VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I was wondering about the actual effects of a multicore processor's usefulness if the software it was using doesn't utilize the processor's full potential. Does any software out there use all cores of a processor where it would speed up encoding time? Dvd Rebuilder has that multithread/cores option where it will use all cores for encoding...speeding up the process. Is there HD software out there that does the same? Like Multiavchd or Sony Vegas or TMPG authoring works etc.

    I guess i'm wondering what exactly speeds up the encoding when you get a speedier processor...is it the speed of the processor or the multiple core/thread usage that does it.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Probably a little of both. I know the latest version of Sony Movie Studio (12) even uses the GPU for speedier rendering. However, there are some mixed comments about that from some users. The 64bit version seems to be faster as it can use more memory. I think Sony Vegas can use a certain amount of cores in the CPU for faster rendering. Don't know about Multiavchd or TMPG.
    Quote Quote  
  3. x264 is well multithreaded. So most tools that use it take good advantage of multicore CPUs.
    Quote Quote  
  4. ENTJ DrDeceit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    Out of the 18+ encoding/muxing tools I have

    almost every single one of them has a multithread option, and usually they will use the max threads for your processor
    Quote Quote  
  5. Xvid is an example of a poorly multithreaded encoder. There's hardly any improvement in encoding speed when going from 4 threads to 8 threads. Even the change from 2 threads to 4 threads isn't that great.
    Quote Quote  
  6. I use Handbrake 0.9.8 which is CPU only encoding, and outputting a h264 MP4 file from Bluray or dvd results in my 3770 CPU running at only 65% to 80% even on the more difficult encodes.

    If i use MediaConverter 7.5 to do a h264 MP4 it uses my HD4000 graphics chip on the cpu in Quick Sync mode and the same files can be done 2 to 3 times faster than using handbrakes CPU only encoding, but the CPU in mediaconverter only runs at 30% with the graphics doing a lot more of the work.

    mind you handbrakes output file is less than half the size of the mediaconverter output file.
    Quote Quote  
  7. All the GPU encoders are crap. They're fast (if you have a slow CPU) but their output is very poor quality compared to x264. If you have a quad core CPU or better, x264 at fast settings (eg, the veryfast preset) is as fast as GPU encoding and still has better quality.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    All the GPU encoders are crap. They're fast (if you have a slow CPU) but their output is very poor quality compared to x264. If you have a quad core CPU or better, x264 at fast settings (eg, the veryfast preset) is as fast as GPU encoding and still has better quality.
    hi, there is no way in hell that i can get handbrake (using normal preset) to encode anywhere near as fast as any other encoding program that uses Intel Quick Sync on my 3770 ivy bridge system (intel HD4000 graphics)

    mediaconverter has always been the fastest program i have used to convert using Quick Sync, and it will encode a file using almost identical settings up to 3 times faster than handbrake, but the handbrake output file is always more than half that of mediaconverter.

    tomorrow i am going to create a new thread and i will upload a 1.25min AVCHD file from my HD camcorder along with 3 outputs using handbrake and 3 outputs using mediaconverter (into my mediafire account) and i will post the download links for them, and write up an output settings list for each program, the output file size, and the encode time for each one.

    i want to seek opinions from other members here to see which converter does a better job.

    BTW, i should also mention that mediaconverter is also slightly faster than handbrake is when using CPU only encoding as well.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by glenpinn View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    All the GPU encoders are crap. They're fast (if you have a slow CPU) but their output is very poor quality compared to x264. If you have a quad core CPU or better, x264 at fast settings (eg, the veryfast preset) is as fast as GPU encoding and still has better quality.
    hi, there is no way in hell that i can get handbrake (using normal preset) to encode anywhere near as fast as any other encoding program that uses Intel Quick Sync on my 3770 ivy bridge system (intel HD4000 graphics)
    Handbrake's presets are slow. You have to manually change the individual settings to something like x264's "veryfast" preset.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Handbrake's presets are slow. You have to manually change the individual settings to something like x264's "veryfast" preset.
    so how does one get handbrake to encode faster, where do i find these presets.
    Quote Quote  
  11. hi, i just took a look at that thread and found the presets, but how does one apply one of those presets to x264 so handbrake outputs faster ???

    cheers
    Quote Quote  
  12. The important settings are on the Advanced tab after you've select h.264 (x264) as the encoder. Beyond that, you can type any others you need in the box at the bottom of the Advanced settings dialog. The most critical for speed are Reference frames, Motion Estimation Method, and Subpixel ME.
    Last edited by jagabo; 10th Oct 2012 at 20:25.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    The important settings are on the Advanced tab after you've select h.264 (x264) as the encoder. Beyond that, you can type any others you need in the box at the bottom of the Advanced settings dialog. The most critical for speed are Reference frames, Motion Estimation Method, and Subpixel ME.
    hi again, yes i actually tried to copy and paste the very fast preset from that link you posted just above, and it wouls not paste into that box at the bottom of handbrake, so i assume i just TYPE it exactly as it is typed in your preset list ???

