x264 video encoding benchmark

BrianPotter · Oct 10, 2007

Q6600 (G0) @ 3.5 GHz (9 x 390 FSB)
Asus P5K-E (P35 / BIOS 0503)
2 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer DDR2-800 (780 MHz) (4-4-4-12)

Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 171.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 172.20 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 170.20 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 171.89 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 169.82 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.37 fps, 1829.26 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 45.69 fps, 1829.26 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.72 fps, 1829.14 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 45.87 fps, 1829.40 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.64 fps, 1829.44 kb/s

graysky · Oct 10, 2007

thanks for the data, guys. I'll get them into the table tonight and hopefully update.

MrPickins · Oct 10, 2007

This thread confirms what I already knew.:

If I'm going to keep encoding OTA HD to x264, I need to upgrade from my X2@2.4Ghz to a Q6600.

Now to scrape up the dough...

PCTC2 · Oct 11, 2007

same config as before, except run on XP 32-bit

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 151.68 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 153.96 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 152.92 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 152.91 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 152.91 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.21 fps, 1829.30 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.18 fps, 1829.12 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.41 fps, 1829.44 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.37 fps, 1829.44 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.27 fps, 1829.45 kb/s

graysky · Oct 11, 2007

@Acanthus: what are your mem timings and overall RAM speed you ran at when you did the tests?
@PCTC2: what are your mem timings?

graysky · Oct 11, 2007

Originally posted by: MrPickins
This thread confirms what I already knew.:

If I'm going to keep encoding OTA HD to x264, I need to upgrade from my X2@2.4Ghz to a Q6600.

Now to scrape up the dough...

Yeah, the nice thing about x264.exe is that it tends to scale in a highly linear fashion with respect to your source resolution. All thing being equal (same clip @ 480p vs. 720p or 1280p), the time will change with the resolution and frame rate.

In other words, this test did 720x480 @ 23 fps. Just calculate the ratio of 1280x720 @ 23 fps or whatever framerate you're encoding to your results @ the lower res/framerate and you'll get a rough idea how it'll preform.

PCTC2 · Oct 11, 2007

4-4-4-12-2T @ DDR2-1066

and next week i'll test it on Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit

graysky · Oct 14, 2007

@pctc2: 4-4-4-12 @ ?? MHz though. If you're running 333 MHz on the FSB. What is the MHz of your ram? It will depend on your ratio. 1:1 would be 333 MHz, 3:2 would be 500 MHz (double these since it's ddr2) You can get this from the memory tab of cpuz.

Fireye0 · Oct 15, 2007

e4300 @ 9x340fsb - 3.06ghz - 1.293v (1.3375v in bios)
2gb Corsair PC2-5300 DDR667 @ DDR816 (2.1v - 4-4-4-12 2T) 5:6 FSBRAM
XP SP2 32bit

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 85.90 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 86.03 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 85.97 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 86.24 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 85.97 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 21.29 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 21.29 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 21.30 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 21.26 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 21.28 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

Acanthus · Oct 15, 2007

Originally posted by: graysky
@Acanthus: what are your mem timings and overall RAM speed you ran at when you did the tests?
@PCTC2: what are your mem timings?

1:1

5-5-5-15 2t

graysky · Oct 30, 2007

Updated the Intel table. It now contains several Yorkfield ES chips including:

Xeon E5330 (Dual board)
Q9550
Q9350

PCTC2 · Nov 11, 2007

Originally posted by: graysky
@pctc2: 4-4-4-12 @ ?? MHz though. If you're running 333 MHz on the FSB. What is the MHz of your ram? It will depend on your ratio. 1:1 would be 333 MHz, 3:2 would be 500 MHz (double these since it's ddr2) You can get this from the memory tab of cpuz.

RAM @ 5:8 FSB/DRAM Ratio.

4-4-4-12 @ 533MHz DDR2-1066.

brainhulk · Nov 11, 2007

9x400 q6600 1:1 yeah baby
abit ip35pro
crucial ballistix 4-4-4-12 @ 800
xp sp2

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 188.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 192.01 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 191.67 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 191.34 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 191.34 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.49 fps, 1829.41 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.79 fps, 1829.31 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.00 fps, 1829.28 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.97 fps, 1829.30 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.95 fps, 1829.18 kb/s

graysky · Nov 20, 2007

Updated the tables with another 45 nm chip: the QX9650 -- both at stock levels and @ overclocked to 4.2 GHz! With it, and the others (Xeon E5330 (Dual board), Q9550, and Q9350) there is now data on 4 different 45 nm chips.

One thing that I found striking about these new chips is that they are only marginally faster than their 65 nm counterparts when encoding x264 (about 5-6 % faster with all other factors being equal or close to equal). Have a look at the general trends table for the Kentsfield vs. Yorkfield comparison at the official host.

