new HD x264 video encoding benchmark

[Gen]

@Gen - got your new results, thanks... if your first post you said you were running 9x450=3600... is that a typeo? Was it really 9x400=3600 or 9x450=4050?

yeah, my bad it was 8x450 on my first one

[graysky]

Okay, I thought so... it's correct in the tables now and will update soon.

[Erdemliol]

@Erdemliol - thanks for the data... what is your multiplier and FSB. Also, what O/S and is it 32 or 64 bit?

The O/S is 32 bit Xp sp2 and the cpu runs @ 9x378=3400

[Gen]

some old school pentium dc lovin, only have 2 fans in this rig E2180 specs in sig.

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 21.81 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 22.06 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 22.09 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 22.00 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 5.45 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 5.45 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 5.45 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 5.45 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

[Zucker2k]

Q6600 @ 4Ghz, 9x445; RAM @ DDR2 890 4-4-4-4 on X38

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 81.60 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 82.70 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 82.69 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 82.84 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 22.69 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 22.69 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 22.69 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 22.70 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

[bgd73]

p4 2.8e (xp 90 cooler reverse duct)
msi 6728 platinum
dual channel 1gb kingston (default 3-3-3-8)
wd800jb
2600amb antec case 300w
2600.1 windows xp
and yet a 2600 agp to be installed (someone please tell me if that is going to fix my ailment)

below is one miserable msi 9550se with four bubbles protruding the chip. Hardware decoding and encoding is no falsity...

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 9.87 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 10.08 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 10.11 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 10.10 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 2.47 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 2.51 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 2.46 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 2.51 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

This is my first post. Hopefully my worst. This is a test after my ati card failed (running in software rendering and cpu only) Normally would get 12fps, still slow, but 6 times faster .. I got one burst of 20 somethings a long while back, it may occur to me the card has been a failure since install (msi 9550se)
I search what the 2600 agp can do, that is my upgrade. Waiting to install... I post here first, as this is what I compared my card and system to (I had not really been sure if I was failing or not, until I saw the realistic numbers here)

[graysky]

Thanks for the data, all.
@Zucker2k - what o/s and 64 or 32 bit?
@bgd - x264 doesn't use your video card to encode, just your cpu. I dunno what to make of your comments...???

[begrip]

he he cool

[Zucker2k]

Thanks for the data, all.
@Zucker2k - what o/s and 64 or 32 bit?
@bgd - x264 doesn't use your video card to encode, just your cpu. I dunno what to make of your comments...???

Windows Server 2003 32bit. Thanks.

[hersounds]

E8400 @ default 9 x 333 rams 667 mhz dual channel

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 32.86 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 33.24 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 33.21 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 33.16 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 8.70 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 8.71 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 8.70 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 8.71 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

ok, how i understand this result? why first step have more fps?

[graysky]

@hersound - thanks for the data, can you give me some more info?

which o/s (32 or 64 bit)?
which chipset on your motherboard?
memory timings?

The cpu-z links in your sigs don't match up to your 8400.

To answer your questions, have a look at the FAQ (2nd page) on techarp.

Q: Why does it encode two passes per file?

You can encode video in a single pass, but two passes will typically give a higher quality result. The first pass scans through the entire clip analyzing it so that the 2nd pass can use more bits on particular scenes and less on other scenes thus giving a higher quality (and more efficient) result.

In a single pass encode, the encoder doesn't have any idea what's coming up next in the video and is forced to guess based on what it's currently seeing. By the way, other video formats take advantage of multi-pass encodes such as xvid, divx, MPEG-2 (this is the format DVD movies use), etc.

Q: Why does the first pass encode faster than the 2nd pass?

The first pass is just a scanning pass. This analysis can occur much faster than the actual encode (the 2nd pass) can. No doubt, you see this reflected in your benchmark results. On my machine, the 1st pass occurs roughly 3-4x faster than the 2nd pass.

Q : Why doesn't the first pass use 100 % of my multi-core processor?

As mentioned above, the 1st pass simply isn't as CPU-intensive as the 2nd pass. It' not uncommon for less than 100 % usage on the first pass:

[eva2000]

QX9650 @3609Mhz - 8x451FSB
Asus Blitz Formula
5:6
4GB Crucial Ballistix Red Tracer PC2-6400 @541Mhz 5-5-5-15 at 1.92v

Vista Ultimate 64Bit SP1

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 76.08 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 76.39 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 76.33 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 75.83 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 21.50 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 21.52 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 21.53 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 21.54 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

[graysky]

Cool man, got it, thanks.

