Estimating Handbrake encoding speed (comparing other CPU benchmarks) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 89 Old 02-03-2014, 12:55 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
FMGenie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Hi!

 

Might be a stupid question but is it possible to estimate Handbrake encoding speed for processor y if processors x and y different benchmark tests are known?

 

If processor x encoded with certain settings at certain speed, is it possible to estimate how fast processor y will encode?

 

Which benchmark test would be the most relevant?

FMGenie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 89 Old 02-03-2014, 01:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 10,035
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 250
Unless you are using the Intel Integrated video with the latest version that supports Intel QSV encoding (I believe only the nightly build has this feature, official release doesn't have it), the differences are not that big.

For example, when I encode a 1080p BD rip into 1080p H.264, I typically get around 15 to 24 fps with my 2nd Gen Core I-7. However, on my 3nd Gen Core-i3 with Intel integrated graphics HD 4000, I get around 200 fps encoding speed. Some would argue the software encoder produces better PQ but for me, I can't notice any difference but greatly improved speed.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #3 of 89 Old 02-03-2014, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
FMGenie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Unless you are using the Intel Integrated video with the latest version that supports Intel QSV encoding (I believe only the nightly build has this feature, official release doesn't have it), the differences are not that big.

For example, when I encode a 1080p BD rip into 1080p H.264, I typically get around 15 to 24 fps with my 2nd Gen Core I-7. However, on my 3nd Gen Core-i3 with Intel integrated graphics HD 4000, I get around 200 fps encoding speed. Some would argue the software encoder produces better PQ but for me, I can't notice any difference but greatly improved speed.

So integrated graphics card or dedicated graphics card will make a huge difference?

FMGenie is offline  
post #4 of 89 Old 02-03-2014, 01:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh (East Liberty)
Posts: 1,984
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 209
I have an AMD A10 5800k. Most of my Handbrake usage is to convert/deinterlace/detelecine movies and tv shows I record via cablecard. I will convert to either 1080p or 720p H264.

At 720p it takes around 45 minutes to do a movie. 1080p is about twice as long.

My HTPC front end set up
Integration for whole home ATSC, CableCARD, FM radio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS control & capture, video games, and archived & streaming media playback
Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is online now  
post #5 of 89 Old 02-03-2014, 01:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 10,035
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMGenie View Post

So integrated graphics card or dedicated graphics card will make a huge difference?

No, Handbrake currently only support Intel's Integrated Graphics for speed up the encoding process. AMD and NVidia cards have their own hardware encoder but they don't offer them for free so handbrake can't use them.

I typically finish an entire BD movie conversion in 15 minutes or so with my lowly Core I-3's integrated graphics. It's is 10 times as fast as my main powerhouse desktop with NVidia card in it.
steelman1991 likes this.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #6 of 89 Old 02-03-2014, 01:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,086
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMGenie View Post

Hi!

Might be a stupid question but is it possible to estimate Handbrake encoding speed for processor y if processors x and y different benchmark tests are known?

If processor x encoded with certain settings at certain speed, is it possible to estimate how fast processor y will encode?

Which benchmark test would be the most relevant?

They do have x264 encoding benchmarks for processors. This is probably what you want.

MORE CPU is good for encoding.


As far as general CPU benchmarks:
Check out PASSMARK: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #7 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 05:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,086
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 995
What settings on handbrake does everyone use ? Is there a sweet spot between file size and quality ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #8 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 09:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
ElJimador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

What settings on handbrake does everyone use ? Is there a sweet spot between file size and quality ?

I use CQ 21 and slow (command line through the advanced tab) for bluray and 19 and slower for DVD. I don't notice any loss in PQ with those settings and I the resulting file sizes I get are usually around 1/3 of the source material.

Not sure how important the encoding speed actually is vs the CQ setting but I don't trust fast encodes. I run them overnight or when I'm at work anyway so I'm not in any hurry. Plus even with those settings the encoding times aren't too bad -- usually around 3 hours for a bluray and 30 minutes for a DVD w/encoding done on my sandy bridge i7 laptop (and with some of that time due to a bottleneck of writing to a server through a powerline connection to the opposite side of the house).
ElJimador is offline  
post #9 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 09:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
ElJimador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 86
BTW the Handbrake recommended CQ settings +/- 1 are 20 for DVD and 22 for bluray, which is how I landed on my own settings and then stuck there when I saw that they worked for me.

