HandBrake

Description of problem or question:
I was wondering about those threadripper 16 core on how well they are doing here? i have Ryzen 2700X and 45 min video will take me about 24 mins with the settings of HQ 1080 p30 surround setting. And I'd like to see what the 16 core is doing and wondering if ya think it's worth while upgrade?



Steps to reproduce the problem (If Applicable):




HandBrake version (e.g., 1.0.0):




Operating system and version (e.g., Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, macOS 10.13 High Sierra, Windows 10 Creators Update):




HandBrake Activity Log ***required*** (see How-to get an activity log)

Could you please post your logs, instructions can be found here:

https://handbrake.fr/docs/en/latest/hel ... y-log.html

Going from 8 cores to 16 will do ... Something. There is no guarantee that the settings you use will allow all 16 cores to be used to their fullest advantage. Some filters will limit you from hitting 100% CPU even on your 8-core.

Are you doing encoding professionally, where cutting encode times by (optimistically, 50%) would make you more money than your current setup? Would you recoup the money spent within an acceptable time?

Thread moved to Tiki Bar.

well I have done a lot of encoding over the years, so professional by pay no, but with experience yes.20 plus years

Money enters the equation with your "worthwhile" descriptor. I guess "personal time" could also fit the description.

The upgrade has a cost, whether it be just a new CPU change, or a whole system. Since encoding can be queued, the length of time to encode a given file is less important, unless you have to change a disk when it finishes. I ignore it because my disk ripper isn't handbrake - getting the video off of optical media is not a factor.

The personal equation of "worth" varies. If "encoding is your life" (i.e., your primary use for the computer), fast is better than slow. At the very least, a 16-core, 32-thread processor would be capable of running two instances of handbrake at a time, which would have an over-all speed increase (with proper queue management), but not necessarily doubling the number of videos per unit of time.

If you're not encoding multiple videos, the increase in speed might not even be noticeable. Again, selection of encoders affects how many cores handbrake will use, and selection of filters affects whether or not there are "bottlenecks" to full use of the cores the encoder is using.

Disclaimer: This does not reflect the effects of "New Toy" syndrome, which is difficult to discern remotely. This is also known as "Oh, SHINY!" syndrome. If you WANT to upgrade, and can afford to upgrade, isn't that "worthwhile"?

yes true but i still wonder if its really worth the cost, i do game with my set up to but the 16 core would be over kill for that be better off with the vega 64 video card in this set up then to upgrade to 16 cores. but on the other hand amd is releasing a thread ripper 2 very soon at 32 cores, so when that happens you get some bargains on the older thread ripper

Well, it may be "overkill" for gaming, but you could lock handbrake to 8 physical cores, use 8 for gaming, and do both at the same time at the same speed you do now.

The video card isn't going to mean much for handbrake right now, but the future handbrake, based on ffmpeg, should be able to make use of the VCE processor on the card, if you are willing to accept the trade-offs that hardware-based encoders have. And you have it for gaming in the mean time.

So, that complicates the equation, doesn't it?

lol and yes

I built this system for the best of both worlds gaming and video processing. the RX 580 8 gig version from XFX which is a great card does well with gaming and video capturing. I use my prime account to get the movies and show I want in 1080, but 45 mins of mp4 is 3.25 gigs of HDD space so I use Handbrake to squeeze it down to 1.25 gigs. Been happy with the results so far with my machine but I did come from fx 8320 and an Asus sabertooth set up.