Denithor · Nov 21, 2007

All I get is errors:

Now encoding a 480p (720x480) DVD sample; test does 5 runs w/ 2 passes per run.
Please be patient while the benchmark is in progress.
For accurate results, do not use your PC during the tests.

............................................... Now Starting Run 1: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 1: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\1.stats
............................................... Now Starting Run 2: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 2: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\2.stats
............................................... Now Starting Run 3: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 3: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\3.stats
............................................... Now Starting Run 4: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 4: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\4.stats
............................................... Now Starting Run 5: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 5: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\5.stats

All runs complete!
Frames per second values written to results-8x350.txt
hit the ENTER key to close this window

graysky · Nov 21, 2007

Originally posted by: Denithor
All I get is errors

Check out the 1st Q in the FAQ... lemme know

The-Noid · Nov 28, 2007

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 236.67 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 233.20 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 234.67 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 234.67 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 234.17 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 62.40 fps, 1829.30 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 62.19 fps, 1829.14 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 62.22 fps, 1829.30 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 62.36 fps, 1829.19 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 62.29 fps, 1829.46 kb/s

9x466 QX9650. Ram 1:2 @ 7-6-5-15 Corsair 1800C7 Version 3.1

tenax · Feb 16, 2008

q9450ES- stepping 4, ver B1 w/ enzo extreme and stock fan running @600rpm- 1.3 volts on cpu-z
mushkin pc6400-2 gigs, 1:1 divider, 4-5-4-11 stock timings, 2.3 volts
abit ip-35 pro, 16 b09 beta bios
winxp sp2

any feedback on these is appreciated, by the way

8 X 400:

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 175.44 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 175.46 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 176.27 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 176.27 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 175.73 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.35 fps, 1829.27 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.23 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.31 fps, 1829.48 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.35 fps, 1829.13 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.29 fps, 1829.13 kb/s

7.5 X 450

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 187.82 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 188.13 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 189.72 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 189.41 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 190.36 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 49.73 fps, 1829.14 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.17 fps, 1829.20 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.17 fps, 1829.08 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.13 fps, 1829.31 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.17 fps, 1829.31 kb/s

8 X333

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 143.69 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 144.06 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 144.06 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 144.25 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 143.51 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 39.10 fps, 1829.19 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 39.00 fps, 1829.34 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 39.11 fps, 1829.44 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 39.12 fps, 1829.43 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 39.07 fps, 1829.45 kb/s

graysky · Feb 16, 2008

@tenax - cool man... what was the mem divider you used for the test? 1:1 or..? Also, which O/S?

tenax · Feb 16, 2008

sorry graysky..added to my thread above, but..winxp sp2 and 1:1 divider.

graysky · Feb 24, 2008

First off, thanks to all who contributed data.

24-Feb-2008 - Finally updated the data tables on the x264 benchmark page. They are now html based (not .gif images) which makes my life updating them much easier and I will keep this tables up-to-date daily as people post results. Have a look at the 'Data Tends' table that contains a look at the Phenom quad vs. both Kentfield and Yorkfield quads. There are also some comparisons of Wolfdale dual vs. Conroe dual, and some other good stuff.

Gaurav Duggal · Feb 28, 2008

Processor : Pentium D 820
Code Name: Smithfield
Technology: 90nm
Core Speed: 3118MHZ
Multiplier: x 14.0
Bus Speed: 224.6mhz
Chipset : Intel i945G/GZ
DRAM Frequency :371.2MHZ
FSBRAM :: 3:5
CAS# Latency(CL) : 5.0 clocks
RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCD) : 5 clocks
RAS# Precharge (tRP) : 5 clocks
Cycle Time (tRAS) : 15 clocks
Bank Cycle Time (tRC) : 21 clocks

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.03 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 45.37 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.04 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.71 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.27 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.62 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.20 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.87 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.89 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.85 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

graysky · Feb 28, 2008

Thanks man, table will be updated soon with your results.

myocardia · Feb 28, 2008

Hah, I thought it would be fun to run this on my internet machine, since it would have to come in in last place. I had no idea anyone would be trying to run it on a 500 Mhz Katmai, or better yet, a 450 Mz Deschutes core. Anyway, it's a 1.2 Ghz Celeron-M 220, with 1x1 GB of PC5300 RAM, on a SiS 662 chipset. Oh, and it's Skt. 479, even though it's a mini-ITX board, and not a laptop. It's running 32-bit XP Pro, SP2. Here's a screenshot: http://img259.imageshack.us/my...x264benchceleroeg2.jpg It runs @ 9x133, even though CPU-Z gets it totally wrong.

graysky · Feb 28, 2008

Cool man, thanks. Yeah, the Deschutes is my old old old system that still runs. Kinda cool to compare a 10-year-old PC to a modern one (at least the BIOS has a date of 1998).

2 h to complete the test vs. about 35 seconds. That's about 200 times slower

x264 video encoding benchmark

Member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Member

Lifer

Senior member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Senior member

Senior member

Senior member

Member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Senior member