New Encoder Rig build - which CPU/how many cores?

[vhelp]

If anyone has "The Matrix" on bluray, do test your encodes methods and compare. Dark scenes are hard to do and I just give up on them. I take the hit and move on. Anyway. I hope others have this disc. Its actaully pretty good quality. Has mild to mid film grain. Looks good. But the dark scenes is too much for me to deal with.

The sample clip is the opening scene. Here are the avisynth trim() sequence I used, so that you can put them together in your encode. If you want. Its ugly, I know. But I couldn't get it any better. Maybe you know a better way. Here's the script:

About the script. I did not use any of the color conversions, except for the last two lines. I was testing viersion "rec" conversion and was not satisfied w/ the results. posterization artifacts were still dominated in those dark scenes, and i'm not going to 10 or 10 encodes. Anyway. These samples is just for test purposes.

  v = "g:\src\src.THE_MATRIX.theatrical.1980x1080.mkv" # 

  LoadPlugin( "c:\PLUGINS\ffms2.32b.dll" ) # i renamed ffms2 because there is 32/64 bit versions
  FFVideoSource(v, fpsnum=23976, fpsden=1000)

# convertToYV12( matrix="pc.601" )
# ConvertToYV12( matrix="pc.709" )
# ConvertToRGB32(matrix="Rec601").ConvertToYV12(matrix="Rec709")
# ColorMatrix(mode="Rec.601->Rec.709") #, clamp=1)
# ColorMatrix(mode="Rec.709->Rec.601") #, clamp=1)
# ColorYUV( levels="PC->TV" )
# Levels(16, 1, 235, 0, 255, coring=false)
# Levels(0, 1, 255, 16, 235, coring=true)#false)

  a=trim(    0,  731   ) # 
  b=trim(  911,  982   ) # 
  c=trim( 2048, 2976-1 ) # 
  d=trim( 4042, 5387   ) # 
  e=a+b+c+d
  last=e

  ConvertToYUY2( interlaced=false ) 
  ConvertToYV12( interlaced=false )

[jagabo]

Dark scenes are hard to do and I just give up on them. I take the hit and move on.

Yes, x264 isn't great with dark scenes but qs is especially bad.

[vhelp]

agreed.

i wanted to post all three clips, x264, qs and x265 but i forgot to remove the subtitle text and encoded the same text in all files

will have to redo those and post them up tomorrow. I'll post the qs, shortly. it is very late for me and i will only stay up to upload that and close down for tonight.

[vhelp]

The x264 encoded version is mildly better and with much less (noticeable) posterization though you won't notice any of that while playing on a tablet or laptop. But on a large screen tv, you will. I will try and post that sample sometime tomorrow. The file size gauge for this sample test encode was for 130 MB. So hitting it at +/- 30 MB is a good closing distance to expect out of QS versus x264.

Below, is the Intel Quick Sync encoded video on my Dell Inspiron laptop w/ a i3-2370M cpu and media sdk api v1.4 and I used the latest version QSVEnc v2.60 to encode. The file size met with my expectation from the x264 encode, above. I picked this bluray up at Bestbuy for $7 dollars. It was their Trilogy disc set. I only liked the 1st movie, the 2nd and 3rd, IMOH, were too rushed and most of the stars looked like they were bored and just wanted to get the movie done and over with. Anyway. Until tomorrow..

[ezcapper]

Just for fun, you might be interested in these beautiful 5 Mbps HEVC Quick Sync Tests ayziggy did with a skylake desktop:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/381261-Intel-HD-530-%28GT2%29-Quick-Sync-h265-%28HEVC%29

I know you aren't interested in HEVC but it really is beautiful to look at these and see what the future holds

[vhelp]

ok. i found the two compare clips that i wanted to post a few weeks ago but lost. i'll upload those two and you guys can play around with the idea of which encoder did what. this is no about analyzing the clips in a timeline pausing at frames to review but to observe on a cheap display (tablets and laptops) versus a decent monitor versus a large screen tv etc. if try stop to analyze it frame to frame then you ruin the perception--and fun anyway. i forgot which one was which. i labeled them clip a and clip b, no order of which was encoded first. i had c, d and e also but can't find those files. oh well. but let me post those before i head out to work. i should really have started another thread as i originally planned. anyway...uploading the first clip now...

EDIT: these clips have been moved to a new thread.

[vhelp]

received this message three times, changed names several times, etc. i give up. 22 minutes each upload, too much time and late for work:

video.2.1.063.20161210sat.5thelement.a.03.crf.00.l q.ufast.clip.b.hevc - Invalid File

EDIT: I believe the issue happens because .hevc is not part of the friendly filename like .mkv is. I wil update as an zip file instead.

I will start a new thread. See you there..

[ezcapper]

Thanks!

[Rev Jim Jones]

A lot to take in here. Thanks for all the input. Sounds like QS is still not there overall, but making headway.

As suggested the only way forward is to just do it and see what comes out. A lot more reading ahead i think,

[Rev Jim Jones]

Just want to clarify something here.....

Quick Sync under Kaby Lake. The encoding power of QS is the same regardless of the CPU family itself ?

What i mean is,

1/QS using an i3 or an i7 is going to crunch video data at the same speed and quality right? There is no benefit to going for an i7 over an i3 if it is purely encoding i am looking for?

OR

2/ Or will a desktop Kaby lake Quadcore i7 7700K Quick Sync encoding setup outperform an a dual core i3 Kaby Lake Quick Sync encoding session?

I am pretty sure its 1 but want ot be sure i have understood this correctly.

Thanks for any advice.

[ezcapper]

Just want to clarify something here.....

Quick Sync under Kaby Lake. The encoding power of QS is the same regardless of the CPU family itself ?

What i mean is,

1/QS using an i3 or an i7 is going to crunch video data at the same speed and quality right? There is no benefit to going for an i7 over an i3 if it is purely encoding i am looking for?

OR

2/ Or will a desktop Kaby lake Quadcore i7 7700K Quick Sync encoding setup outperform an a dual core i3 Kaby Lake Quick Sync encoding session?


I am pretty sure its 1 but want ot be sure i have understood this correctly.

Thanks for any advice.

According to intel, the quality will depend on version of the hd graphics gpu. For example a 7700k has 630, whereas a a 7200u has a 620, so the 7700k supposedly will be slightly faster/better. The i3 on the acer laptop you were looking at has a 620. But an i3-7100 51w tdp processor with a 630 should have the same performance as the 7700k

The next step up over the 7700k is the Iris Pro 640/650 which intel claims has a 40% quicksync improvement:
machine:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc7i5bnk.html
article:
http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/intel-launches-7th-gen-cpus-5-thing-need-know

[Rev Jim Jones]

Thanks for that !!!

That saves hours or research.

Love this place - all the info you could ever need about video is here

[Rev Jim Jones]

right so poking around researching various models released - everything so far is still HD620.

So if i were to go for HD620 then the Acer is still the way to go.

What i need to figure out for myself is it worth waiting for and paying for a laptop with Iris Pro 650?

I only want this laptop for encoding with QS. I think it is a compelling idea for *MY* needs. The nooks i bought second hand arrived, all working, all in perfect condition - not a scratch or blemish on them. That Nook HD+ screen is simply drop dead gorgeous - these will be my movie watching machines on the go, in bed, etc. SO i need to enode for them and i think QS sounds the way to go here.

Well thats the theory.

[Rev Jim Jones]

Nice table here explaining which CPU has what graphics engine.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10959/intel-launches-7th-generation-kaby-lake-i7-7700k-i...7600k-i3-7350k

As stated my interest here is purely QS encoding.

And too think i had never heard of it until i got converted here

Edit : to heck with it.....may as well go for this one ; i7-7567U

[jagabo]

I think you should take those Intel Marketing claims with a grain of salt. For example, this old video:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/quick-sync-video/qu...ync-video.html

claims Quick Sync is "up to 16x faster". But if you look at the small print at the end they are comparing an i5 4200U (QS) to a much older Core 2 Duo P8600 (CPU). If they had chosen to compare to the same CPU running x264 in veryfast mode there would be much less difference between the speed of the two.

The chart at laptopmag indicates Iris has 40 percent better performance than Intel HD graphics -- but they don't say which Intel HD graphics. They may be comparing to previous generations. I would wait for independent benchmarks before drawing any conclusions.

[Rev Jim Jones]

Sure - there is only common sense in that point of view and i concur.

However, every little counts. a few percent here, a few percent there......it all adds up.

I have never seen a QS encode in the flesh as it were, so i am flying on blind faith here. But so many here couldnt be wrong - there has to be something to this QS thing. SO that CPU i indicated - its the fastest laptop Kaby Lake CPU coming out. SO may as well have as much grunt under the hood as possible. If QS doesnt cut it, a beefy CPU can fall back to software H264. It all makes sense from that point of view.

So far nothing that i can find that's been released and is actually available has anything higher then HD620.

Better to go for the highest quality available in this generation. Thats Iris 650. Know to find one. I am sure CES will reveal many new laptops on the way with KL.

[Rev Jim Jones]

As an aside to all that.....

Can RipBot 264 use multiple QS encoding engines in a distributed encode session on a file ? Ie, could 2 Acer laptops use thier QS engines in a distributed QS encode using Ripbot 264?