    Aslo, am i really best to use the Normal profile (single pass) or High profile (single pass)

    cheers
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by glenpinn View Post
    so i assume i just TYPE it exactly as it is typed in your preset list ???
    No, Handbrake uses its own syntax there. Arguments are separated by colons. An example:

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/344902-Detelecine-decomb-issues?p=2151515&viewfull=1#post2151515

    Unfortunately that means you can't manually specify any x264 settings that include colons.

    Originally Posted by glenpinn View Post
    Aslo, am i really best to use the Normal profile (single pass) or High profile (single pass)
    Normal should be fine for DVD rips. Unless you're looking to squeeze the files as small as possible.
    Last edited by jagabo; 10th Oct 2012 at 20:50.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Normal should be fine for DVD rips.
    no i am no longer doing much in the way of DVD to MP4, sorted those out ages ago, and am pretty happy with them, my main concern now is for my 1080/50p AVCHD (m2ts) files from my new HDC-SDC750 camcorder that i want to drop to h264 MP4 using handbrake, but want the speed to be a lot faster than handbrake offers me.

    if i input a 1 hour avchd file (11.5gb) from my camcorder into handbrake and output to constant framerate/constant quality of RF20 and AAC stereo audio it takes about 1 hour to output, where mediaconverter using Quick Sync takes about 18 minutes, but handbrakes file size is way less than half that of mediaconverter.
    Quote Quote  
  16. It looks like the Normal preset in handbrake is pretty much the same as veryfast in x264. The High preset is about the same as x264's medium preset. What you choose also depends on any limitations of your intended playback device.

    The last time I ran comparisons with GPU encoding was about a year ago with a my i5 2500K (Sandy Bridge) CPU. I know Ivy Bridge's GPU encodes faster.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    It looks like the Normal preset in handbrake is pretty much the same as veryfast in x264. The High preset is about the same as x264's medium preset. What you choose also depends on any limitations of your intended playback device.

    The last time I ran comparisons with GPU encoding was about a year ago with a my i5 2500K (Sandy Bridge) CPU. I know Ivy Bridge's GPU encodes faster.
    Ouch, so it looks like i cant really improve on handbrakes speed if what you just said is about right.

    everthing i have read so far about cpu based vs gpu based encoding seems to point to cpu still having better output quality than gpu encoding, but i have come across something last night that surprised me, and that was when i did an avchd file to mp4 using mediaconverter and handbrake using a RF30 output, the mediaconverter output looks better than the handbrake one.

    anyway, i am in the process of uploading some sample to put up in a new thread tonight.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by glenpinn View Post
    Ouch, so it looks like i cant really improve on handbrakes speed if what you just said is about right.
    You can try settings equivalent to Superfast and Ultrafast. But I find file sizes balloon up quite a bit when you do that.

    Originally Posted by glenpinn View Post
    when i did an avchd file to mp4 using mediaconverter and handbrake using a RF30 output, the mediaconverter output looks better than the handbrake one.
    What was the average bitrate of the files? You need to compare by bitrate. And who would ever use CRF 30 anyway?
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    What was the average bitrate of the files? You need to compare by bitrate.
    this is wierd, i assumed both programs would use similar bitrates for each RF quality setting.

    these are 2 identical 5min outputs i recently did using both programs at RF20, and mediaconverter bitrate is nearly 3 times higher.





    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    And who would ever use CRF 30 anyway?
    no i would never do it, i just did an output at RF30 in both to see the difference, and after seeing the bitrates in both programs doing an RF20 output, now i know why the RF30 in mediaconverter looks a lot better than the handbrake one.

    it seems that the RF20 setting in handbrake is about 12,000br and the RF20 in mediaconverter is about 33,000br meaning to get equivelant quality files, i need to change the RF setting in mediaconverter to RF25 ot lower as they both seem to us different bitrates for the same RF quality.

    EDIT: i just did another encode of the 5min source file using mediaconverter in QS mode, and to get an output bitrate of 12,000 i need to use an RF27 quality setting where handbrake uses RF20 for to get a bitrate of 12,000

    even an RF25 in mediaconverter gives me a bitrate of 17,000 ???

    Also, i have just been looking very hard at a handbrake RF20 output and compared it to the mediaconverter RF25 and RF27 outputs and i cant really tell much between them.

    as i mentioned before, so as not to take this thread off topic, and given it is not my own thread, i will create a new thread and upload a series of encodes using both programs using various RF settings, and get someone in this forum to download them to see what they think, and i will include the bitrates for each RF output as a comparison.

    cheers
    Last edited by glenpinn; 10th Oct 2012 at 23:14.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Something is messed up with your comparison (besides the bitrate discrepancy) if the gspot screenshots are accurate: 50 fps vs . 30.03 fps ; 15,095 frames vs 9, 049 frames

    And you're right, you should ask a mod to split off this topic
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Something is messed up with your comparison (besides the bitrate discrepancy) if the gspot screenshots are accurate: 50 fps vs . 30.03 fps ; 15,095 frames vs 9, 049 frames
    here are the file properties



    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    And you're right, you should ask a mod to split off this topic
    i am posting up another thread tonight
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads