- Oct 10, 2005
But you linked a benchmark that uses X265's encoder as evidence the 5950x is bottlenecked. The handbrake configuration tested in our thread also uses X265.It likely comes down mostly to configuration, in combination with Zen's low per core memory bandwidth and inter CCX bandwidth + latency penalities. Handbrake is for casual encoders and uses a bunch of preset settings to achieve a desired outcome based on quality and speed. Using a lot of cores can increase speed, but reduce quality. Encoding/transcoding is complicated, so there are a plethora of settings which can affect scalability and quality.
This is actually why Intel developed their SVT line of codecs, because it allows massive parallelization without affecting quality, so the SVT codecs are eventually going to replace x265 as they continue to get better.
But if you look at the raw x265 codec, it can certainly scale to a large amount of cores as shown by that in depth review I linked to. If it couldn't scale well beyond 16 cores, then it would be an absolute failure. x265 was used to achieve real time 4K60 fps 10 bit HDR encoding several years ago by MulticoreWare on a single rack dual socket Xeon server. If it couldn't scale well beyond 16 cores, it would have never been able to do that.
Both that benchmark and our thread show X265 doesn't scale well with increasing core counts.
Just because encoders exist that do doesn't invalidate my point that you're using a benchmark known to not scale well as evidence for your claim that the 5950x is not worth it because it's bottlenecked.