For me a future pc will hopefully include an athlon 2 x4 using whatever s/w I use on this pc at the time I upgrade.It's impossible to identify a "scaling factor" for how x264 is going to perform on potential future PCs. Why? Because x264 is always getting its existing code optimized optimized, processors are always coming out with new instruction set extensions, and x264 is enhanced to take advantage of the extensions.jbrjake wrote:It's pretty silly to ignore the advice of the lead developer of x264 (in the form of a plea to use the preset system he spent so long tuning and in the form of an option-by-option list describing what features do and what the best settings are for them) in favor of third-party resources, some of which are horrifically out of date. Jason has an attitude (pot, kettle, etc), everyone knows that, but he's also a genius. Spurning his words because you dislike doom9's formatting and his tone is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Given that, "impossible" is far from correct.
Quoting Jason / Dark_Shikari then :jbrjake wrote:I'm tried suggesting this gently but maybe it's time to be less subtle:
If you don't understand x264's options, the best way to learn how they interact regarding time and quality isn't to waste days and days of your time doing empirical testing, but rather to research what the x264 developers say on the matter in the forms of their public statements about the options and, perhaps more useful for you, their new preset system.
"Are you intentionally ignoring everything I've said in this thread? Because I've already told you all of this at least once before."
You are NOT showing me anything that invalidates the need for my "pointless" and "empirical" testing.
None of the guides tell me or any other encoder what speed an encode will run at on their machine in anything beyond the vaguest of terms.
I am well aware that because of the differing source materials, cpu speeds/instructions/efficiencies etc and encoding settings it would be near impossible for them to do so; and so in order to quantify those effects I undertook the various benchmark fests that I have published here as well as others that I have not.
None of the guides show in sufficient detail what effect on size or quality each setting will have.
I see now that subq=5 has been recommended already for fast encoding (pretty much in line with my results); but whilst it is recommended, no mention is made of how competitive subq=4 would be, nor what speed penalty is involved. For my typical source material I have found that subq=4 gives me slightly lower quality and slightly higher compression than subq=5 with enough of a time advantage that I'm going to use that for now.
Please don't tell me that I'm wasting my time or that I'm not reading things when you still haven't shown me something that solves the problem that I quite clearly stated I hoped to solve. (IE What settings give max quality and max compression in minimum time - or to put it another way, what do I have to set to make sure my encodes go at least 10fps, but still give me the best possible combination of quality and compression.) Until you can show me something that answers that question, I will continue to rely on my own research and would appreciate it if you wouldn't treat me as a fool who is unwilling to follow others contructive suggestions or advice. (IE your mentioning SSIM was constructive despite its' tone, and so I looked into it.)
(Edited to include missing quote command.)