Question Handbrake 1.3.3 - Benchmark your System - COMPLETE Overhaul of the test

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136
A little background...
Handbrake is a ubiquitous encoding application and happens to be one that makes good use of multicore/thread CPU's when encoding x265. x265 is a widely used and efficient compression scheme that requires significant compute to encode. While hardware encoders are faster, at the same bitrates, CPU (software) encode produces better video quality. Of course this assumes the use of lower bitrates as quality for both hardware and software encodes will be indistinguishable at higher bitrates. But the point of the video encode is to get good quality at low bitrates so we are therefore testing software encode.

fps/GHz/core is a representation of how efficient a given CPU core is at encoding the test file using the x265 format. The number is arrived at by multiplying the number of physical cores by the average frequency they are running at and then dividing by the fps from the Handbrake test. It tells us for a given core how many fps can this core encode the test if it was running at 1GHz. We could consider this an "IPC" of sorts for this test but strictly speaking this would be closer to the word "throughput." And as you know many around here are indeed strict with terminology so I will avoid the word IPC at it denotes Instructions Per Cycle and that is not actually what we are measuring.

Some people will go "all out" and try and run their system as close to the limit as possible and others (like me) just run at stock. All of the data is valuable and informative as long as it is collected from each person in the same manner and there for comparable.

I went through all of the results and created a new table. In respecting everyone's time who participated in the old data I am keeping that data on the 2nd page of this post.

Here's the test file: https://4kmedia.org/lg-new-york-hdr-uhd-4k-demo/


1. Use the following version of Handbrake with the built-in h.265 mkv 2160p60 preset
HandBrake-1.3.3-x86_64-Win_GUI.exe
Don't forget to turn on logging in Handbrake so you can retrieve your time. Tools>Preferences>Advanced>Logging
Once this current version is replaced you'll be able to access this version from the following link.
HandBrake: Nightly Builds
Nightly builds of HandBrake
handbrake.fr

2. Report your encoding time, average CPU frequency, and Package Power. If you have a hybrid CPU you can turn off the E's in the BIOS. For E testing turn off all P's except one in the BIOS, clock it down to 800MHz, and then shut it down with Process Lasso. Or just report your score with 1 P at 800MHz and let me know you did that so I can subtract out that P core's (minor) contribution to the encode.

Here's how to report your average clock and package power so we are all doing it the same way.
Handbrake does some housekeeping right after you start encode and when the progress bar gets to 100%.
This could result in lower than actual average clock.
After you start the encode, wait a few seconds until you see the green Handbrake bar appear, then reset the HWinfo counter.
At the end don't wait to grab the screen shot at 100%, just do it sometime after about 95%.

3. CPU Model, and RAM specs
 

Attachments

  • Handbrake.chart.jpg
    581.4 KB · Views: 35
  • Handbrake.new.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 25
Last edited:

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136
I was sleeping you want my ghost to run the benchmarks 🤣
Yes, let's shine some light on those Redwood Cove and Crestmont cores. They've been hiding out for quite a while now.

Igor's results totally let us know where Lion Cove and Skymont stand. Lion Cove is very impressive considering no HT and Skymont is shows a full 50% performance "throughput" increase over Gracemont.
 
Reactions: lightmanek and 511

511

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2024
1,740
1,602
106
Yes, let's shine some light on those Redwood Cove and Crestmont cores. They've been hiding out for quite a while now.

Igor's results totally let us know where Lion Cove and Skymont stand. Lion Cove is very impressive considering no HT and Skymont is shows a full 50% performance "throughput" increase over Gracemont.
You have to wait for some time for that btw I need to use process lasso to manage affinity?
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136
Based on Igor's Arrow Lake results I created a little performance "predictor" for Arrow Lake in Excel.

In order to beat Det0x's incredible 22.72fps score it will take an Arrow Lake running at something like 5.9GHz P's and 5GHz E's.

Not impossible but that's a big overclock.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136
You have to wait for some time for that btw I need to use process lasso to manage affinity?
Benching the P's is easy, just shut them down in the BIOS.
The E's are tricky because you can only shut all but one off in the BIOS. Then process lasso to hold back that last one.
Run task manager while Handbrake is running to make sure it's really off like Igor did.

Igor - Anything else he needs to do to keep that P out of the mix?
 
Jul 27, 2020
23,513
16,525
146
Igor - Anything else he needs to do to keep that P out of the mix?
No. He should be good if he

1) Turns off HT and enables only one P-core and enables all E-cores

2) runs Process Lasso in Forced mode https://bitsum.com/processlasso-docs/forced-mode/ (works in Free version)

3) changes the "Always" affinity of Handbrake.exe by unchecking only the first core



4) keeps Task Manager open during the run to ensure that the first core has no work happening on it
 
Reactions: 511

511

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2024
1,740
1,602
106
No. He should be good if he

1) Turns off HT and enables only one P-core and enables all E-cores

2) runs Process Lasso in Forced mode https://bitsum.com/processlasso-docs/forced-mode/ (works in Free version)

3) changes the "Always" affinity of Handbrake.exe by unchecking only the first core

View attachment 116417

4) keeps Task Manager open during the run to ensure that the first core has no work happening on it
Meteor Lake is 8+6+2,also you want me to compare 6C RWC HT OFF vs 8C CMT ? or 6C RWC vs 6C CMT?
 