I've seen people on this forum talking about using CQ in the 15-17 range for bluray and I'd really like to know what kind of resulting file size they get with that because to me it seems like if you're going to do that you might as well forget encoding at all and just keep the full rip MKVs.
ElJimador is offline  
post #10 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
leebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 1,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 144
+ElJimador, I don't get how you're ending up with file sizes 1/3 of the source. I use 20 for Blurays, and typically a 30Gb movie ends up at about 4.5Gbs. And I usually keep two English audio tracks (sometimes three) and a Spanish track.

I'm using an AMD FX6300 with 8Gb ram.

This week I discovered another program for "shrinking" BR's, called BD Rebuilder I think (I'm not on my pc right now). It takes a BR and creates an exact copy, but smaller.

You set the output size and it creates the copy. I've used the DVD9 setting, which creates a BR folder structure resulting in about 7.5Gbs.

What I really like about it (so far) is the speed: Where Handbrake takes about 6 hours on my machine (for a BR of around 30Gb), BD Rebuilder takes about 2 hours.

If I want an Mkv I can then run the copy through MakeMKV. I will probably make a new thread about it soon, after I've used it more.

Sent from my generic not my computer device.
leebo is offline  
post #11 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 12:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
ElJimador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebo View Post

+ElJimador, I don't get how you're ending up with file sizes 1/3 of the source. I use 20 for Blurays, and typically a 30Gb movie ends up at about 4.5Gbs. And I usually keep two English audio tracks (sometimes three) and a Spanish track.

1/3 is a rough estimate and may be a bit high. It varies movie to movie. I've seen some movies that have been reduced by almost that much but then I've also had some where the Handbrake version is around half the size of the original. I also keep all the English audio tracks (+primary language for foreign movies) including using MKVmerge to mux back in there's a TrueHD or PCM track, so that probably accounts for some of the difference.
ElJimador is offline  
post #12 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 12:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,086
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElJimador View Post

I use CQ 21 and slow (command line through the advanced tab) for bluray and 19 and slower for DVD. I don't notice any loss in PQ with those settings and I the resulting file sizes I get are usually around 1/3 of the source material.

Not sure how important the encoding speed actually is vs the CQ setting but I don't trust fast encodes. I run them overnight or when I'm at work anyway so I'm not in any hurry. Plus even with those settings the encoding times aren't too bad -- usually around 3 hours for a bluray and 30 minutes for a DVD w/encoding done on my sandy bridge i7 laptop (and with some of that time due to a bottleneck of writing to a server through a powerline connection to the opposite side of the house).

Speed really is not my concern. I have triple monitors on my workstation (4770k @ 4.5ghz) and I can bring up RDP session for my HTPC (i5 3570K) and Flexraid server (2600K i7) one machine each screen. If I encode I do three at a time, with the weakest CPU being my Ivybridge i5 HTPC that can still hit 4.0ghz. That's a total passmark of about 30,000 eek.gif I don't do this too often because I like full quality and I have the storage space. But I am running out of storage space, and I was thinking that if I crushed down some of my less favorite media it would save me a bunch of space.

That and also delete the duplicated I have would save space too.

Typically the only time I use handbrake is when I am crushing stuff way down for traveling like on ipad or laptop or iphone. I usually do this last minute before the trip so I have something to watch driving to FL or on the plane (Flight from MA to Hawaii was brutal). I am happy to have 3 reasonably powerful machines for transcoding, and it still takes a while. I don't understand how people with a single dual core machine do it. It must take decades. eek.gif

My big concern is quality. I'd love to save a little space. But I don't want to give up quality. I can see the difference with an 8GB 1080p encode at 11mbps bit rate versus a 25GB MKV with 30mbps bit rate. Just wondering if there was a happy setting for those who care about quality ???

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #13 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 12:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,086
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebo View Post

+ElJimador, I don't get how you're ending up with file sizes 1/3 of the source. I use 20 for Blurays, and typically a 30Gb movie ends up at about 4.5Gbs. And I usually keep two English audio tracks (sometimes three) and a Spanish track.

I'm using an AMD FX6300 with 8Gb ram.

This week I discovered another program for "shrinking" BR's, called BD Rebuilder I think (I'm not on my pc right now). It takes a BR and creates an exact copy, but smaller.

You set the output size and it creates the copy. I've used the DVD9 setting, which creates a BR folder structure resulting in about 7.5Gbs.

What I really like about it (so far) is the speed: Where Handbrake takes about 6 hours on my machine (for a BR of around 30Gb), BD Rebuilder takes about 2 hours.

If I want an Mkv I can then run the copy through MakeMKV. I will probably make a new thread about it soon, after I've used it more.

Sent from my generic not my computer device.

Like I told you in PM... I think 4.5GB it too small. I don't understand handbrake enough, but I do know enough about encoding that taking 25GB to 4.5GB will yield a noticeable loss in quality. I still suggest a bigger file size.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #14 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 01:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
leebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 1,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Right, but since I have only used Handbrakes "idiot" setting (the quality slider), and the recommended setting for HD is 20, 4.5Gb is the size I usually end up with.

I suppose I could read up on all the settings and figure out what exactly to set everything at, but then I'm investing way more time than it's worth. At that point I might as well just keep the full rips. Even using a lower setting, like 17 (which is supposed to produce higher quality), didn't give me much bigger files.

BD Rebuilder is giving me 7.5Gb BR copies, which is closer to the 8Gb you mentioned. And it's MUCH faster. I just need to evaluate the PQ. It can keep all the audio and subs tracks as well.

Sent from my generic not my computer device.
leebo is offline  
post #15 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 01:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
lulimet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perkasie, PA
Posts: 956
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 65
For blurays I used 22 and a 30gb file comes out as anywhere between 10-12. I usually have 4 audio tracks on each movie. DTS-HD, DTS, DD if available, and a 5.1 FLAC converted from the main DTS-HD.
lulimet is offline  
post #16 of 89 Old 03-07-2014, 01:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,086
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by lulimet View Post

For blurays I used 22 and a 30gb file comes out as anywhere between 10-12. I usually have 4 audio tracks on each movie. DTS-HD, DTS, DD if available, and a 5.1 FLAC converted from the main DTS-HD.

This sounds about right to me.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #17 of 89 Old 03-08-2014, 09:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
ElJimador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 86
On closer inspection it looks like I may have overestimated my average file size reduction for bluray rips rather than underestimating it. I took a sampling of 20 of my bluray rips and in the aggregate the resulting file sizes using CQ 21 slow + passing through all English/primary audio including HD tracks looks to produce closer to a 40% reduction overall than 1/3 or less. And if my sampling of movies was representative it looks like the HD audio is the biggest reason for that (41% average reduction for 15 blurays w/HD audio vs. 26% for 5 blurays without). Perhaps at some point I'll go back and look at whether I can convert those tracks to a more efficient codec (FLAC? AAC?) without any noticeable loss in quality. For now though I'm happy enough with the results I'm getting.
ElJimador is offline  
post #18 of 89 Old 03-08-2014, 02:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
leebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 1,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElJimador View Post

On closer inspection it looks like I may have overestimated my average file size reduction for bluray rips rather than underestimating it. I took a sampling of 20 of my bluray rips and in the aggregate the resulting file sizes using CQ 21 slow + passing through all English/primary audio including HD tracks looks to produce closer to a 40% reduction overall than 1/3 or less.

Well, I'm missing something, because my BR conversions typically end up between 4 to 6Gb, and I usually keep most of the audio tracks as well. Yours must end up around 18Gb?

I use the CQ 20 setting for BR, with High Profile selected. But I do use the fast or faster setting, as it already takes a good 6 hours to convert.

Sent from my generic not my computer device.
leebo is offline  
post #19 of 89 Old 03-08-2014, 09:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
ElJimador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Re-read my last post and just to make sure I'm clear I meant that the average file size after Handbraking a bluray rip is 40% of the full rip, not a 40% reduction. Compared to leebo's experience it sounds like that's still high and I don't know what else would account for the difference. But like I said it works well enough for me.
ElJimador is offline  
post #20 of 89 Old 03-09-2014, 07:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
leebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 1,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Well, figuring a BR of 30Gb, 40% of that is 12Gb. And since you set it to "slow", you should get files even smaller than me, according to the HB pop out tip (video tab, bottom left).

Sent from my generic not my computer device.
leebo is offline  
post #21 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 10:21 AM
Member
 
thrak76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I've been experimenting with the speed settings on the video tab, and IME using slow, slower, slowest, does not result in smaller file sizes, but rather better quality (i think? I'm only viewing on a 40" tv). When I head towards the slow end of the presets i sometimes get as slow as 2 fps when doing 1.78:1 1080p sources. I'm not using a modern CPU however - it's a AMD Phenom II X4 @ 3 GHz. So it's not unusual for me to have encode times ~20 hours when using a CRF 20 and slower for a preset. I can tolerate that though because I'm not sitting around waiting for the encode to finish. I just queue a few up and go about my business.
thrak76 is offline  
post #22 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 11:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,086
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 995
I ran the test for Leebo on my desktop in a PM that we were discussing handbrake time and settings.

http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/hd/x264_Benchmark_HD_v5.0.1.rar

Quote:
Initial Setup

Download and install AviSynth 2.5.8 (needed to run the benchmark). You can get it from this link or by simply double-clicking on the link provided in the benchmark package. http://sourceforge.net/projects/avisynth2/

Then extract the files in the RAR package to a folder of your choice. If you do not already have WinRAR, you can download a copy here. http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm

That's it!


This is the benchmark that is typically used to measure the performance for such tasks, including what most professional reviewers use.

I ran it while surfing and doing an MKV rip via MakeMKV on my third monitor, It says you should run it solo for best results but I didn't really care. It seemed about right anyways.


Quote:
x264 HD BENCHMARK 5.0 RESULTS

Please do NOT compare it with older versions of the benchmark!
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data
to http://forums.techarp.com/reviews-articles/26957-x264-hd-benchmark-5-0-a.html

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Results for x264.exe r2200
x264 Benchmark: 64-bit
==========================

Pass 1
encoded 11812 frames, 79.81 fps, 7754.21 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 78.48 fps, 7754.19 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 77.65 fps, 7754.25 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 79.78 fps, 7754.37 kb/s

Pass 2
encoded 11812 frames, 18.50 fps, 8002.19 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 18.46 fps, 8002.10 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 18.57 fps, 8002.13 kb/s
encoded 11812 frames, 18.68 fps, 8002.09 kb/s


One thing for certain if you encode often you want a robust CPU. The test alone hammers your CPU. A serious encode can take hours. multiply that times a large library and there is certainly a big advantage in having a powerful CPU.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #23 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 01:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 10,035
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 250
I use CQ20 for regular conversion. With my Core-i3, It typically takes 10 minutes total and produce average 8 to 10 GB of files with HD audio. Use High Profile to further shrink down the file size if your players can handle it.

I use CQ22 or higher for conversion to be used on phones or tablets for smaller file size.

The final output file size has a lot to do with the content of the film. For films with a lot of actions and explosions, you will get larger file size as it is harder to compress without losing quality. For slower romantic shows, you will get smaller size because those slow scene changes are very easy to compress.

By using intel IGP, there is not even that much of heat generated for some reason. I know CPU is not heavily used but it seems the GPU is fine with that task as well.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #24 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 01:50 PM
Member
 
thrak76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

I use CQ20 for regular conversion. With my Core-i3, It typically takes 10 minutes total and produce average 8 to 10 GB of files with HD audio.

10 minutes to encode a movie?
thrak76 is offline  
post #25 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 02:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 10,035
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrak76 View Post

10 minutes to encode a movie?
See post#2.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #26 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 02:09 PM
Member
 
thrak76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

See post#2.

Ah, yes. I read that earlier and was... uhm... flabbergasted! It seems almost unreal, though I'm not doubting you at all. Makes me want to switch to an i-core processor/MB right away.

Off topic - but, which intel chips support this QSV?
thrak76 is offline  
post #27 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 02:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 10,035
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 250
Almost any Intel Core-i3/5/7 you can buy today that comes with IGPU (some high end one may not come with IGPU) can do QSV. My Core-i3 is a 3rd Gen entry level chip only.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #28 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 06:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
leebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 1,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrak76 View Post

10 minutes to encode a movie?
See post#2.

Are we taking Bluray movies? Because that is very difficult to believe without seeing. If I could do that I wouldn't need to think about it. It would be a no-brainer.

Sent from my generic not my computer device.
leebo is offline  
post #29 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 06:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 10,035
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 250
Yes, BD rip with HD audio, subtitles and chapters.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #30 of 89 Old 03-10-2014, 08:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,452
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 249
I too think the QSV encoders are pretty good. I've used both the HandBrake one and a Mirillis one. The Mirillis one comes with the Action! screen recorder and lets me record 1080p to MP4 in realtime with around 10% CPU on an i7-2600. My 3225 uses about 15%.
olyteddy is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

Tags
handbrake , Intel , Intel Core I3 4130 3 4 3 Fclga 1150 Processor Bx80646i34130 , Intel Core I5 3570 3 4 Ghz Processor , Intel Core I5 4670k 3 4ghz Lga 1150 Quad Core Desktop Processor , Intel Core I7 4770k 3 5ghz Lga 1150 Quad Core Desktop Processor , Intel Pentium G2020 2 9ghz Lga 1155 Dual Core Desktop Processor , Intel Pentium G3220 3 0ghz Lga 1150 Dual Core Desktop Processor , quicksync
Gear in this thread - G2020 by PriceGrabber.com



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off