I work with Handbrake (Linux Mint 17 64bit) on a DELL Precision 490 workstation.
Atm i have 2x Xeon X5160 CPUs (2x2 cores) inside.
Supports Handbrake 8 cores (2x Xeon X5365 (2x4 cores)?
Is a change of CPUs useful/faster?
How many CPU cores are supported?
Forum rules
An Activity Log is required for support requests. Please read How-to get an activity log? for details on how and why this should be provided.
An Activity Log is required for support requests. Please read How-to get an activity log? for details on how and why this should be provided.
Re: How many CPU cores are supported?
Yes. I see there, that 6 cores are supported.
Thx very much
Thx very much
-
JohnAStebbins
- HandBrake Team
- Posts: 5726
- Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:21 pm
Re: How many CPU cores are supported?
More than 6 are supported. There is no hard limit. But after about 6 there are steeply diminishing returns in performance. So it's generally not advisable to spend lots of money on more than 6 if you are doing a single encode at a time.
In the future, I hope to rework the HandBrake queue so that you can easily tell it to encode more than 1 item at a time. Then more CPUs would be helpful to some people who batch up several videos at a time.
In the future, I hope to rework the HandBrake queue so that you can easily tell it to encode more than 1 item at a time. Then more CPUs would be helpful to some people who batch up several videos at a time.
Re: How many CPU cores are supported?
It should also be mentioned that X5365 is well, a dinosaur by now. It was launched in 2007.
The 5160 (no X) you also mention is even older, it was part of the initial launch of Core2 processors in June 2006.
The X5365 is a rare enough model that there's no single or dual benchmarks for it on cpubenchmark.net, but based on other E/X53xx models we can estimated a dual X5365 would get around 6300-6500 "CPU Mark". They do have dual-5160 score which is 3907 CPU Mark.
A mid-range i5-4430 ($190) manages 6300 in CPU Mark, but it does that on 4 cores instead of 8 which means in practical terms it will be likely land somewhere between "slightly faster" to "twice as fast" depending on content and settings. And that's with a 84W TDP instead of... 300W TDP (2x150) so the power savings will be substantial.
As comparison a top of the line 6-core+HT Intel Core i7-5960x (140W) gets a whopping 16004 in CPU Mark, in many circumstances it will be somewhere between 2 and 2.5 times as fast as that dual/quad from 2007.
CPU Mark scales well with large number of cores so up to 6 cores they are a fairly reasonable guess for video encoding performance.
The slightly more budget friendly quad-core+HT i7-4790k (84W TDP) gets 11307 CPU Marks, "only" on the order of twice as fast as the dual/quad. And both the CPU and motherboard is significantly cheaper for this than what the "Extreme" i7-x9xx models cost. And as the i5 example above shows there's many other alternatives all over the range.
Basically, anyone that considers using 5160's or X5365 for video encoding these days better have free power and cooling!
If someone plans to encode a lot and is willing to encode multiple files at once (not trivial with Handbrake), there's a number of tasty Xeon's too but in reality the best bang for the buck is probably with the single socket i5/i7 models unless you for some reason must use a smallest number of machines possible.
The 5160 (no X) you also mention is even older, it was part of the initial launch of Core2 processors in June 2006.
The X5365 is a rare enough model that there's no single or dual benchmarks for it on cpubenchmark.net, but based on other E/X53xx models we can estimated a dual X5365 would get around 6300-6500 "CPU Mark". They do have dual-5160 score which is 3907 CPU Mark.
A mid-range i5-4430 ($190) manages 6300 in CPU Mark, but it does that on 4 cores instead of 8 which means in practical terms it will be likely land somewhere between "slightly faster" to "twice as fast" depending on content and settings. And that's with a 84W TDP instead of... 300W TDP (2x150) so the power savings will be substantial.
As comparison a top of the line 6-core+HT Intel Core i7-5960x (140W) gets a whopping 16004 in CPU Mark, in many circumstances it will be somewhere between 2 and 2.5 times as fast as that dual/quad from 2007.
CPU Mark scales well with large number of cores so up to 6 cores they are a fairly reasonable guess for video encoding performance.
The slightly more budget friendly quad-core+HT i7-4790k (84W TDP) gets 11307 CPU Marks, "only" on the order of twice as fast as the dual/quad. And both the CPU and motherboard is significantly cheaper for this than what the "Extreme" i7-x9xx models cost. And as the i5 example above shows there's many other alternatives all over the range.
Basically, anyone that considers using 5160's or X5365 for video encoding these days better have free power and cooling!
If someone plans to encode a lot and is willing to encode multiple files at once (not trivial with Handbrake), there's a number of tasty Xeon's too but in reality the best bang for the buck is probably with the single socket i5/i7 models unless you for some reason must use a smallest number of machines possible.
Re: How many CPU cores are supported?
Is there a way to say "only use N threads"? (Kinda like make's "-j" option.) That way, CLI users could roll their own multi-transcoding system, or just restrict it to 6 threads on an 8-way CPU. If not, then consider it a Feature Request...JohnAStebbins wrote:More than 6 are supported. There is no hard limit. But after about 6 there are steeply diminishing returns in performance. So it's generally not advisable to spend lots of money on more than 6 if you are doing a single encode at a time.
In the future, I hope to rework the HandBrake queue so that you can easily tell it to encode more than 1 item at a time. Then more CPUs would be helpful to some people who batch up several videos at a time.
-
Re: How many CPU cores are supported?
For x264, add threads=6 in the advanced options.
Of course there are still dozens of other threads (filters, audio decoders and encoders, video decoder), but you don't have any control of those.
Of course there are still dozens of other threads (filters, audio decoders and encoders, video decoder), but you don't have any control of those.
Re: How many CPU cores are supported?
Thanks.mduell wrote:For x264, add threads=6 in the advanced options.