[Major_A]

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 40.73 fps, 3904.09 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 40.83 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 40.78 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 40.74 fps, 3905.08 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 10.19 fps, 3942.97 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 10.23 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 10.22 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 10.23 fps, 3942.92 kb/s

[dinos22]

OMG lol could this take any longer on my laptop hahahah

[graysky]

@major - got it, thanks!
@dinos - can you post the full text file from the benchmark? Your screenshot is missing some.

[dinos22]

are you sure man
everything is in the text file

[aicjofs]

Posted for you already graysky at doom9. I'll post for others in this thread for information but you don't need the data a 2nd time...

[graysky]

@dinos - sorry man, I didn't see it in the upper right! I'm only running 1280x1024

[dinos22]

do i get a cookie for the slowest machine here

[graysky]

@dinos - nope... I got the cookie. The 450 MHz machine is mine ultra old one

[Charles Wirth]

x264 HD BENCHMARK RESULTS
Please copy/paste everything below the line into the forum post to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 81.68 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 81.29 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 81.91 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 81.96 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 43.55 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 43.51 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 43.43 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 43.28 fps, 3974.08 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 82.74 fps, 3895.56 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 82.60 fps, 3895.56 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 82.36 fps, 3895.56 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 82.00 fps, 3895.56 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.99 fps, 3981.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 48.20 fps, 3981.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 48.08 fps, 3981.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 48.14 fps, 3981.22 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775
Name Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775
Codename Yorkfield
Codename Yorkfield
Specification Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9775 @ 3.20GHz (Engineering Sample)
Specification Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9775 @ 3.20GHz (Engineering Sample)
Core Stepping C0
Core Stepping C0
Technology 45 nm
Technology 45 nm
Stock frequency 3200 MHz
Stock frequency 3200 MHz
Core Speed 3989.8 MHz (10.0 x 399.0 MHz)
Core Speed 3989.8 MHz (10.0 x 399.0 MHz)
FID range 6.0x - 10.0x
FID range 6.0x - 10.0x

Northbridge Intel 5400B rev. C0
Southbridge Intel 6321ESB rev. 09

CAS# 4.0
RAS# to CAS# 5
RAS# Precharge 4
Cycle Time (tRAS) 18
Memory Frequency 399.0 MHz (1:1)
Memory Type FB-DDR2
Memory Size 4094 MBytes

Windows Version Microsoft Windows Vista (6.0) Ultimate Edition (Build 6000)

max VID 1.250 V
max VID 1.250 V
Number of processors 2
Number of threads 8
Number of threads 4 (max 4)
Number of threads 4 (max 4)
L2 cache 2 x 6144 KBytes, 24-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L2 cache 2 x 6144 KBytes, 24-way set associative, 64-byte line size
Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, EM64T
Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, EM64T
Package Socket 771 LGA (platform ID = 4h)
Package Socket 771 LGA (platform ID = 4h)

Temperature sensor 0 61°C (141°F) [0x2C] (core #0)
Temperature sensor 1 61°C (141°F) [0x2C] (core #1)
Temperature sensor 2 62°C (143°F) [0x2B] (core #2)
Temperature sensor 3 64°C (147°F) [0x29] (core #3)
Temperature sensor 0 66°C (150°F) [0x27] (core #0)
Temperature sensor 1 67°C (152°F) [0x26] (core #1)
Temperature sensor 2 63°C (145°F) [0x2A] (core #2)
Temperature sensor 3 62°C (143°F) [0x2B] (core #3)
Temperature sensor 0 32°C (88°F) [0x3F] (core)
Temperature sensor 0 31°C (86°F) [0x3D] (core)
Temperature sensor 0 46°C (114°F) [0x5C] (core)
Temperature sensor 0 46°C (114°F) [0x5C] (core)
Temperature sensor 0 57°C (134°F) [0x39] (GPU Core)
Temperature sensor 0 55°C (130°F) [0x37] (GPU Core)
Temperature sensor 0 56°C (132°F) [0x38] (GPU Core)
Temperature sensor 0 55°C (130°F) [0x37] (GPU Core)

[graysky]

@fugger-great result dude, thanks! Did you run it @ 10x399? Your sig shows 4.4 GHz?

[Charles Wirth]

Its reporting correctly, I switched my config to send K|ngp|n my Cas 3 memory, I removed the DD waterblocks as well.

[NapalmV5]

graysky, would/could you add an hdd thread to your benchmark..

or make a separate benchmark w/ hdd thread