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

Page 14 - 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
3,662
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
3,662
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
Those might be the clocks you have set in the BIOS but that is not what they are actually running at during the test.
For example, run 2 and 3 are both E=50, yet with P +500Mhz (vs 2nd run) in the 3rd run the result is a slower encode?

I would be curious to know what the actual average frequencies are during these runs.
 

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
378
794
136
German site tested the new Intel with latest bios - including Handbrake 1.9:
PCGamesHardware.de

Edited: Google Translate messes with the chart text a bit.

View attachment 116884

what a crap of a review.

So, according to these PCGamesHardware geniuses, 285K is 45%!!! faster (btw just no way) than 265K (with just four more e-cores) but 265K is 24% faster than 245K (with two more P-cores and four more e-cores).

oh yeah, sure....

All pretty logical
 
Last edited:

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
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)
Nothing, but I flipped back and forth in the dropdown checking if I had the correct preset after the run, so it may have added modified.
 

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
Those might be the clocks you have set in the BIOS but that is not what they are actually running at during the test.
For example, run 2 and 3 are both E=50, yet with P +500Mhz (vs 2nd run) in the 3rd run the result is a slower encode?

I would be curious to know what the actual average frequencies are during these runs.
P56/E50 has throttling issues under heavy load, as I have an AIO, not custom water.
 

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
what a crap of a review.

So, according to these PCGamesHardware geniuses, 285K is 45%!!! faster (btw just no way) than 265K (with just four more e-cores) but 265K is 24% faster than 245K (with two more P-cores and four more e-cores).

oh yeah, sure....

All pretty logical
The 285k can clocks higher on it's P Cores and has a higher base clock. These things run differently than AMD all P core. Not Linear.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,111
16,022
136
The 285k can clocks higher on it's P Cores and has a higher base clock. These things run differently than AMD all P core. Not Linear.
AMD has no P core and no E core, those are Intel things.
 
Jul 27, 2020
26,470
18,195
146
So, according to these PCGamesHardware geniuses, 285K is 45%!!! faster (btw just no way) than 265K (with just four more e-cores) but 265K is 24% faster than 245K (with two more P-cores and four more e-cores).
Actually it's the fault of Intel CPU architects. They tied the performance of the P-cores with a whole E-core cluster in some way. When I downclocked a single enabled P core to 800 MHz, it caused the E-core cluster next to it to not work anymore (as in, the cores were displayed in Task Manager but they weren't accepting any workload and stayed idle). That's why there isn't a linear relationship between the number of cores and performance uplift. Maybe they did this deliberately for segmentation purposes or just messed up big time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArrogantHair

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
378
794
136
The 285k can clocks higher on it's P Cores and has a higher base clock. These things run differently than AMD all P core. Not Linear.
I know, I have a 13900K. But its not necessary to know how p or e cores work. Those differences between the three ARL are just a joke. Literally impossible. And probably the rest are just crap too.

For example, my 13900K encoding time is 1m26s (stock -Intel extreme profile enabled- and RAM @6000). 13900K review encoding time is 0m59s. Thats 46%!!!!!!! faster than my 13900K. No way if they really use "Super HQ 2160p60 4K AV1 Surround" preset as they state.

1739471654600.png
 

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
378
794
136
Actually it's the fault of Intel CPU architects. They tied the performance of the P-cores with a whole E-core cluster in some way. When I downclocked a single enabled P core to 800 MHz, it caused the E-core cluster next to it to not work anymore (as in, the cores were displayed in Task Manager but they weren't accepting any workload and stayed idle). That's why there isn't a linear relationship between the number of cores and performance uplift. Maybe they did this deliberately for segmentation purposes or just messed up big time.
come on Igor, its irrelevant to know or not to know how P and E cores work, anybody here knows its literally impossible 285K being 45% faster than 265K. Period. No more to say honestly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 511

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
I know, I have a 13900K. But its not necessary to know how p or e cores work. Those differences between the three ARL are just a joke. Literally impossible. And probably the rest are just crap too.

For example, my 13900K encoding time is 1m26s (stock -Intel extreme profile enabled- and RAM @6000). 13900K review encoding time is 0m59s. Thats 46%!!!!!!! faster than my 13900K. No way if they really use "Super HQ 2160p60 4K AV1 Surround" preset as they state.

View attachment 117013


900 Frames / 16.28 fps = 55.28

Their chart shows 58. Your 13900k is performing better than stock.

So- yes way.

(also use output format MKV - as MP4 is slightly faster -- my scores are MKV - and yes, we dont know which they used but the difference is small )
 
Last edited:

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
378
794
136
900 Frames / 16.8 fps = 55.28

Their chart shows 58. Your 13900k is performing better than stock.

So- yes way.

(also use output format MKV - as MP4 is slightly faster -- my scores are MKV - and yes, we dont know which they used but the difference is small )
1739472898767.png
 

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
<look at me point at encode duration, when I just showed you how it's calculated>

Frames / FramesPerSecond = Seconds
 
Last edited:

ArrogantHair

Member
Feb 6, 2025
41
27
51
Actually it's the fault of Intel CPU architects. They tied the performance of the P-cores with a whole E-core cluster in some way. When I downclocked a single enabled P core to 800 MHz, it caused the E-core cluster next to it to not work anymore (as in, the cores were displayed in Task Manager but they weren't accepting any workload and stayed idle). That's why there isn't a linear relationship between the number of cores and performance uplift. Maybe they did this deliberately for segmentation purposes or just messed up big time.
It's like a beta test platform. If they do the same on Nova, and it succeeds with a better performance gains than we see here, it was successful. If Nova Lake is done differently, then we know this was a failure - or rather a satisfactory test.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,761
31,749
146
Getting reports of flame bai/ personal attacks. Cleaned up the thread a bit. Remember the first rule - Attack the post not the poster. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.

Mod DAPUNISHER
 

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
378
794
136
This is my 13900K @8P 12E (instead 8P/16E)

13900K(@8P-12E)_Stock_Handbrake190_SuperHQ-AV1.PNG

So with 16E is just ~5% faster than with 12E.

Now, our new CPU engineering expert will enlight to all of us how its possible a 285K (8P 16E) is 45% faster than a 265K (8P 12E)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: lightmanek and IEC
Jul 27, 2020
26,470
18,195
146
Jellyfish encode results:

245KF 6P+8E

245kf jelly gui.PNG


6P+4E

245kf jelly gui ecore 4567 disabled.PNG

6P+2E

245kf jelly gui ecore 1 of each cluster enabled.PNG

6P+1E

245kf jelly gui ecore 1 enabled.PNG

6P+0E

245kf jelly gui ecore all disabled.PNG

Summary:

6P+8E - 97 secs
6P+4E - 116 secs
6P+2E - 130 secs
6P+1E - 142 secs
6P+0E - 155 secs

8E to 4E - 19.58% perf loss
4E to 2E - 12.06% perf loss
2E to 1E - 09.23% perf loss

8E perf loss - 59.79% (!!!)
 
Last edited:

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
378
794
136
Jellyfish encode results:

245KF 6P+8E

View attachment 117044


6P+4E

View attachment 117045

6P+2E

View attachment 117046

6P+1E

View attachment 117047

6P+0E

View attachment 117048

Summary:

6P+8E - 97 secs
6P+4E - 116 secs
6P+2E - 130 secs
6P+1E - 142 secs
6P+0E - 155 secs

8E to 4E - 19.58% perf loss
4E to 2E - 12.06% perf loss
2E to 1E - 09.23% perf loss

8E perf loss - 59.79% (!!!)
Good, I only miss 8P 6E (25% less E-Cores) which is the equivalent of 8P 16E to 8P 12E (also 25% less E-Cores)
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,662
136
Jellyfish encode results:

245KF 6P+8E

View attachment 117044


6P+4E

View attachment 117045

6P+2E

View attachment 117046

6P+1E

View attachment 117047

6P+0E

View attachment 117048

Summary:

6P+8E - 97 secs
6P+4E - 116 secs
6P+2E - 130 secs
6P+1E - 142 secs
6P+0E - 155 secs

8E to 4E - 19.58% perf loss
4E to 2E - 12.06% perf loss
2E to 1E - 09.23% perf loss

8E perf loss - 59.79% (!!!)
1739500696402.png


The behavior is of course not linear and I expect it gets less linear as E's are added.
Would love someone to test 0, 4, 8, 12, 16E's with 8P's while holding all clocks constant for each run. 4.5GHz for P's and E's would be doable.

We could get a good look inside Handbrake to see how it handles additional threads.

I would graph the data if someone wanted to try it. It's 6 runs, but those clocks have to be locked down to a frequency that can be reliably held at the 8+16 configuration or else it'll be garbage in garbage out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
378
794
136
<look at me point at encode duration, when I just showed you how it's calculated>

Frames / FramesPerSecond = Seconds

so I did some runs with my 9950X. These are the results according to your encoding calculation method:

Stock 200W PPT / DDR5 6000: 47,39 s
9950X_Stock_6000_Handbrake190_SuperHQ-AV1.PNG

PBO Tuned 180W PPT / DDR5 6400: 43,85 s
9950X_PBO_180PPT_6400_Handbrake190_SuperHQ-AV1.PNG

PBO Tuned 200W PPT / DDR5 6400: 43,10 s
9950X_PBO_200PPT_6400_Handbrake190_SuperHQ-AV1.PNG

PBO Tuned 230W PPT / DDR5 6400: 42,86 s
9950X_PBO_230PPT_6400_Handbrake190_SuperHQ-AV1.PNG

PBO Tuned 250W PPT / DDR5 6400: 42,35 s
9950X_PBO_250PPT_6400_Handbrake190_SuperHQ-AV1.PNG

Summary (including your 285K results):

chart.png