Are my computers too slow for Handbrake?

[JR.S]

I have a couple of Blu-Rays on an external hard drive, converting them to MKV's with Handbrake. I set the RF to 20, and on my laptop it took 24 hours to complete!! Tried it on my Desktop, and it sait it was going to take over 15 hours!!

The Desktop is an AMD Athlon II X2 250u 1.60 Ghz with 4gb of Ram. It's only about 4 months old, and pretty fast. The Laptop is about 3 years old and not as fast, it's an Intel Core2 Duo T5270 @ 1.40 Ghz with 2GB of Ram.

Didn't think my computers were that slow, maybe I'm missing a setting in Handbrake? Wouldn't be worth doing if every movie ties a computer for a day......

[Baldrick]

See http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/27 . x264 encoding benchmarks results. Get an i7 for fastest encoding.

[JR.S]

See http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/27 . x264 encoding benchmarks results. Get an i7 for fastest encoding.

I don't see either of mine listed on there, so still not sure what to expect.

Anyone have a similar machine using Handbrake have an opinion?

On my Desktop which is the faster of the two, it's currently showing 1.4 FPS at over 30 hours to encode!

[redwudz]

I don't do BD>MKV conversions with HandBrake, but using RipBot, it takes about five hours. That's with a six core CPU running at 3.5Ghz doing a two pass encode.

I do use HandBrake for DVD>MKV conversions with a RF of 19.5 and that takes about 20 minutes @ ~140 FPS average

For H.264, lots of CPU cores and a CPU speed ~3Ghz will give you much faster encoding. Your H.264 encoding times seem about right for your PCs. Using CQ (RF) mode will give you probably the fastest encodes.

EDIT: Looking at the chart Baldrick linked to, you could use a Celeron 1.6Ghz dual core CPU for comparison. The benchmark would be around 16 - 18. My CPU is overclocked and water cooled and would be about 90 on the same chart.

[JR.S]

I don't do BD>MKV conversions with HandBrake, but using RipBot, it takes about five hours. That's with a six core CPU running at 3.5Ghz doing a two pass encode.

I do use HandBrake for DVD>MKV conversions with a RF of 19.5 and that takes about 20 minutes @ ~140 FPS average

For H.264, lots of CPU cores and a CPU speed ~3Ghz will give you much faster encoding. Your H.264 encoding times seem about right for your PCs. Using CQ (RF) mode will give you probably the fastest encodes.

EDIT: Looking at the chart Baldrick linked to, you could use a Celeron 1.6Ghz dual core CPU for comparison. The benchmark would be around 16 - 18. My CPU is overclocked and water cooled and would be about 90 on the same chart.

Is that chart just showing a rating, or is the number the FPS? On the Celeron 1.6 (with only 512 Ram), it's showing 18.7....If that's FPS it's WAY higher than what I'm getting with a bit faster computer....(Now 1.3 FPS)

[redwudz]

No, those numbers are just reference numbers from their comparison tests.

1.3 FPS does sound a bit slow, but I don't have anything available here with a 1.6Ghz CPU to compare.

Encoding is almost all CPU speed related. Faster CPU, faster encodes. H.264 can also use multiple cores. When I do H.264 encodes all cores are at 100% CPU. You might check your Task Manager and see what % of CPU you are using, along with how much RAM. RAM doesn't have much to do with encoding, but I would suggest 4GB for most 32bit operating systems. Low amounts of RAM can slow the computer operation. Usually 2GB is plenty for XP, but Vista and Windows 7 operate better with 4GB.

Another issue that can slow encodes somewhat is how many hard drives you have. With laptops, the single boot drive also has to manage the OS and computer at the same time it's doing an encode. But most times the encodes are slow enough that the OS can still do it's work without interfering with the encoding process. Check your Task Manager and also observe how much your hard drive light flickers. I use at least three hard drives in most of my PCs. A small fast boot drive, then two other large drives for editing and storage.

When I did use a somewhat slower quad core computer (3.0Ghz), my RipBot BD>MKV conversion times were about 8 hours. Having six cores and running at 3.5Ghz made quite a bit of difference. But even now I run my encodes overnight. Both RipBot and HandBrake can be set to shut down the PC after encoding is finished.

If you are also using an external BD drive over USB, that can also slow things down. If you're not doing it, I would rip the BDs to the PC hard drive and encode from there instead of directly from the BD drive.

[JR.S]

No, those numbers are just reference numbers from their comparison tests.

1.3 FPS does sound a bit slow, but I don't have anything available here with a 1.6Ghz CPU to compare.

Encoding is almost all CPU speed related. Faster CPU, faster encodes. H.264 can also use multiple cores. When I do H.264 encodes all cores are at 100% CPU. You might check your Task Manager and see what % of CPU you are using, along with how much RAM. RAM doesn't have much to do with encoding, but I would suggest 4GB for most 32bit operating systems. Low amounts of RAM can slow the computer operation. Usually 2GB is plenty for XP, but Vista and Windows 7 operate better with 4GB.

Another issue that can slow encodes somewhat is how many hard drives you have. With laptops, the single boot drive also has to manage the OS and computer at the same time it's doing an encode. But most times the encodes are slow enough that the OS can still do it's work without interfering with the encoding process. Check your Task Manager and also observe how much your hard drive light flickers. I use at least three hard drives in most of my PCs. A small fast boot drive, then two other large drives for editing and storage.

When I did use a somewhat slower quad core computer (3.0Ghz), my RipBot BD>MKV conversion times were about 8 hours. Having six cores and running at 3.5Ghz made quite a bit of difference. But even now I run my encodes overnight. Both RipBot and HandBrake can be set to shut down the PC after encoding is finished.

If you are also using an external BD drive over USB, that can also slow things down. If you're not doing it, I would rip the BDs to the PC hard drive and encode from there instead of directly from the BD drive.

Sounds like it's about as fast as it's gonna' get for my machines...thanks for the input.

I guess I could just do them on the laptop, put it on the dresser in the closet for a day and let it go!!

Is it hard on a slower processor to do this a lot? The laptop is my computer for my DJ business, would hate for the processor to get overworked and take a dump encoding movies.....Have to have it 4 nights a week for business.

[edDV]

I've got a Compaq Athlon 64 TK-55 X2 laptop and use handbreak to recode SD TS TV captures to h.264. I do this unattended because the CPU is running 100%. Watch ventilation, Athlons run hot. HD takes forever, even 1280x720p.

[redwudz]

With any PC doing long encodes, it might be a good idea to run something like the freeware version of HW Monitor: http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/hwmonitor.html

Check your temps at idle and a hour or two into the encode. Overheating any CPU can cause problems.

That way you would have an idea if it handles it well enough. With a laptop, I would set it on a bit of a stand to raise up the bottom of the laptop to ensure good ventilation.

[edDV]

With any PC doing long encodes, it might be a good idea to run something like the freeware version of HW Monitor: http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/hwmonitor.html

Check your temps at idle and a hour or two into the encode. Overheating any CPU can cause problems.

That way you would have an idea if it handles it well enough. With a laptop, I would set it on a bit of a stand to raise up the bottom of the laptop to ensure good ventilation.

I use ceramic coasters to raise the back about an inch. Be sure to not block the exhaust vent.