511

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2024
1,740
1,602
106
6 RWC and 8 CMT would be fine. Let's leave out the sad little LP E-cores Uncheck them in Process Lasso if the LP E-cores show up there.
I can't deactivate P cores without disabling all the E core so i have to rely on process Lasso for that also which video i have to test ?
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136
Make sure you have HWinfo open so we can see average frequency and package power, grab a screen shot right at the end.

This is great. I hope you can get the data.
 
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136

511

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2024
1,740
1,602
106
I posted a link to the test file in the first post of this thread. Here it is again.

Hulk it is banned in my country had to use a VPN and I am downloading it at whooping 200KB/s
 

511

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2024
1,740
1,602
106
It's impossible for P core to not interfere it still sneaks in for the E core testing even after forcing affinity
 

dttprofessor

Member
Jun 16, 2022
143
40
71
Based on Igor's Arrow Lake results I created a little performance "predictor" for Arrow Lake in Excel.

In order to beat Det0x's incredible 22.72fps score it will take an Arrow Lake running at something like 5.9GHz P's and 5GHz E's.

Not impossible but that's a big overclock.
My U265K: 5.9Ghz for Pcore is noway. The best Pcore (1/8) is 5.6Ghz @1.26V.
 
Jul 27, 2020
23,513
16,525
146
It's impossible for P core to not interfere it still sneaks in for the E core testing even after forcing affinity
That shouldn't be possible. Can you show what settings you chose in Process Lasso? It should be Forced and then use the Always option to uncheck the cores you don't want.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136
View attachment 116439
Here is it 6 RWC Version
Let me make sure I'm understanding this result correctly.
This is a 185H mobile processor.
You shut off the 8 E's.
6 P's were running at an average frequency of 3.9 GHz.
2 LPE's were running average 1.03GHz
Average package power of 59.2W.

Was HT turned on?

I don't think we can isolate P, E, or LPE performance from this data.

Including the LPE's small contribution this would give a fps/GHz result of 0.194 so I'm assuming HT was off?

If you don't enjoy this kind of testing I know this is a hassle but one possibility to get a better estimate on the isolation numbers is to reduce the number of P's running and run the test again, then using simultaneous equations you have 2 variables and 2 independent equations.

It's a shame process lasso can't isolate some of those cores.

Can't you lock down the P's and run the test just with the LPE's? I know it would take a loooong time, just wondering?

Once we obtain fps/GHz for the LPE's, we can subtract their contribution from the P's, then you can run with everything on to isolate the E's.

Okay, for now can you just run the test stock on your laptop and let us know the time, frequency of all cores, and package power?
Just put up that same screen shot at like 99% and I'll pull out the data.

Either way I understand this is a hassle so thanks for doing this much!
 
Reactions: igor_kavinski

511

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2024
1,740
1,602
106
Let me make sure I'm understanding this result correctly.
This is a 185H mobile processor.
You shut off the 8 E's.
6 P's were running at an average frequency of 3.9 GHz.
2 LPE's were running average 1.03GHz
Average package power of 59.2W.
The Es were not doing anything they were just there and HT was off
Was HT turned on?

I don't think we can isolate P, E, or LPE performance from this data.

Including the LPE's small contribution this would give a fps/GHz result of 0.194 so I'm assuming HT was off?

If you don't enjoy this kind of testing I know this is a hassle but one possibility to get a better estimate on the isolation numbers is to reduce the number of P's running and run the test again, then using simultaneous equations you have 2 variables and 2 independent equations.

It's a shame process lasso can't isolate some of those cores.
Yeah
Can't you lock down the P's and run the test just with the LPE's? I know it would take a loooong time, just wondering?

Once we obtain fps/GHz for the LPE's, we can subtract their contribution from the P's, then you can run with everything on to isolate the E's.

Okay, for now can you just run the test stock on your laptop and let us know the time, frequency of all cores, and package power?
Just put up that same screen shot at like 99% and I'll pull out the data.

Either way I understand this is a hassle so thanks for doing this much!
I will do it on weekend I have few things to try
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136
I ran the test using the 65W Eco mode on my 9950X. 6.7W/fps. I'll add it to the chart next update.
BTW, "65 Watt Eco Mode" refers to the cores power. Package power was 87.6W average.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,058
3,537
136
View attachment 116447


285k 8+16=24 P51 E51 8600 MT/s 40-54-54-134 NGU 34 D2D 36 1.3.3 24 51/51 98.13 18.40 Lion Cove/Skymont - Arrowlake

Not done tweaking. Just on a 360 AIO. Normally run P cores at 54 - dropping to 51 increases encoding speed by 4 seconds, but increases fps by 1.
So P and E cores were running 5.1 during the test? Just want to confirm. You might want to double check that with HWinfo.
Nice score!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |