Estimating Handbrake encoding speed (comparing other CPU benchmarks) - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 34Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 193 Old 03-10-2014, 08:33 PM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2727
2600k is a good CPU for encoding. I have one in my server. It's faster than my i5 3570k noticeably. It seems to hang with my 4770k. I suspect hyper threading helps somehow since 2600k has it and the 3570k does not. In theory the 3570k and 2600k should very close in CPU power.


When I encode I do three at a time. I open and RDP session to my HTPC (3570k) and my Flexraid server (2600k). I put one on each monitor. I nave triple monitors so the main screen remains my desktop. (4770k) I then queue up the encodes and let them fly. It goes a lot quicker with three at a time biggrin.gif
Mfusick is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 193 Old 03-12-2014, 05:17 PM
Senior Member
 
shortcut3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

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.

I have an Intel NUC i5 DC53427HYE and get similar speeds with the latest nightly build and Intel QuickSync encoding.

I modify the Apple TV3 setting to x264 profile 4.1 and then move the CQ slider over two notches to 18 from 20.
shortcut3d is offline  
post #33 of 193 Old 06-08-2014, 01:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrak76 View Post

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?

I am happy to verify that. I have a Dell Inspiron 17R SE with an i7-3630QM CPU. I think almost all current i3, i5, and i7 CPU's have QuickSync built in.
I had been using BR Rebuilder for several years and averaging 2 - 3 Hrs to convert a Blu-Ray to 4GB to 6GB video file. For the last 6 months I've also been using exclusively Handbrake nightly builds with QSV and getting comparably results to BD Rebuilder. Only difference is that QuickSync encoding usually takes about 12 minutes for a 2 Hr 1080P movie. I use QP 20 setting which usually gives around a 4+ GB file. I convert the sound to 2 track AAC at 128kb as I listen mainly through headphones. I have not yet notice any apparent loss of visual quality or any kinds of artifacts.
I really love Handbrake and find it the best encoding software that I've used so far.
Check out a fairly recent comparison between QSV and X264 and various bit rates here:
http://www.missingremote.com/review/intel-quick-sync-examining-haswell-performance
A real eye opener and shows how serious Intel is about hardware accelerated video encoding!
thrak76 likes this.
billdag is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 193 Old 06-08-2014, 01:14 PM
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 29,681
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 2727
I'm passionate about not encoding biggrin.gif
Mfusick is offline  
post #35 of 193 Old 06-08-2014, 01:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I'm passionate about not encoding biggrin.gif
Then you must love HUGE files!! LOL
Seriously though, with QuickSync it's over before you know it. What bugs me now is that it takes FOUR times longer to dump a Blu-Ray on your hard drive than it takes to recode it. Would NEVER have believed it a couple of years ago.
BTW - I still have a 2600K in my office PC and really have not felt compelled to update it yet. Very unusual for me. I've had it humming along at 4.4GHz for the last 3 years on stock voltage with not a single problem. Great chip!
billdag is offline  
post #36 of 193 Old 06-09-2014, 01:18 PM
Member
 
NikosD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Even Pentiums after 3412 driver can use QuickSync encoding, although not in impressive speeds.

With my Pentium G3420, I get about 130 fps using latest nightly build of HandBrake and Intel QSV encoder.

Update:
~130 fps for 1080p to 1080p conversion

LG BD670 - Pioneer VSX-920 - SONY KDS-55A2000
Win 10 x64 (10586.420)- Core i7-4790 - iGPU HD 4600 - v.4463
DXVA Benchmarks
NikosD is offline  
post #37 of 193 Old 06-09-2014, 07:46 PM
Senior Member
 
shortcut3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Is there any way to get Intel Quicksync under Windows Server 2012? My current Plex Media Server and encoding system is running it. I could reinstall Windows 8.1 Pro, but its such a hassle.
shortcut3d is offline  
post #38 of 193 Old 06-09-2014, 07:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Liked: 943
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortcut3d View Post

Is there any way to get Intel Quicksync under Windows Server 2012? My current Plex Media Server and encoding system is running it. I could reinstall Windows 8.1 Pro, but its such a hassle.
What's your server's chip?

🔥🔥🔥 Sent from my Samsung Note 7 Using Ove Glove™ 🔥🔥🔥
olyteddy is offline  
post #39 of 193 Old 06-09-2014, 08:06 PM
Senior Member
 
shortcut3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

What's your server's chip?

Intel NUC DC53427HYE i5 (Intel® Core™ i5-3427U)
shortcut3d is offline  
post #40 of 193 Old 06-09-2014, 09:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,154
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1848 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
Intel's page on that CPU says it supports QS:

http://ark.intel.com/products/71259
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #41 of 193 Old 06-09-2014, 10:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Liked: 943
Yes. The NUC does support QS but it appears Plex doesn't: http://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/can-the-plex-media-server-plugin-make-use-of-intel-quicksync.17568/ and: https://forums.plex.tv/index.php/topic/40113-intel-quicksync-support/

🔥🔥🔥 Sent from my Samsung Note 7 Using Ove Glove™ 🔥🔥🔥
olyteddy is offline  
post #42 of 193 Old 06-10-2014, 02:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steelman1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,766
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Liked: 231
Just happened to stumble across this thread and am amazed at the changes in encoding speeds and quality (possibly the one thing that drove me to ripping 1:1). Like thrak76 I was extremely skeptical, but I've just test encoded a full bluray rip of an episode of Band Of Brothers (A set that I know like the back of my hand) and the results are quite frankly astonishing.

Using QS

File SIze: 20.2 GB (includes DTS-MA track)
Encode Time: 9 minutes
Encoded file size: 5.29 GB (including unaltered DTS-MA track)

I've watched it twice (on a Panasonic 30VT65) and I'm f....d if I can see any difference in quality.

I know storage is cheap and I've long been an advocate of 1:1 rips, but with this type of result its not too difficult to see where savings can be made, without the loss of quality that previously hindered the process.
steelman1991 is online now  
post #43 of 193 Old 06-10-2014, 09:56 AM
Senior Member
 
shortcut3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 29

I would like to use Intel QuickSync for Handbrake under Windows Server 2012 R2. Is there a workaround to get it working under this OS?

I know it works on the Intel NUC i5 DC53427HYE because I have two other identical NUCs that once had Windows Pro 8.1 (re-purposed as ESXi servers). I originally had each NUC at a TV running XBMC on Windows 8.1.
shortcut3d is offline  
post #44 of 193 Old 06-10-2014, 10:10 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 11,876
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 698 Post(s)
Liked: 494
I think you will have to fool or force the installation of Win8 video driver on 2012. That's where the QSV driver is located.
Foxbat121 is offline  
post #45 of 193 Old 06-10-2014, 10:48 AM
Member
 
royalpython's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 19

I only recently discovered how to use one thread in handbrake, so it's now my more preferred method. You can drop in some good quality settings, drop the RF to RF24 and get pretty decent compression rips, but it can take 8-15 hours.... the price for compression and quality? It works for me anyway. I've read speed won't help quality, so for a long time i've been aiming to use one thread wherever possible. Handbrake is great, i can use it on all my computers, which means i can compress more than one at a time. 

royalpython is offline  
post #46 of 193 Old 06-10-2014, 01:06 PM
Member
 
shairob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalpython View Post

I only recently discovered how to use one thread in handbrake, so it's now my more preferred method. You can drop in some good quality settings, drop the RF to RF24 and get pretty decent compression rips, but it can take 8-15 hours.... the price for compression and quality? It works for me anyway. I've read speed won't help quality, so for a long time i've been aiming to use one thread wherever possible. Handbrake is great, i can use it on all my computers, which means i can compress more than one at a time. 

What's the benefit of using only one thread? I've been using all six of my available threads and it seems to chug along around ~90fps for OTA HD TV shows that I'm compressing down to 20 quality. Will limiting to one thread just allow me to compress six shows at a time or what?
shairob is offline  
post #47 of 193 Old 06-10-2014, 02:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,154
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1848 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
If you're using x264, limiting the number of threads only makes the encoding process take longer. Using Intel's QS probably doesn't even let you select the number of threads, since it uses a dedicated video chip, not the CPU cores.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #48 of 193 Old 06-10-2014, 04:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ilovejedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalpython View Post

I only recently discovered how to use one thread in handbrake, so it's now my more preferred method. You can drop in some good quality settings, drop the RF to RF24 and get pretty decent compression rips, but it can take 8-15 hours.... the price for compression and quality? It works for me anyway. I've read speed won't help quality, so for a long time i've been aiming to use one thread wherever possible. Handbrake is great, i can use it on all my computers, which means i can compress more than one at a time.

I'm pretty sure using one thread in Handbrake when you've got a multi-core CPU is not what that phrase is referring to. There are several encoding presets for x264 in Handbrake: Ultra Fast, Super Fast, Very Fast, Faster, Fast, Medium, Slow, Slower, Very Slow, Placebo. The slower presets give you better PQ. All you're doing by limiting the thread to one is artificially slowing down your encode time with no effect on quality. rolleyes.gif
ilovejedd is offline  
post #49 of 193 Old 06-10-2014, 04:30 PM
Member
 
royalpython's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 19

I had a look on handbrakes website to see if there was any truth on what ever it was I read about a year ago, and it does say the quality loss is mostly negligible from using multicore CPU's - i stand corrected :) . I did make a few tweaks that day I moved down to 1 thread, so i've maybe confused myself during my tests, and it's probably something else i've done. I know in the past i ran into issues with gpu acceleration/multicores (frame jekryness being the main gripe), but it was probably rubbish software... From what I've used of handbrake, i know it handles multicore better than any other software programme i've used :) I'll whack my CPU back up tomorrow and double check :) My eyes can be a little sensitive to picture quality, but it looks like i've made a boob here .. apologies :)

royalpython is offline  
post #50 of 193 Old 06-11-2014, 06:23 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 11,876
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 698 Post(s)
Liked: 494
When it comes video encoding, there are a lot of urban myth out there, e.g. slower is always better and hardware encoding always created worse PQ than software. The fact is there are many factors involved in a encoding process that can affect the outcome. Yes, the more advanced algorithm takes longer to complete than simpler algorithm to produce better PQ. But you have to pick that advanced algorithm to start with. Simply slow down your processor won't make it any better. Same goes to hardware encoding. Intel has made great progress in QSV encoding. And Handbrake team made a great effort to integrate it. It can easily make your encoding speed up to 10 times faster with very negligible PQ difference from software encoding.
Mfusick and steelman1991 like this.
Foxbat121 is offline  
post #51 of 193 Old 06-11-2014, 08:45 PM
Member
 
royalpython's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post
When it comes video encoding, there are a lot of urban myth out there, e.g. slower is always better and hardware encoding always created worse PQ than software. The fact is there are many factors involved in a encoding process that can affect the outcome. Yes, the more advanced algorithm takes longer to complete than simpler algorithm to produce better PQ. But you have to pick that advanced algorithm to start with. Simply slow down your processor won't make it any better. Same goes to hardware encoding. Intel has made great progress in QSV encoding. And Handbrake team made a great effort to integrate it. It can easily make your encoding speed up to 10 times faster with very negligible PQ difference from software encoding.
Sounds good to me

I ran another movie, full steam ahead, and it worked fine. If there is a difference, it's minimal like it says on handbrakes website and like what you three are saying. I must have done too many things at once last month
royalpython is offline  
post #52 of 193 Old 06-23-2014, 02:52 AM
Senior Member
 
TheFranchise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrak76 View Post
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.
The few times I tested many speed settings, the only one that made the file smaller was Very Slow. About 15% smaller at the same cq setting. Maybe Placebo made it even smaller, but I don't remember because that is even slower than Very Slow, and Very Slow on a 4.4ghz 3770k i7 already only does about 5fps with 1080.

From the testing and eyeballing I've done, I'd say the quality difference between Medium and Very Slow is about .5 cq setting. So 22cq (crf) on Medium would have the same quality as 22.5cq on Very Slow.