[jagabo]

I have never seen a QS encode in the flesh as it were, so i am flying on blind faith here.

I've used QS on my i5 2500K (Sandy Bridge), an i3 4130T (Haswell), and a Celeron N3150 (Braswell). Quality per bitrate falls a little below x264 at the veryfast preset. Speed on the i5 2500K is about 2x x264 at the veryfast preset.

[ezcapper]

maybe jagabo do an encode for him with the braswell like tears of steel or something. Maybe braswell will be good enough for you Rev_Jim_Jones

[Rev Jim Jones]

Hi Ez,

The more i read about QS the more i am wanting to go this route. It seems to be a fit for my particular needs. So if the Iris 650 gives a better and faster result than HD620 then that's the way to go.

The Acer seems to be an amazing little machine for what it does. Even HD620 is a step above Silver Lake. But if better is obtainable then that's the way to go. Or wait for cannon lake lol.

WIth CES happening right now it would be foolish to push the order button. I am interested to see what laptops come out with the i7-7567U with the Iris 650 onboard. Thats a high freq CPU - so good for software H264 as well - all bases covered to kick off experimenting with all this to see longer term where i want to go with all this.

I know software h264 will be in my future for sure. And i will get to a rig for that particular purpose. But for the small files i need for the Nook HD+ (amazing screen guys - really for the money check'em out plus cyanogenmod takes them up to MM) i am liking the idea of a laptop with several HDD's with QS to encode. A portable encoder that can also be connected to the big screen TV as a mini portable HTPC.

IF the latest QS using Iris 650 can knock them out faster with almost as good a quality (remember - end use is 9" screen) then this sounds worth pursuing.

[jagabo]

I am interested to see what laptops come out with the i7-7567U with the Iris 650 onboard. Thats a high freq CPU - so good for software H264 as well

Not really. It's only two cores with hyperthreading.

[Rev Jim Jones]

ahhh - but this comes back to my original question - more cores or higher Feq CPU.

More cores up to a point seems to be the answer for software h264 - but no clear definitive answer i have come across so far.

Up to around 20 cores is the ultimate maximum it seems or somewhere close to there for 1080p encodes - 4K encodes will allow more cores. Beyond that and performance goes down. Its a complex subject - so i have found out.

From what i have read, the sweet spot would be a Quad core Broadwell high freq CPU if Intel based.

Lets see what Ryzen brings to the party.

But for a laptop, heat is going to be an issue for heavy encoding sessions. So a bigger beefy laptop may serve better as it will be setup with better cooling. Is a quad core CPU in a laptop chassis encoding for hours a good idea? Do more cores encoding produce more heat ?

I think all things considered it may well end up that the ACER hit the spot and the rest of all this turns out to be a waste of time. If one wants a laptop QS encoder that is - pretty small population who fit that demographic i am sure

[jagabo]

ahhh - but this comes back to my original question - more cores or higher Feq CPU.

More cores up to a point seems to be the answer for software h264 - but no clear definitive answer i have come across so far.

A 4 core, 8 thread CPU of the same generation and clock speed as a 2 core, 4 thread CPU will be pretty close to twice as fast encoding with x264. You won't find a 2 core, 4 thread CPU that's clocked twice as fast.

[Rev Jim Jones]

I think you should take those Intel Marketing claims with a grain of salt. For example, this old video:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/quick-sync-video/qu...ync-video.html

claims Quick Sync is "up to 16x faster". But if you look at the small print at the end they are comparing an i5 4200U (QS) to a much older Core 2 Duo P8600 (CPU). If they had chosen to compare to the same CPU running x264 in veryfast mode there would be much less difference between the speed of the two.

The chart at laptopmag indicates Iris has 40 percent better performance than Intel HD graphics -- but they don't say which Intel HD graphics. They may be comparing to previous generations. I would wait for independent benchmarks before drawing any conclusions.

this...... http://www.techradar.com/news/intels-newest-kaby-lake-processors-will-give-your-hard-d...sd-like-speeds


Putting the Plus in Iris graphics

Although we’ve already seen a few U-series chips come to Ultrabooks like the Razer Blade Stealth, Intel held back on introducing its next generation Iris Plus graphics found on an even higher-end set of U-series processors.

Intel claims its latest integrated graphics technology affords users with 65% higher 3D graphics performance and the ability to create videos 40% faster.

You might think that’s a comparison with last generation Skylake chip, however, Intel is actually showing the difference between the new Core i7-7567U chip and its previously best Core i7-7500U mobile processor.

