Help to buy a new PC

[fullhdfan]

Hi !

I would like to buy a new PC and need your advice. The most computing-intensive task of my computer is the video conversion. Being 12 years old, it has always performed poorly at this. The configuration I have in mind for my new PC is a quad core CPU/at least 3 GHz and DDR4 RAM. In my previous post I uploaded a test file which can be found at the following link ("the original"):

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/396395-interlaced-conversion-stuttering

Could anyone of you with the PC configuration above download this file and convert it using the x264 codec in Avidemux with default parameters ( except 2 : set IDC level to 4 and CRF to 23) ? It took 12 minutes to my PC to perform the conversion. A speed comparison would greatly influence my buying decision.


thanks

[aedipuss]

it took 4 minutes with an old i7 2600k.


[Attachment 52618 - Click to enlarge]

[fullhdfan]

Cpu speed ? Did you set the priority to " high" during encoding ?

[aedipuss]

Cpu speed ? Did you set the priority to " high" during encoding ?

it's a 3.4 cpu set at "below normal"

[fullhdfan]

Could you run it again under the same conditions and set the priority to "high" ?

[jagabo]

CBR to 23

What does that mean? And why aren't you encoding interlaced?

At CRF=23, IDC 4, (not specifying interlaced) my i9 9900K took 54 seconds. 100 percent CPU usage (0 percent at idle). Same time at Below Normal and High priority. Switching to TFF, took 66 seconds.

Oops, The original numbers I posted were at all x264 default settings. The above numbers are updated for the with the settings specified.

[fullhdfan]

Setting the priority to high makes the avidemux run faster. The above value of 12 min is the maximum value i've got from my PC in terms of speed. CRF .- constant rate
factor - first tab in x264's settings, 23 - the highest value in order to keep video quality acceptable. Lower values are better but more computing-intensive(chosen for compromise between quality and speed.)
Sorry, my mistake , its CRF which should be set to 23, not CBR( constant bit rate.)

[jagabo]

Setting the priority to high makes the avidemux run faster.

Only if you have some other CPU hungry process running at the same time. A properly set up system should be near 0 percent CPU usage at idle, and there will be no significant difference in encoding time even between idle and highest priority.

[fullhdfan]

Buying a new PC makes sense only if the new one is at least 5-10 times faster than my old one.

[fullhdfan]

You're right. But strangely, although the avidemux was the only process running at some given time, changing the priority between the two extremes performed the conversion 2-3 times faster on my PC( happened not just once). Weird, really.

[jagabo]

Never mind.

[fullhdfan]

CBR to 23

What does that mean? And why aren't you encoding interlaced?

At CRF=23, IDC 4, (not specifying interlaced) my i9 9900K took 54 seconds. 100 percent CPU usage (0 percent at idle). Same time at Below Normal and High priority. Switching to TFF, took 66 seconds..

I have encoded all my videos interlaced, as i said in my other post. It took days. The settings above in this post are for test purposes only. The TIME of your conversions is very valuable to me.

[fullhdfan]

@jagabo

Thanks. It seems that, under same conditions, your PC is at least 10 times faster than mine( dual core CPU 2.13 GHz, DDR2 Ram 266 MHz).

[jagabo]

My 9 year old i5 2500K took 4 minutes and 7 seconds.

By the way, I don't use AviDemux much so I don't update regularly. The version I used was 2.7.1. A few years old.

[KarMa]

Or you could just look at existing benchmarks for x264. https://openbenchmarking.org/showdown/pts/x264 I recently went from a FX-6300 to a R5 3600, and got around 4 times the encoding speed with x264 medium in my own personal tests. This benchmark I linked to claims only 3 times faster between the 6300 and 3600, so I'm not sure how that happened besides the fact that I can't find their settings.

[Brad]

I uninstalled my old Avidemux and installed the newest version listed on this site. I don't know if it deleted my Preferences. The x264 profile it loaded was Custom based on ultrafast. Then I changed those 2 settings you mentioned.

Approx 5m37s using this old Win7 machine built in... 2010? AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE, 8GB DDR3.


[Attachment 52619 - Click to enlarge]

[jagabo]

The x264 profile it loaded was Custom based on ultrafast.

The default in my version is "Use advanced configuration". Even though it shows Ultrafast in the preset pulldown the default for the advanced configuration is Medium. You can see this by checking output file with MediaInfo. All the x264 settings conform to its Medium preset.

[Brad]

Ah, that makes more sense. Seems really slow for ultrafast.

Writing library                : x264 core 146 r2538 121396c
Encoding settings              : cabac=1 / ref=3 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x133 / me=hex / subme=7 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=6 / lookahead_threads=1 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=23.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00

[jagabo]

Just to check, I downloaded the latest portable nightly build. The encoding time was the same as the older version I was using. It also used the Medium x264 preset.

[KarMa]

Avidemux 2.7.1 x64

After the input from jagobo about default being x264 Medium, I just manually used medium x264 - tuning none - profile baseline - IDC level 4 - crf 23

Encoding time was just a few seconds under a minute. (around 58 seconds)

AMD R5 3600

[Attachment 52624 - Click to enlarge]

If I change the profile from baseline to high, I have an encode time of 1 minute 8 seconds.

Through the encoding I only got around 80% CPU usage which is unusual for me with x264 on medium, but I don't ever use Avidemux.

[Brad]

Through the encoding I only got around 80% CPU usage which is unusual for me with x264 on medium, but I don't ever use Avidemux.

Maybe your source decoder couldn't keep up?

[KarMa]

Through the encoding I only got around 80% CPU usage which is unusual for me with x264 on medium, but I don't ever use Avidemux.

Maybe your source decoder couldn't keep up?

Yeah that's usually the problem. Plus I think avidemux does a yuv to rgb to yuv conversion in my experience.


Edit: I also thought I would try encoding outside of Avidemux, using Megui+x264+LAV Fitlers/Directshow (for GPU decoding). This caused x264 to be nearly 100% usage, but the file sizes don't match at all.

Megui Encoding (decoded with both LAV Filters and FFDShow, similar results)

Format                         : AVC
Format/Info                    : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                 : Baseline@L4
Format settings                : 3 Ref Frames
Format settings, CABAC         : No
Format settings, Reference fra : 3 frames
Codec ID                       : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
Duration                       : 2 min 44 s
Bit rate                       : 14.3 Mb/s
Width                          : 1 920 pixels
Height                         : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio           : 16:9
Frame rate mode                : Constant
Frame rate                     : 25.000 FPS
Color space                    : YUV
Chroma subsampling             : 4:2:0
Bit depth                      : 8 bits
Scan type                      : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)             : 0.276
Stream size                    : 280 MiB (100%)
Writing library                : x264 core 157 r2935 545de2f
Encoding settings              : cabac=0 / ref=3 / deblock=1:-1:-1 / analyse=0x1:0x111 / me=hex / subme=7 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=18 / lookahead_threads=3 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=0 / weightp=0 / keyint=300 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=23.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / vbv_maxrate=20000 / vbv_bufsize=25000 / crf_max=0.0 / nal_hrd=none / filler=0 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
Default                        : Yes

Avidemux Encoding

Format                         : AVC
Format/Info                    : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                 : Baseline@L4
Format settings                : 3 Ref Frames
Format settings, CABAC         : No
Format settings, Reference fra : 3 frames
Codec ID                       : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
Duration                       : 2 min 44 s
Bit rate                       : 9 642 kb/s
Width                          : 1 920 pixels
Height                         : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio           : 16:9
Frame rate mode                : Constant
Frame rate                     : 25.000 FPS
Original frame rate            : 50.000 FPS
Color space                    : YUV
Chroma subsampling             : 4:2:0
Bit depth                      : 8 bits
Scan type                      : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)             : 0.186
Stream size                    : 189 MiB (95%)
Writing library                : x264 core 152 r2854 e9a5903
Encoding settings              : cabac=0 / ref=3 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x1:0x111 / me=hex / subme=7 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=18 / lookahead_threads=3 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=0 / weightp=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=23.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
Default                        : Yes

I have no idea why the files are so different, but the Avidemux version is noticeably softer.

