iMac G5

Post your testing results with HandBrake.
Post Reply
cbud
Bright Spark User
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:24 am

iMac G5

Post by cbud »

Machine Type: iMac G5
CPU Speed: 1.8 Ghz / 512Mb RAM
Number of CPUs: 1
Rip Format: MP4, AVC/H.264
Encoder: H264 Main Profile
Video Size & settings: 640 x 480
Quality / Bit Rate: 3000
1 or 2 Pass: 2
Min/Max or Average Frames Per Second (FPS): ~ 3-5 FPS

It takes about 24 hours to encode a 2 hour movie!
mkr
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:29 pm

Post by mkr »

pretty much the same results for me. my imac g5 is 1.9Ghz and has 1.5G.
it's disappointingly slow, but i just let it go while i'm at work. i don't think i'm doing anything wrong. time to get a new mac?

btw...i generally use 1000bps.
fishnrib
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 2:06 pm

iMac G5 2.0Ghz 512MB Single Core

Post by fishnrib »

I used MacTheRipper (free) to rip the 1hr 45min DVD to my hard drive in 24 minutes.
Then used Handbreak 0.8.0b1 to convert it to MP4 and that took about 1hr 50min. for target size of 700MB (actual finished size 650MB) to put it on a CD-R to play on a CD only drive. But when I played the CD-R the sound quit after 43 minutes.

Then used Handbreak 0.7.1 to convert it to MP4 and that took about 2hr 20min. for target size of 700MB. This time it actually gave me 700MB and I soon found out that it wouldn't fit on a 700MB CD-R. So I tried it again and set it for 650MB. This time it worked as above and got good picture and sound throughout the whole movie except I only used 1 pass so it skipped 1 frame about every 5 minutes.

I used the default settings except for the target size with Handbreak. I won't bother with the 2 pass until they get the Audio fixed on the Beta version 0.8.0b1 .
flocktothewall
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 4:07 pm

Post by flocktothewall »

I have had the same problem, HB 8 is uselessly slow. I like the new options, and presets tab, but to rip a 2Hr movie from a mac the ripper file takes 27 hrs. I had to resort back to 7 for the time being. Hopefully the speed issue will get resolved?
baggss
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:21 am

Post by baggss »

mkr wrote:pretty much the same results for me. my imac g5 is 1.9Ghz and has 1.5G.
it's disappointingly slow, but i just let it go while i'm at work. i don't think i'm doing anything wrong. time to get a new mac?

btw...i generally use 1000bps.
Dig around the forums. There is a G5 optimized version of 0.8.5 Beta 1 out there that works quite well.

EDIT: You can find it here:

http://handbrake.m0k.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=621
User avatar
suborbit
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:37 pm

Post by suborbit »

Dumb question, I'm afraid: G5 optimized builds are referring only to the GUI interface portion of HB?

I've been using the CLI on an G5 and not having anywhere near these slow encoding times.
baggss
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:21 am

Post by baggss »

suborbit wrote:Dumb question, I'm afraid: G5 optimized builds are referring only to the GUI interface portion of HB?

I've been using the CLI on an G5 and not having anywhere near these slow encoding times.
Yes, the optimized version is a GUI version. Presumably it has been tweaked to make it work better with the G5, but I would ask the guy who posted it in the link I gave above for more info.
cvk_b
Veteran User
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:11 am

Post by cvk_b »

suborbit wrote:Dumb question, I'm afraid: G5 optimized builds are referring only to the GUI interface portion of HB?

I've been using the CLI on an G5 and not having anywhere near these slow encoding times.
HandBrakeCLI is generally a bit faster than the GUI. My Sig. includes a G5 Optimized HandBrakeCLI along with the GUI version.
User avatar
suborbit
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:37 pm

Post by suborbit »

cvk_b wrote: HandBrakeCLI is generally a bit faster than the GUI. My Sig. includes a G5 Optimized HandBrakeCLI along with the GUI version.
Interesting, I'll check it out - thanks.

And I should add more detail to my earlier comment. I glossed over the poster's settings who said it took him 24 hours to encode. I don't do 2-passes nor use a 3000 bitrate. 2000 bitrate, 1 pass, 720x480 resolution usually gets me 6 - 7 fps and takes 2 - 3 times actual video length to encode.

So, I suppose a 2 hr movie might take me 4 - 6 hours and 8 - 12 if I did 2 passes. Is the 3000 vs 2000 bitrate the big difference here? Seems like I'd get 1/2 the encoding time of the times posted here if I did 2 passes.

The only other difference I see is that I use -x level=30:threads=1 for PSP compatibility but I don't quite follow whether this would speed things up at the expense of video quality or not.

I also don't time the actual encode - I'm relying on my memory of what the ETA was listed as when I started encodes. If that's off by a fair degree, I don't think I'd notice as I just start the process and walk away.
cbud
Bright Spark User
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:24 am

Post by cbud »

suborbit wrote:
cvk_b wrote: HandBrakeCLI is generally a bit faster than the GUI. My Sig. includes a G5 Optimized HandBrakeCLI along with the GUI version.
Interesting, I'll check it out - thanks.

And I should add more detail to my earlier comment. I glossed over the poster's settings who said it took him 24 hours to encode. I don't do 2-passes nor use a 3000 bitrate. 2000 bitrate, 1 pass, 720x480 resolution usually gets me 6 - 7 fps and takes 2 - 3 times actual video length to encode.

So, I suppose a 2 hr movie might take me 4 - 6 hours and 8 - 12 if I did 2 passes. Is the 3000 vs 2000 bitrate the big difference here? Seems like I'd get 1/2 the encoding time of the times posted here if I did 2 passes.

The only other difference I see is that I use -x level=30:threads=1 for PSP compatibility but I don't quite follow whether this would speed things up at the expense of video quality or not.

I also don't time the actual encode - I'm relying on my memory of what the ETA was listed as when I started encodes. If that's off by a fair degree, I don't think I'd notice as I just start the process and walk away.
Yeah the ETA given at the beginning will be off by a lot. It takes at least 5 minutes before it is anywhere close to the correct time. I use main profile instead of baseline, so that might also have something to do with our differences in encoding time as you mentioned.

The G5 build gave me a >40% increase in FPS. Because of this build, I can now realistically add some x264 options. Get the build ASAP; it is a God-send, thanks a million ckv_b. Can't wait till you build a binary with the updated x264 code!
cvk_b
Veteran User
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:11 am

Post by cvk_b »

cbud wrote:The G5 build gave me a >40% increase in FPS. Because of this build, I can now realistically add some x264 options. Get the build ASAP; it is a God-send, thanks a million ckv_b. Can't wait till you build a binary with the updated x264 code!
I have been staying current with the HandBrake trunk and optimizing along with it. Glad to hear I have helped.
fishnrib
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 2:06 pm

Post by fishnrib »

suborbit wrote:I've been using the CLI on an G5 and not having anywhere near these slow encoding times.
What is CLI?
If it's Command Line. What is the command?
ewoh24
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:29 pm

Post by ewoh24 »

My 1.6 G5 is running around 14 fps but bouncing all over the place. What's interesting though is my 2.1 GHz iMac G5 runs about 12 fps. Not quite sure why.
Gee Man
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:27 am

Benchmarks

Post by Gee Man »

I have a 2Gh iMac G5 and it takes about 10 hours to rip a movie to the iPod presets. The G5 Optimized version says it's not be tested on Panther or Leopard. I have found the internal DVD is faster than the external Sony, don't know why though.
stmiller
Novice
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:16 pm

Post by stmiller »

ewoh24 wrote:My 1.6 G5 is running around 14 fps but bouncing all over the place. What's interesting though is my 2.1 GHz iMac G5 runs about 12 fps. Not quite sure why.
The iMac G5s have a slower front side bus than the powermac G5s. Checking on apple-history.com looks like the 2.1Ghz iMac is 700Mhz FSB vs. 800Mhz FSB on that 1.6Ghz G5.
VisPacem
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:05 am

Re: Benchmarks

Post by VisPacem »

Gee Man wrote:I have a 2Gh iMac G5 and it takes about 10 hours to rip a movie to the iPod presets. The G5 Optimized version says it's not be tested on Panther or Leopard. I have found the internal DVD is faster than the external Sony, don't know why though.
Hello everyone

How strange things do happen. I have an IMac G5, 2Ghz, and it took me 15 hours approximately to transfer a 60 minute home video to the computer in format MP4 using the default settings for HB. That was my first such attempt.
As I was concerned by wear and tear or whatever can be caused by intensive use of the internal drive, I got a Sony DRX830ULT. My second 60 minute transfer took "only" 4 hours.

Why ?? I am really at a loss as Geeman got the exact reversed results.

Who knows what evil lurks......
CoderBrown
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:19 pm

Post by CoderBrown »

My 20" iMac 2.1GHz G5 averaged about 2.5 fps using HandBrake 0.9.1 and the Apple TV preset (no custom settings used). Then the other day I read an article that mentioned adjusting the processor setting in the Energy Saving panel in System Preferences (System Preferences > Energy Saver > click on Options > and set Processor Performance to "Highest"). This increased my encoding speed to about 6 FPS, or more than double the speed. Still quite slow compared to the Intel Macs but I'm happy with this new performance!

For the record, I rip to my hard drive first using Mac the Ripper, then I encode with HandBrake.
larsonian
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:25 pm

Post by larsonian »

I would caution against putting the Energy Saver to "Highest" I burned through 3 midplanes and an internal drive because of the high temperature levels that built up inside the iMac G5! Luckily, I was able to get it covered under warranty, but otherwise I'd be SOL. I have since installed "Temperature Monitor Lite" on the machine and routinely see it shoot up into the mid 170s F when i'm doing any kind of conversion and it is bad to run your computer at that temp for 10-20 hours at a time.

When I'm doing anything very processor intensive, I set it to "reduced" which seems counter-intuitive, but it keeps the temp in the 140s (which is about as high as a Hard drive should go).
Post Reply