Intel’s new U-series (15W) lineup is as follows:

2.2Ghz Intel i5-7260U (dual-core, 4MB cache, up to 3.4GHz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640)
2.3Ghz Intel i5-7360U (dual-core, 4MB cache, up to 3.6GHz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640)
2.4Ghz Intel i7-7560U (dual-core, 4MB cache, up to 3.7GHz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640)
2.5GHz Intel i7-7567U (dual-core, 4MB cache, up to 3.8GHz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640)
Intel’s new U-series (28W) lineup is as follows:

2.8GHz Intel Core i3-7167U (dual-core, 3MB cache, up to 2.8GHz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650)
3.1GHz Intel Core i5-7267U (dual-core, 4MB cache, up to 3.5GHz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650)
3.3GHz Intel Core i5-7287U (dual-core, 4MB cache, up to 3.7GHz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650)
3.5GHz Intel Core i7-7567U (dual-core, 4MB cache, up to 3.9GHz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650)

[ezcapper]

After reading the first anandtech article you posted. I really think the iris plus would be a mistake. I was thinking it was a continuation of iris pro. It will be very expensive.

I agree with Jagabo if you have to do software encoding, you're better off with an desktop core processor. For software encoding, the generation will not matter that much. Like the one article mentioned, a second generation i7-2600k is faster (will perform better) than the newest i3. Anandtech publishes x264 benchmarks for many popular processors that will give you a 2 pass fps.

I think if you are going for both software encoding and hardware encoding, a computer such as this would fit your needs at under $400:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Inspiron-3250-Desktop-i5-6400-Quad-Core-8GB-Ram-1TB-DVD-R...8AAOSw-CpYBFw8

for just hardware encoding only, honestly I don't think you can do much better than the i3-7100u mini pcs/laptops. Those mobile i5's and i7's are not worth the inflated price at all in my opinion.

for software encoding only, ryzen will probably be the best value

[jagabo]

You might think that’s a comparison with last generation Skylake chip, however, Intel is actually showing the difference between the new Core i7-7567U chip and its previously best Core i7-7500U mobile processor.

But the 7500U is clocked 30 percent lower and doesn't have Iris. So you don't know how much of the difference is caused by the difference clock speed, Iris vs. HD graphics, and updates to the QS encoder.

[Rev Jim Jones]

You might think that’s a comparison with last generation Skylake chip, however, Intel is actually showing the difference between the new Core i7-7567U chip and its previously best Core i7-7500U mobile processor.

But the 7500U is clocked 30 percent lower and doesn't have Iris. So you don't know how much of the difference is caused by the difference clock speed, Iris vs. HD graphics, and updates to the QS encoder.

Agree with your assessment - but does it matter? If QS is 40% faster using that CPU part then whats important is the encode is 40% faster then the i7-7500U part.

Also the iris 650 QS is better quality then HD620 or even HD630. So all in all the Iris 650 is the way to go if QS encodes are important.

I agree for software encodes that Ryzen is probably going to be the way forward for now.

[Rev Jim Jones]

I agree with Jagabo if you have to do software encoding, you're better off with an desktop core processor.

Rev Jim Jones ; Totally agree here with you.

For software encoding, the generation will not matter that much. Like the one article mentioned, a second generation i7-2600k is faster (will perform better) than the newest i3.

Rev Jim Jones; Hmm i missed that bit. Need to go reread it.


Anandtech publishes x264 benchmarks for many popular processors that will give you a 2 pass fps.

Rev Jim Jones; Yes need to look those up

for just hardware encoding only, honestly I don't think you can do much better than the i3-7100u mini pcs/laptops.

Rev Jim Jones; I tend to agree - it still comes down to the ACER - that is a sweet little machine for the price.

Those mobile i5's and i7's are not worth the inflated price at all in my opinion.

[I]Rev Jim Jones ; not sure about that - Iris 650 may be worth the premium - not sure how much of a quality and time leap we are talking here

for software encoding only, ryzen will probably be the best value

I think Ryzen will mix it up a bit for desktop software encodes - lets see where that goes.

I am in kind of a hurry to re-encode some files to take on an extended break so will probably have to settle on the ACER - not sure yet if i should wait or order now.

[jagabo]

Agree with your assessment - but does it matter? If QS is 40% faster using that CPU part then whats important is the encode is 40% faster then the i7-7500U part.

Only if that was your only other choice.

Also the iris 650 QS is better quality then HD620 or even HD630.

Are you sure about that? I've seen no definitive demonstration.

[Rev Jim Jones]

no not sure at all - was under the impression that QS 630 is a little better then QS 620 etc so therefore Iris 650 would be better then 615,620,630 etc.

But no, dont know that to be fact - just assumed from what i have read all over the place.