Someone mentioned considering messing with the advanced settings. Be careful. I read up on them and only changed a couple, I know I set one to "optimum" or "optimized" because that seemed like a better setting when I read up on it, and one of the settings I changed had Handbrake only using about 50% of the CPU, and, also, no matter how low I put the cq, details, such as on people's faces, were undefined and pixelated. It was minor enough that I didn't notice it at first, but after I did notice it, I couldn't not notice it.
TheFranchise is offline  
post #53 of 193 Old 07-08-2014, 12:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post
When it comes video encoding, there are a lot of urban myth out there, e.g. slower is always better and hardware encoding always created worse PQ than software. The fact is there are many factors involved in a encoding process that can affect the outcome. Yes, the more advanced algorithm takes longer to complete than simpler algorithm to produce better PQ. But you have to pick that advanced algorithm to start with. Simply slow down your processor won't make it any better. Same goes to hardware encoding. Intel has made great progress in QSV encoding. And Handbrake team made a great effort to integrate it. It can easily make your encoding speed up to 10 times faster with very negligible PQ difference from software encoding.
I agree. The newer generation QuickSync chips are capable of very good and very fast encoding particularly if you use the higher quality settings. Surprisingly, I find the higher quality settings don't slow down the processing all that much. I've done a fair amount of comparison between BDRebuilder (using X264) and Handbrake's QSV and have still not found a visible quality difference so long as you are comparing similar encoded file sizes. I've even made some QSV movie encodes, for fun, with finished file sizes under ONE GIGABYTE (digital Shrek IV to avoid grain and noise) and it was actually fairly watchable but yes, there certainly was a fair bit of macroblocking and mosquito noise and extra blurring. Reminded me of the good ole' days of Nero Mpeg2 recodes - squeezing an 8 Gig file down to 4.5 GB.
ilovejedd likes this.
billdag is offline  
post #54 of 193 Old 07-12-2014, 03:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jhughy2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,865
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 906 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdag View Post
I agree. The newer generation QuickSync chips are capable of very good and very fast encoding particularly if you use the higher quality settings. Surprisingly, I find the higher quality settings don't slow down the processing all that much. I've done a fair amount of comparison between BDRebuilder (using X264) and Handbrake's QSV and have still not found a visible quality difference so long as you are comparing similar encoded file sizes. I've even made some QSV movie encodes, for fun, with finished file sizes under ONE GIGABYTE (digital Shrek IV to avoid grain and noise) and it was actually fairly watchable but yes, there certainly was a fair bit of macroblocking and mosquito noise and extra blurring. Reminded me of the good ole' days of Nero Mpeg2 recodes - squeezing an 8 Gig file down to 4.5 GB.
How do I enable QSV? I've downloaded the latest driver, set up a second display with VGA, selected extend these displayes, yet my handbrake encode time is like 1.5 hours with a i7-4700hq.
jhughy2010 is offline  
post #55 of 193 Old 07-12-2014, 03:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhughy2010 View Post
How do I enable QSV? I've downloaded the latest driver, set up a second display with VGA, selected extend these displayes, yet my handbrake encode time is like 1.5 hours with a i7-4700hq.
First of all you have to download and install a 'Nightly Build" Beta version of Handbrake. I'm currently using HandBrake-svn6227_x86_64-Win_GUI.exe downloaded here:
http://handbrake.fr/nightly.php
Be sure to get the GUI version unless you like using the COMMAND PROMPT.
Under the video tab you have a choice of video codecs - Choose - H.264 (Intel QSV).
On the right-hand side, choose High Profile under the Regular heading.
If you can't access the QSV setting make sure it's enabled here:
Tools/Options/Video/Disable QuickSync Decoding (box should be unticked).
I'm using a new computer now with an i7-4810MQ chip, similar to yours and it gives great results - supposed to be a little better than my i7-3630QM but........... in the QSV preset (under Video Tab) the QSV preset "Quality" slows the process down a lot! Now takes a good 25 minutes+ and for some reason the resulting size is double what you get in Balanced or Speed preset with the same QP setting (22). Weird!!
Balanced now takes 11 minutes and Speed is slightly faster at 10 minutes so no reason to use that. File size is the same with these two presets.
In the HIGH PROFILE setting you only have these 3 choices. I'm using my Shrek 4 Blu-Ray for these tests. Original file should be decrypted and dumped on your hard drive - otherwise your blu-ray player will likely be a bottleneck.
Finally, QSV only works with MP4 files in Handbrake so if it's an MPEG2 or Windows Media video, you won't benefit from the QSV.
billdag is offline  
post #56 of 193 Old 07-12-2014, 03:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jhughy2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,865
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 906 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdag View Post
First of all you have to download and install a 'Nightly Build" Beta version of Handbrake. I'm currently using HandBrake-svn6227_x86_64-Win_GUI.exe downloaded here:
http://handbrake.fr/nightly.php
Be sure to get the GUI version unless you like using the COMMAND PROMPT.
Under the video tab you have a choice of video codecs - Choose - H.264 (Intel QSV).
On the right-hand side, choose High Profile under the Regular heading.
If you can't access the QSV setting make sure it's enabled here:
Tools/Options/Video/Disable QuickSync Decoding (box should be unticked).
I'm using a new computer now with an i7-4810MQ chip, similar to yours and it gives great results - supposed to be a little better than my i7-3630QM but........... in the QSV preset (under Video Tab) the QSV preset "Quality" slows the process down a lot! Now takes a good 25 minutes+ and for some reason the resulting size is double what you get in Balanced or Speed preset with the same QP setting (22). Weird!!
Balanced now takes 11 minutes and Speed is slightly faster at 10 minutes so no reason to use that. File size is the same with these two presets.
In the HIGH PROFILE setting you only have these 3 choices. I'm using my Shrek 4 Blu-Ray for these tests. Original file should be decrypted and dumped on your hard drive - otherwise your blu-ray player will likely be a bottleneck.
Finally, QSV only works with MP4 files in Handbrake so if it's an MPEG2 or Windows Media video, you won't benefit from the QSV.
Perfect thank you I will download and give it a shot.
jhughy2010 is offline  
post #57 of 193 Old 07-12-2014, 03:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jhughy2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,865
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 906 Post(s)
Liked: 288
@billdag , so far it is working super fast with an ETA of only 22 mins. That beats 1.5 hours. I've been wanting to game on my laptop all day but haven't been able to cause of the 100% CPU utilization via the non QSV way.
jhughy2010 is offline  
post #58 of 193 Old 07-12-2014, 03:47 PM
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Commonwealth, not the Jelly.
Posts: 2,696
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1037 Post(s)
Liked: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdag View Post
Finally, QSV only works with MP4 files in Handbrake so if it's an MPEG2 or Windows Media video, you won't benefit from the QSV.
I'm not quite sure what you meant, but what you said is not entirely true...

Handbrake will only output MP4 and MKV containers. That is regardless of what video codec with which you choose to encode.* QSV is irrelevant in that regard.

QSV only encodes to h.264 in Handbrake so you can't choose it and output a file with an MPEG-2 video stream (you can't output a file from Handbrake with WMV/VC-1 regardless of what you choose in Handbrake as it isn't supported in any manner at all that I'm aware of.)

And Handbrake will work fine using source material that is MPEG-2 or WMV or any number of codec/container combinations (again, regardless if you've chosen QSV or not)


*assuming we're not talking about H.265
ajhieb is offline  
post #59 of 193 Old 07-12-2014, 04:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
I'm not quite sure what you meant, but what you said is not entirely true...

Handbrake will only output MP4 and MKV containers. That is regardless of what video codec with which you choose to encode.* QSV is irrelevant in that regard.

QSV only encodes to h.264 in Handbrake so you can't choose it and output a file with an MPEG-2 video stream (you can't output a file from Handbrake with WMV/VC-1 regardless of what you choose in Handbrake as it isn't supported in any manner at all that I'm aware of.)

And Handbrake will work fine using source material that is MPEG-2 or WMV or any number of codec/container combinations (again, regardless if you've chosen QSV or not)


*assuming we're not talking about H.265
I guess I wasn't quite clear. What I should have said was the QuickSync can only be used to ENCODE mpeg4 file. QS doesn't work with Mpeg2 and WMV in the encoding process. The output files quite rightly are .Mp4 or .MKV.
billdag is offline  
post #60 of 193 Old 07-12-2014, 09:56 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
renethx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,132
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdag View Post
What I should have said was the QuickSync can only be used to ENCODE mpeg4 file. QS doesn't work with Mpeg2 and WMV in the encoding process. The output files quite rightly are .Mp4 or .MKV.
Re-encoding consists of two processes:

1. Demux the video file into video, audio, subtitle streams etc., and decode the video stream. That's the role of ffmpeg (or whatever) coded in HandBrake.
2. Encode the uncompressed video stream, where Intel QSV is involved (if you choose "H.264 (Intel QSV)").

If you can't re-encode Mpeg2 (do you mean "M2TS", MPEG-2 Transport Stream?) and WMV, then it's not a problem of Intel QSV but a problem of HandBrake's implementation of demuxer / decoder. But I haven't seen such a problem either.

Last edited by renethx; 07-12-2014 at 10:16 PM.
renethx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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