[Brad]

Deblock & keyint settings are different, and Megui added: "vbv_maxrate=20000 / vbv_bufsize=25000 / crf_max=0.0 / nal_hrd=none / filler=0 /"

[jagabo]

Also, both Karma's encodings used no bframes. The default medium preset uses 3 bframes. My, Brad, and fullhdfan's AviDemx encodings used 3 bframes.

[DB83]

From another perspective...


Is 12 mins slow ? I ran the encode with my 'dog' and it was going to take 28+


But is the only purpose in getting a new PC to get faster encodes to save you some disk space. If that is so then surely better to spend the money on some external storage and move the files to there (in fact get two so that one performs a back-up function of the other). Certainly cheaper than investing in new hardware.


Yet I read that, for whatever reason, you can now encode at 50% of the time. Save your money and still invest in the external storage.

[KarMa]

Also, both Karma's encodings used no bframes. The default medium preset uses 3 bframes. My, Brad, and fullhdfan's AviDemx encodings used 3 bframes.

Lol, this is the problem with vague encoding directions. Looks like it's a Baseline vs Main or higher issue. With Baseline not having B frames, which I used. When using High profile in Avidemux I got a 1minute and 8 second encode as I mentioned above.

[jagabo]

Further... I notice that AviDemux varies from the x264 defaults for qpmin and qpmax. x264 CLI uses 0 and 69, AviDemux 10 and 51.

[jagabo]

Since I have a few other computer around the house...

A dual core Athlon 2 X2 255 (3.1 GHz) took 12 minutes and 30 seconds at Below Normal priority. At High priority it took 8 seconds less.

A 1.5 GHz quad core Celeron J4105 took about 7 minutes. Ffmpeg using that CPU's Quick Sync h.264 encoder took about 43 seconds.

[fullhdfan]

@DB83

You're right. The main reason I performed the conversion is to save some HDD space on my PC.
The videos taken by my 10 year old camera are not a good quality source, altough FullHD and despite a high bitrate (22MBps). Besides, the camera lacks CABAC - after conversion I got 50% reduction in filesize of the initial 40 GB of videos. Some time ago an acqaintance came to me with his 4 wedding DVDs to put them on the USB stick. After the conversion to h264 those couple of hours turned into a couple of GB with no noticeable quality loss. Isn't that great? Besides, he can have the wedding on the phone's SD card and share it with his friends/relatives or watch it on TV using DLNA - more practical than carrying along 4 DVDs . The same applies for my converted videos.

I agree with you, the conversion is not an every day thing , so a new PC is not necessarily a "must have" at this moment. I want to have an image of what value i get for a certain amount of money and whether it's worth it at the moment. I have a low-range Samsung phone. It lacks B frames, has an acceptable image quality (better than my old video camera), but for that image quality produces a double file size on average. I don't know whether the majority of phones have such "flaw", maybe the hardware is not powerful enough do a good compression in real time. So, to conclude, I will still perform the conversions at some points in the future.

Thank you all for your help, especially to

@jagabo

I came to the conclusion that the configuration I initially wanted (or put in other words - the max amount of money ready to spend) is on average only 3-4 times faster than my current PC. Much better configurations (10-12 times faster) have a double price on average. Another option would be the intel's "quick sync" but I'm pretty sceptical when it comes to hardware encoding. When one archives the videos, one does it once for all at maximal quality and minimal bitrate.
I will just wait and see what the future holds and get something better than now for the same price.