New Computer, Encoding Speed... Questions

[texasgrillchef]

I just built a new system.

Asus X99 Rampage Motherboard, 64gb DDR4 3000mhz Ram, Intel 5960x Haswell 8 core 3ghz CPU, Samsung PCIeX4 512gb M.2 SSD drive (1000mBit read/write). I set the system up with 32gb RAMdisk and set Windows 8.1 TEMP/TMP folder to it.
Its a Dynamic Ramdisk so adjusts size as needed for RAM or Ramdisk. NVideo K2000 Video Card.

Before I was using a Quad Core system with 16gb ram. 2.5ghz Average SSD Drive (500mbit read/write) Built in intel hardware video.

I decided to run a test on both computers, at the same time. See Which one finished first.

I used the same DVD Video saved to Hard drive on both systems. Set all the exact same settings on Handbrake on both systems. The Video "Two Night Stand". 1.5hr movie. DXVGA hardware decoding set for both. Audio was AC3-5.1 Pass through. Both had Hard coded subtitles. (Burned in)

The new system, completed encoding in 6 min 28 seconds. The old system, took 1hr 33min 39seconds.

File sizes of both files created, were the exact same file size. Down to the last byte. Although a Bit for Bit File compare showed that the two files were NOT identical.

When played on My 70" HD TV from it's built in DLNA player, both the audio and video quality were as far as my eyes and ears could tell, exactly the same.

I wasn't expecting this type of speed improvement. I tried this 4 additional times on the new computer. Results were exactly the same.


Am I dreaming or what??? Any thoughts?

[s55]

Provide encode logs for both.

You don't saw what CPU the quad was, but unless it's a low power quad, or very old quad, that kind of difference isn't possible without using different settings.

p.s, with a computer that fast, you'll probably find DXVA actually slows down encoding, not makes it faster.

[mduell]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31236

[hornedfrog]

I just built a new system.

Asus X99 Rampage Motherboard, 64gb DDR4 3000mhz Ram, Intel 5960x Haswell 8 core 3ghz CPU, Samsung PCIeX4 512gb M.2 SSD drive (1000mBit read/write). I set the system up with 32gb RAMdisk and set Windows 8.1 TEMP/TMP folder to it.
Its a Dynamic Ramdisk so adjusts size as needed for RAM or Ramdisk. NVideo K2000 Video Card.

Before I was using a Quad Core system with 16gb ram. 2.5ghz Average SSD Drive (500mbit read/write) Built in intel hardware video.

I decided to run a test on both computers, at the same time. See Which one finished first.

I used the same DVD Video saved to Hard drive on both systems. Set all the exact same settings on Handbrake on both systems. The Video "Two Night Stand". 1.5hr movie. DXVGA hardware decoding set for both. Audio was AC3-5.1 Pass through. Both had Hard coded subtitles. (Burned in)

The new system, completed encoding in 6 min 28 seconds. The old system, took 1hr 33min 39seconds.

File sizes of both files created, were the exact same file size. Down to the last byte. Although a Bit for Bit File compare showed that the two files were NOT identical.

When played on My 70" HD TV from it's built in DLNA player, both the audio and video quality were as far as my eyes and ears could tell, exactly the same.

I wasn't expecting this type of speed improvement. I tried this 4 additional times on the new computer. Results were exactly the same.


Am I dreaming or what??? Any thoughts?

That is exceptional, could you tell me what your settings for handbrake were? I have a 5960 X with the latest version of handbrake. It is slower than my Haswell system 4770 K.

[mduell]

Post logs from both...

[hornedfrog]

Post logs from both...

Thank you will do.

[nhyone]

From your numbers, your 5960x CPU achieves 334 fps (assuming 24 fps), while your old quad core CPU achieves 23.06 fps.

That's a difference of 14.5x. Most benchmarks stop with CPUs with a 5x difference.

Updated: corrected figures. Forgot to take fps into account. Oops.

[thejester]

I just built a new system.
...
The new system, completed encoding in 6 min 28 seconds. The old system, took 1hr 33min 39seconds.
...
Am I dreaming or what??? Any thoughts?

texasgrillchef, what version of HB are you using on that new system? Same as on old PC? I'm asking because I had a similar "boost" experience - only mine is due mainly to the version of HB I'm using.

I had recently upgraded my PC from an i5-4590K CPU to an i7-4790K and my encoding times went from ~15-20 minutes for a 40 minute TV show to 3-4 minutes. Pretty sure I was using same Nightly build of HB on both, but I could have upgraded to a newer version at the time of change (me and always trying to stay current).

I'm not sure now because I had recently been experiencing BSOD WHEA errors on my Win8.1 OS while encoding with HB. Wasn't sure what the culprit could have been, but I would go through the normal driver updates, etc and it would go away for a while. Then a few days ago I started getting BSODs every time I would try & encode a certain ripped DVD. After those BSODs, I updated the drivers again and then took the next step and updated the CodeC & HB I was using. Didn't get the BSOD on the encode again, but I did take a tremendous hit on encoding time - took nearly 40 minutes with latest 10.2 Nightly build - prior HB showed ~4-5 minutes. And, FPS went from ~400-750 to ~40.

Went back & downgraded my HB to a prior Nightly build and found one(6935) that put be back in the 400+ FPS range - that encode finished in less than 4 minutes and is only a few bytes different than the one that took 40 minutes.

Not sure what was changed in the current builds (vs the 6935 one), but it wasn't an improvement - at least not time wise. FWIW, I use a slightly modified version of the High Profile preset in both the current Nightly build & the 6935 one.

[mduell]

Went back & downgraded my HB to a prior Nightly build and found one(6935) that put be back in the 400+ FPS range - that encode finished in less than 4 minutes and is only a few bytes different than the one that took 40 minutes.

Not sure what was changed in the current builds (vs the 6935 one), but it wasn't an improvement - at least not time wise. FWIW, I use a slightly modified version of the High Profile preset in both the current Nightly build & the 6935 one.

Without encode logs we can't tell you which settings you changed between the two. There's no changes in the code to account for such a difference.

[thejester]

Without encode logs we can't tell you which settings you changed between the two. There's no changes in the code to account for such a difference.

I'll work on it in next day or two to generate logs on both HB versions (6935 & current nightly) for same show.

[Deleted User 13735]

Since there doesn't seem to be any real issue, perhaps this would be a better place to carry on this discussion?
viewforum.php?f=9

[thejester]

Only issue I might have is reason for such a time variance on encoding and why an older HB nightly version ran faster than a current one. When HB started encoding faster, I thought my CPU upgrade had been worth it - or maybe HB had fixed a looping problem it had?

Ran a coding of a 43m20s TV program 3 times (2,973,930kb TS format file) -

1) HB 6935 = 3m19s = 187,352kb file
2) HB 466fabc = 53m01s = 217,062kb file
3) HB 466fabc = 52m32s = 187,347kb file

All 3 runs had same basic tweaks from High Profile preset. #1 & 3 both used the same adjusted x264 encoder options. #2 used the default x264 encoder options.

log 1 - http://pastebin.com/download.php?i=n7Gw1Uu2
log 2 - http://pastebin.com/download.php?i=WCDMDv92
log 3 - http://pastebin.com/download.php?i=PXVxsNEm


If there really isn't an issue, then I think I'll be staying with the earlier version of HB for my encodings - I don't like to wait so long for my encodings. And, my current setup is probably closer to what texasgrillchef had prior to his upgrades.

[mduell]

Looks like a completely invalid comparison, you used dxva for the slow encodes. Try with the SAME settings and see what you get.