 fps).png

E-cores 267.24s (6.76 fps)

Average clocks constant 4900 MHz for ALL E-cores

all 135.22s (13.36 fps).png

245KF concerted effort 135.22s (13.36 fps)

Average clocks P-cores

5285.71​
5285.71​
5288.57​
5275.71​
5288.57​
5261.43​

Average clocks E-cores AGAIN all of them fixed at 4900 MHz

All the settings are the same as the previous run (P53 E49 etc.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,660
136
Results updated.
Here's where we are.

Despite Igor valiant attempts to corner those E cores, the two results vary significantly.

One run was 6.27fps at 4.944GHz and the other run was the same average clock (from HWinfo) but 6.76fps. .159fps/GHz or .171fps/GHz or somewhere around there?

We're also not 100% sure of Igor's .131 for the Gracemont fps/GHz because it's so hard to isolate the E cores.

Igor's Golden Cove results do seem precise (repeatable) for an average of .267 fps/GHz. Seems really high but it is what it is. Golden/Raptor Cove are good at x265.

Igor's Golden Cove without HT have a little more variation in them .224 and .211.

Hybrid CPU's provide lots of data but I really wish would have allowed all P's to be shut down so we could easily lock down results on the E's.

Thanks Igor. I've been through it and it can be frustrating!

Would be nice to have more data on the following:
Zen 5X3D
Zen 4
Skymont
Gracemont
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski
Jul 27, 2020
26,029
17,958
146
Checked out HandbrakeCLI 1.9 and it's built with GCC 13. GCC15 is the one that is unlocking extra performance with Zen 5 so gonna have to wait quite a bit for the next next Handbrake release before version 1.3.3 can be bid farewell.

1739315747586.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

MS_AT

Senior member
Jul 15, 2024
739
1,492
96
You know, you could just build it yourself with clang;)
1739316775920.png

When it comes to znver5 support in clang, it's just an alias on znver4, there are no zen5 specific tunings as AMD still has to add them. It's not like AMD's own AOCC is derived from clang or something...

GCC15 should indeed have Zen5 tunings based on measurements done by GCC devs.
 
Jul 27, 2020
26,029
17,958
146
You know, you could just build it yourself with clang;)
I suck at Linux-fu and the official build instructions call for using GCC. Wouldn't know how to make the necessary changes to build with Clang. If you are not too busy, maybe you could help? :p

Win32-GUI version would be preferred but even HandbrakeCLI would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT: Forgot to add. Dear most kind Sir :p
 

MS_AT

Senior member
Jul 15, 2024
739
1,492
96
I suck at Linux-fu and the official build instructions call for using GCC. Wouldn't know how to make the necessary changes to build with Clang. If you are not too busy, maybe you could help?
It might be that there is already a fork on github that is publishing binaries built with clang. Also be aware that you might see no speed up, as the speed up might depend on multiple factors, including native os libs etc. For sure there are people publishing x265 windows binaries built with clang, but to my surprise it seems handbrake is compiling everything on its own so simple dll swap won't do.

I won't be able to look into that before April but if I am still around and you still care, you can ping me then. No promises;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski
Jul 27, 2020
26,029
17,958
146
Looks good!

Though Zen 5 appears weaker in these German comparisons due to AMD not updating the stock speed to DDR5-6000.
 

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
My runs in comparison - same motherboard and bios version.
My PL1/Pl2 wattage is higher, but if I set the same as they did, the results were 49+s
My ram is 8600 while they are using 6400 CUDIMM.

P54 E46 MKV 47.39s
P51 E50 MKV 47.95s
P56 E50 MKV 48.1s

1739384017121.png
 
Last edited:

MS_AT

Senior member
Jul 15, 2024
739
1,492
96
My runs in comparison - same motherboard and bios version.
My PL1/Pl2 wattage is higher, but if I set the same as they did, the results were 49+s
My ram is 8600 while they are using 6400 CUDIMM.
CUDIMM must be the difference? Cooling? CPU rating?

P54 E46 MKV 48.30s
P51 E50 MKV 47.97s
P56 E50 MKV 48.72s
And do you know handbrake settings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nothingness

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
And do you know handbrake settings?
I just went with what little they listed - Super HQ 2160p60 4K AV1 Surround, HEVC Surround, 30-Sekunden-Jellyfish-Clip (HEVC, 10-bit, 400 mpbs)

Edit - I just realized I messed up - will redo.
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
26,029
17,958
146
P54 E46 MKV 47.39s
P51 E50 MKV 47.95s
P56 E50 MKV 48.1s
Similar results with varying frequencies. The bottleneck is elsewhere. Makes no sense for P56 E50 to be slower.

Maybe try a different thermal paste? Hulk saw a difference with Corsair XTM70, though I don't remember if it was in encoding.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,660
136
285K is very good at encoding. No doubt about that. Skymont is not Gracemont, it's more like full on Skylake with HT enabled for x265.

I have a feeling that while Handbrake x265 is well multi-threaded I think it drops off over 20 or so cores but I can't confirm. If this is the case then ARL has an advantage over Zen 5
ARL has physical cores up to 24 while Zen 5 is physical up to 16. 25 through 32 might not be well utilized in the code.
 
Jul 27, 2020
26,029
17,958
146
If I had the 285K, I would try testing with all Skymonts enabled but activate 1P, then 2P and so on and see where the drop-off happens.

May try doing that with my 245KF because I noticed that Lion Cove cores don't communicate too well with each other (as stated earlier, the encode progress percentage changes with pauses in between). Probably by design as the architect(s) probably envisioned 2 Lion Coves and a Skymont cluster working together but something went wrong along the way and there's a lot of inefficiency and overhead introduced due to the design mishap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArrogantHair

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
Similar results with varying frequencies. The bottleneck is elsewhere. Makes no sense for P56 E50 to be slower.

Maybe try a different thermal paste? Hulk saw a difference with Corsair XTM70, though I don't remember if it was in encoding.
I thought about remounting, but I think I have to nail down P Core ratio voltage. What I have is not final/ideal. It impacts the drop under load across bot P and E cores. 54/46 51/50 shows no significant drop under load. 56/50 swings. Fine for games. May need custom water.
 
Last edited:

Det0x

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,455
4,948
136
My runs in comparison - same motherboard and bios version.
My PL1/Pl2 wattage is higher, but if I set the same as they did, the results were 49+s
My ram is 8600 while they are using 6400 CUDIMM.

P54 E46 MKV 47.39s
P51 E50 MKV 47.95s
P56 E50 MKV 48.1s

View attachment 116897
I can try to do a run on my 9950X when i get home from work
What settings did you change on the super hq preset ? (modified)