x264 CPU benchmark - Compare different CPUs encoding the same file

[redwudz]

Thanks, Soopafresh. I never noticed the 'Registers Dump'. A lot of good information there, especially with the latest version.

[Guiboche]

Here ya go

guibochecpu.rar

[Webster]

running Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.95 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.04 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.42 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.29 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.32 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.03 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.97 fps, 1826.20 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.09 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.08 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.07 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

[Webster]

Running WindowXP Pro (32bit)


---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.67 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.63 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.82 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.59 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.67 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.60 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.63 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.60 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.60 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.60 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

[Webster]

Here is a blazing sempron running Window Vista home premium

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.92 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 24.15 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.88 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.71 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 23.85 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 5.64 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 5.73 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 5.66 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 5.62 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 5.65 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

[Webster]

From a Dell laptop running WindowXP Pro:


---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 40.75 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.43 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.81 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.85 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.03 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 9.97 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.32 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.32 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.09 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.09 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

[budz]

@budz - thanks for the data... what are the timings for your p4 results?

timings are 3 3 3 8 2T, 300mhz.

[graysky]

@webster - thanks all all the data; table will be updated shortly.

[Webster]

@graysky

Just a note, the Pentium D Presler processors are considered of having 2 cores (unlike the celeron D which only have one core)
Also the T2300 Yonah is also a dual core professor

[graysky]

cool, thanks for the corrections

[ChrissyBoy]

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (Conroe)
3060.1 MHz (9.0 x 340.0 MHz)
Intel P965/G965 rev. C2
XP Pro SP 2

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 75.03 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 79.84 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 80.71 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 79.00 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 82.00 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.99 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.23 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.15 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.44 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.43 fps, 1826.37 kb/s


cpuz.txt

[graysky]

Thanks for the result -- will update soon

[jkleslie]

E6600@3.2GHz (8*400) + 2GB PC6400@800MHz (2-5-5-5-18 )
XPSP2 32-bit

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 88.41 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 82.73 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 85.06 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 85.91 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 84.67 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.83 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.77 fps, 1826.20 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 21.16 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.76 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.74 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

EDIT:

Uploaded registers dump for CPUZ.

cpuz.txt

[graysky]

Cool, thanks for the data!

[jkleslie]

I have some additional systems I can run this on as well. D805, D915, D920, E6300, E4300@2.4GHz and an X2 3800+. I'll run them as soon as I get some time.

[graysky]

As of 20-Sep-2007, we have data on over 100 Intel-based systems and on over 40 AMD-based systems. There are a few trends I picked-up on while browsing through the database. I put them into a single table and color coded them to make them easier to see. If you see a trend I missed, lemme know and I'll add it to the table.

Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit.

On to the table:



Yellow: Nearly 1:1 increase by adding an additional processor to a dual-chip MB
Orange: Some operating systems seem to handle x264 more efficiently than others
Red: Insignificant gain by upping the DRAM speed by 50 %
Blue: For the most part, these chips scale in a pretty linear fashion
Green: Tighter/looser memory timings have a pretty insignificant effect
Purple: Keeping the same over-all clock speed using a different combo of multiplier and FSB can give pretty insignificant gains

Again, I only gave this a once-over look; please point out any trends you see that I missed and also don't forgot about the O/S request!

Thanks again to all who contributed!

[rhegedus]

Excellent work!!!

[The old guy]

As of 20-Sep-2007, Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit.

My laptop has 2 drives: XP SP2 and Vista Home. I'll assume that fits the above close enuff and run the test on them. And it is an AMD processor.

be back in a while.....

[The old guy]

AMD TL-52

XP SP2:



---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.71 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.38 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.81 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.41 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 40.31 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.23 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 9.68 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 8.68 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.09 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 9.86 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

Vista Home:


---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.86 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.65 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.66 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.62 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 43.62 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.48 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.42 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.48 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.46 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.44 fps, 1826.37 kb/s




cpuzamdtl-52.txt

[redwudz]

Interesting data. Fast is better it seems. More cores, even better.

A lot of OC'd processors. But that also makes you wonder about CPU temps and longevity of the CPU.

Just to post the site for the results again so you won't have to go back to a earlier part of this thread: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=442&pgno=0

And thanks for all of this, graysky, good info.

[rhegedus]

Do you have this data in xls form?

[Soopafresh]

MacPro QuadCore

macproquadcore.7z

The 8 Core scales better than I thought - it's just about 2X faster

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 116.60 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 107.63 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 118.46 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 119.46 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 119.47 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.60 fps, 1829.01 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 35.11 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 36.06 fps, 1829.30 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 36.06 fps, 1829.54 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 35.95 fps, 1829.37 kb/s

[graysky]

@soopa - Thanks for the new data; what o/s is it running?

[Soopafresh]

The O/S is posted towards the bottom of the CPU-Z reports. In this case, XP 64

[graysky]

Didn't see that... thanks.

[Soopafresh]

No probs

Here's the exact same 8 Core Mac Pro as on the first page, except it is running XP 64


---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 140.27 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 135.52 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 141.15 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 141.16 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 136.51 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 73.93 fps, 1835.13 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 74.62 fps, 1834.52 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 76.86 fps, 1835.16 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 74.47 fps, 1835.13 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 74.08 fps, 1835.18 kb/s

[graysky]

Cool man... doesn't seem to be much of a difference between 32/64. I wish there was an avisynth64 and x264.exe that was 64.

[jagabo]

Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it.

Pentium 4, 2.8 GHz, hyperthreaded, 1 GB DRAM

XP Pro (32 bit):
---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.95 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 26.13 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 25.88 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 26.03 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 26.09 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.14 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.14 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.11 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.10 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.12 fps, 1826.26 kb/s


Vista Ultimate (32 bit):
---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.83 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.90 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.44 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.27 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 22.02 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 4.81 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 4.49 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 4.89 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 5.59 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 5.68 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

cpuz.htm: cpuz.zip

[Soopafresh]

graysky- Avisynth 64 exists (and a handful of plugins, including Dgdecode), but I don't believe there's an X264 64bit exe.


Another interesting thing to try is setting the maximum amount of memory that Avisynth can allocate. This is done through the SetMemoryMax() commmand, usually at the top of the script. On jobs that need a lot of RAM, this change can make a significant difference. Memory intensive plugins include MVtools.


SetMemoryMax(512) #or whatever is half of the actual ram installed in a system
LoadPlugin("etc.....)

[graysky]

@jag - thanks for the data set. Can you report the multiplier and FSB, mem timings and settings, and northbridge chipset also?

@soopafresh - got a link to avisynth64 and dgdecode64? Too bad there aren't any x264-64.exe's out there.