x264 video encoding benchmark

ChronoReverse · Sep 11, 2007

Oops. Graysky, my 3GHz test was on Vista 32 not XP 32. My 3.6GHz test was on XP 32

graysky · Sep 11, 2007

@mark - what o/s and is your RAM 1:1 (950 MHz)?
@CR - thanks for the new results

ChronoReverse · Sep 11, 2007

You might want to check the numbers on that table. For instance, one of the E6850's is actually 9x435 not 6x435. The reporter has Speedstep on and reported the idle frequency.

iRONic · Sep 11, 2007

Some old stuff for ya?

FX60 @ 2.6GHz 1.37v Windows XP SP2 13x200 3-3-3-8

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 70.18 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 70.31 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 70.31 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 70.62 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 70.58 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.22 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.30 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.20 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.01 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.23 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

graysky · Sep 12, 2007

@ ironic - thanks for the results... what chipset is your board using and what is the speed your memory is running at (400 MHz?) You can get both from CPU-Z.

jones377 · Sep 12, 2007

Once more with better details..
E6400@2666MHz (8x333) 2MB L2, Gigabyte P35-DS3, 2*1GB DDR2-800@800 5-5-5-18, WinXP SP2 32-bit

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.20 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.09 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.25 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.09 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.14 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.73 fps, 1826.27 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.73 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.69 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.74 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.73 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

AkumaX · Sep 12, 2007

interesting!
specs:
q6600 b3 @ 8 x 393 = 3.144ghz
gigabyte 965p-ds3 f12 bios
2 x 1gb corsair xms pc6400 5-5-5-15 (4-4-4-12 @ ddr2-786mhz)
xp pro sp2

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 162.94 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 162.46 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 163.18 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 162.94 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 163.18 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.74 fps, 1829.09 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.66 fps, 1829.27 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.86 fps, 1829.20 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.83 fps, 1829.15 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.86 fps, 1829.54 kb/s

iRONic · Sep 12, 2007

Originally posted by: graysky
@ ironic - thanks for the results... what chipset is your board using and what is the speed your memory is running at (400 MHz?) You can get both from CPU-Z.

nforce 4 chipset, 400MHz on the memory.

tw1164 · Sep 12, 2007

Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 10.0 x 201.0 MHz, nForce4, 2GB 3-3-3-7, XP Pro SP2

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.73 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.94 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.87 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.77 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.80 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.33 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.44 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.42 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.44 fps, 1826.20 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.23 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

ApBp · Sep 12, 2007

Heres some new tests after I bumped my speed up to 3.4ghz.

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 96.75 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 96.58 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 96.58 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 96.83 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 96.42 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.66 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.55 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.71 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.63 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.66 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

E6750 @ 3.4GHZ 425x8(Put 1.4v in bios but shows 1.36v in speedfan/cpuz?), 2gb Crucial Ballistix DD2 4-4-4-12 @ 850mhz, Windows xp sp2

graysky · Sep 12, 2007

thanks for the results, all!

The-Noid · Sep 12, 2007

Hrm time to try out yorkfield on this babe.

graysky · Sep 15, 2007

thanks for the data, guys

acole1 · Sep 17, 2007

Xeon 5150 (x2) Woodcrest, 8x332.5, 5000X, 4-4-4-12 @ 533 Mhz, Server2003 SP1

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 112.83 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 121.01 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 120.88 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 120.10 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 120.88 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 35.21 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 35.29 fps, 1829.44 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.17 fps, 1829.31 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 35.09 fps, 1829.40 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 29.95 fps, 1829.43 kb/s

It's a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with two Xeon 5150's running at 2.66GHz
with 4 sticks of 1024MB FB-DDR2 PC2-4300 (266MHz) made by Hyundai
CAS:4.0
RAS to CAS:4
RAS Precharge: 4
tRAS:12
tRC:16

Mobo Mfg: Dell
Model:0CW954 A00 Rev.12
Chipset: Intel 5000X
Southbridge: Intel 6321ESB

graysky · Sep 17, 2007

Cool, thanks for the data!

graysky · Sep 20, 2007

As of 20-Sep-2007, we have data on over 100 Intel-based systems and on over 40 AMD-based systems. There are a few trends I picked-up on while browsing through the database. I put them into a single table and color coded them to make them easier to see. If you see a trend I missed, lemme know and I'll add it to the table.

Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit.

On to the table:

Table

Yellow: Nearly 1:1 increase by adding an additional processor to a dual-chip MB
Orange: Some operating systems seem to handle x264 more efficiently than others
Red: Insignificant gain by upping the DRAM speed by 50 %
Blue: For the most part, these chips scale in a pretty linear fashion
Green: Tighter/looser memory timings have a pretty insignificant effect
Purple: Keeping the same over-all clock speed using a different combo of multiplier and FSB can give pretty insignificant gains

Again, I only gave this a once-over look; please point out any trends you see that I missed and also don't forgot about the O/S request!

Thanks again to all who contributed!

Acanthus · Oct 9, 2007

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 190.34 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 190.67 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 193.62 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 193.64 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 193.64 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 52.61 fps, 1829.39 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 52.98 fps, 1829.02 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 52.88 fps, 1829.04 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.01 fps, 1829.47 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 52.93 fps, 1829.50 kb/s

Xeon X3220 @ 420x9 (not final OC, this is the latest prime stable)

Rest of info is in sig.

Acanthus · Oct 9, 2007

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 195.31 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 194.66 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 194.66 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 197.03 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 197.38 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.26 fps, 1829.52 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.49 fps, 1829.31 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.46 fps, 1829.02 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.98 fps, 1829.39 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.95 fps, 1829.54 kb/s

425x9

ChronoReverse · Oct 9, 2007

Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit.

Oh I can do that. Didn't realize you'd want something like that. I'll post a bench later.

Acanthus · Oct 9, 2007

Originally posted by: ChronoReverse

Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit.

Click to expand...

Oh I can do that. Didn't realize you'd want something like that. I'll post a bench later.

The only way i can see that making a difference is if we have a 64 bit encoder to work with.

As it's using the same DLL either way, the only theoretical difference could be a slight amount of OS overhead.

ChronoReverse · Oct 9, 2007

That's probably the point: to see how much overhead difference there is between Vista and XP. I'd suspect it to be minscule but I'll see.

SerpentRoyal · Oct 9, 2007

C2D E4300 @ 3.501GHz (9 x 389MHz FSB)
Abit IP35-E/P35 chipset
5-4-4-11-2T @ 486MHz RAM speed

average for Vista Business 32-bit in high performance mode:
99.98 fps @ 1850.89 kb/s (difference of 0.98 fps between high and low)
24.54 fps @ 1826.37 kb/s (difference of 0.46 fps between high and low)

average for XP Pro SP1 32-bit in desktop mode:
101.76 fps @ 1850.89 kb/s (difference of 0.46 fps between high and low)
24.73 fps @ 1826.38 kb/s (difference of 0.06 fps between high and low)

WXP SP1 is a little faster with much lower standard deviation between tests. This speed increase is equivalent to about 160MHz CPU core speed.

Tested with an as-loaded image file with drivers for MB and windows.

Cogman · Oct 9, 2007

Cef from doom 9 has a 64 bit version of the x264 encoder available, would it be possible for some of you 64biters to get that and give us a report of some numbers? (You might need to get his 32 bit version for comparison as well as they have been modified)

graysky · Oct 10, 2007

Originally posted by: AcanthusThe only way i can see that making a difference is if we have a 64 bit encoder to work with.

As it's using the same DLL either way, the only theoretical difference could be a slight amount of OS overhead.

You'd also need a 64-bit version of avisynth.

PCTC2 · Oct 10, 2007

Windows XP Pro x64

Q6600 @ 3.0GHz (333*9)
eVGA 680i SLI
4 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2-1066 PC2-8500 (533MHz)

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

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 156.10 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 158.77 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 160.15 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 159.92 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 159.67 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.40 fps, 1829.22 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.53 fps, 1829.17 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.58 fps, 1829.33 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.46 fps, 1829.10 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.43 fps, 1829.07 kb/s

x264 video encoding benchmark

Platinum Member

Senior member

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Senior member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Junior Member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Golden Member

Senior member

Senior member

Lifer

Lifer

Platinum Member

Lifer

Platinum Member

Banned

Lifer

Senior member

Diamond Member