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 24 of 24
Thread
  1. I'd like to know the fastest CPUs that can encode in HEVC 10-bit (1080p and 2160p). Currently I use an Intel i7-8700K and it isn't as fast as I want.

    Can someone please suggest me some fast ones? Desktop CPUs and workstation CPUs (Xeon), I'll take all suggestions. Price is not a problem here.

    Please do not suggest these: Intel i9-7980XE and Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    Intel Xeon Platinum 8180
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by Zero-11 View Post
    Intel Xeon Platinum 8180
    I'm thinking of going with Xeon Gold. Will get a server with that. Platinum will be overkill LOL.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by vipies View Post
    I'd like to know the fastest CPUs that can encode in HEVC 10-bit (1080p and 2160p). Currently I use an Intel i7-8700K and it isn't as fast as I want.

    Can someone please suggest me some fast ones? Desktop CPUs and workstation CPUs (Xeon), I'll take all suggestions. Price is not a problem here.

    Please do not suggest these: Intel i9-7980XE and Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX.
    You won't find any current processors with clock speeds that are significantly faster than what you already have, but the i7-9700K (8 cores, 8 threads, 3.9GHz Base, 4.9GHz Turbo, soldered heat spreader), which is supposed to be released soon, is a little faster. The upcoming i9-9900K (rumored specs: 8 cores, 16 threads, 3.6GHz Base, 4.7GHz Turbo all cores 5GHz Tubo single core, soldered heat spreader) has more cores and threads. Note that quality diminishes as the number of cores/threads used to encode a video file increases. Once that number reaches the double digits, the quality decrease starts to become noticeable.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by vipies View Post
    Please do not suggest these: Intel i9-7980XE and Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX.
    Why do you not want one of these?
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member Bernix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Europe
    Search Comp PM
    I think they delayed release of those CPUs. Instead there will be middle step something like coffeelake+. They released dates are bit shifted, but it is old news.


    Bernix
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by vipies View Post
    I'd like to know the fastest CPUs that can encode in HEVC 10-bit (1080p and 2160p). Currently I use an Intel i7-8700K and it isn't as fast as I want.

    Can someone please suggest me some fast ones? Desktop CPUs and workstation CPUs (Xeon), I'll take all suggestions. Price is not a problem here.

    Please do not suggest these: Intel i9-7980XE and Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX.
    You won't find any current processors with clock speeds that are significantly faster than what you already have, but the i7-9700K (8 cores, 8 threads, 3.9GHz Base, 4.9GHz Turbo, soldered heat spreader), which is supposed to be released soon, is a little faster. The upcoming i9-9900K (rumored specs: 8 cores, 16 threads, 3.6GHz Base, 4.7GHz Turbo all cores 5GHz Tubo single core, soldered heat spreader) has more cores and threads. Note that quality diminishes as the number of cores/threads used to encode a video file increases. Once that number reaches the double digits, the quality decrease starts to become noticeable.
    Coffee Lake has no AVX512 which makes it slower @ Encoding HEVC videos than Skylake-X
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zero-11 View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by vipies View Post
    I'd like to know the fastest CPUs that can encode in HEVC 10-bit (1080p and 2160p). Currently I use an Intel i7-8700K and it isn't as fast as I want.

    Can someone please suggest me some fast ones? Desktop CPUs and workstation CPUs (Xeon), I'll take all suggestions. Price is not a problem here.

    Please do not suggest these: Intel i9-7980XE and Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX.
    You won't find any current processors with clock speeds that are significantly faster than what you already have, but the i7-9700K (8 cores, 8 threads, 3.9GHz Base, 4.9GHz Turbo, soldered heat spreader), which is supposed to be released soon, is a little faster. The upcoming i9-9900K (rumored specs: 8 cores, 16 threads, 3.6GHz Base, 4.7GHz Turbo all cores 5GHz Tubo single core, soldered heat spreader) has more cores and threads. Note that quality diminishes as the number of cores/threads used to encode a video file increases. Once that number reaches the double digits, the quality decrease starts to become noticeable.
    Coffee Lake has no AVX512 which makes it slower @ Encoding HEVC videos than Skylake-X
    Some of the participants in this thread don't seem to think that Intel's AVX 512 is worthwhile yet for HEVC encoding on an HEDT: https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=175476
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    sure when you encode very simple which mostly uses single-core performance
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Hello!
    HuananZhi dual-processor motherboard based on two Xeon e5-2680v2 = 20 cores/40 threads!
    >Xeon e5-2680v2
    > HuananZhi X79
    > Ready assemblies
    > Reviews from YouTube
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zero-11 View Post
    sure when you encode very simple which mostly uses single-core performance
    Let me be more specific... Some of the participants in the thread I linked to seemed to be of the opinion that utilizing AVX 512 for x265 encoding really only benefits commercial/professional environments where they use workstations equipped with very costly server-grade CPUs and very large amounts of expensive memory for encoding multiple 4K files at once in the main10 profile and slow or very slow presets. For other categories of users, the expansive memory requirements, high power consumption, and extra heat resulting from using AVX 512 outweigh the benefits.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 29th Sep 2018 at 14:14. Reason: clarity
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  12. Glad to see that the doom forums are still filled with nitwits. Anyway, here's a real test that I think speaks volumes:

    https://us.hardware.info/reviews/8267/4/amd-ryzen-5-2600-review-the-most-interesting-r...-x265-and-flac

    The x265 tests have some very interesting results: a 7820X (8C/16T AVX-512) beats AMD 1920X (12C/24T) and a 7900X (10C/20T AVX-512) beats a AMD 1950X beats a 16C/32T).

    Having said this the AMD processors are probably the smarter choice, because when you start adding filters or if you're planning on running multiple encodes concurrently, they will most likely pull ahead due to the higher thread counts.

    Having said that, I would still wait to see what Intel's i7 9900k and related processors bring next month and perhaps even wait until you see how AMD responds to upcoming Intel's.

    Personally, I'm waiting until either I see some crazy sales on an 8C/16T processor and motherboard (whichever company it's from) or when Intel finally brings Optane DIMMs to the desktop.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by Zero-11 View Post
    sure when you encode very simple which mostly uses single-core performance
    Let me be more specific... Some of the participants in the thread I linked to seemed to be of the opinion that utilizing AVX 512 for x265 encoding really only benefits commercial/professional environments where they use workstations equipped with very costly server-grade CPUs and very large amounts of expensive memory for encoding multiple 4K files at once in the main10 profile and slow or very slow presets. For other categories of users, the expansive memory requirements, high power consumption, and extra heat resulting from using AVX 512 outweigh the benefits.
    let's say this is true, for how long, who's to say there won't be a better implementation in the future and or a x264 implementation
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    Having said this the AMD processors are probably the smarter choice, because when you start adding filters or if you're planning on running multiple encodes concurrently, they will most likely pull ahead due to the higher thread counts.
    This implies their cores aren't currently adequately utilized already.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Even Intel knows that AVX-512 in x265 gives almost nothing due to aggressive downclocking.
    https://networkbuilders.intel.com/docs/accelerating-x265-the-hevc-encoder-with-intel-a...nsions-512.pdf

    See how many active cores are in 8180 during test

    Ps. threadripper 2950 looks like optimal choice here because unlike 2990wx it can work in more useful UMA mode.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zero-11 View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by Zero-11 View Post
    sure when you encode very simple which mostly uses single-core performance
    Let me be more specific... Some of the participants in the thread I linked to seemed to be of the opinion that utilizing AVX 512 for x265 encoding really only benefits commercial/professional environments where they use workstations equipped with very costly server-grade CPUs and very large amounts of expensive memory for encoding multiple 4K files at once in the main10 profile and slow or very slow presets. For other categories of users, the expansive memory requirements, high power consumption, and extra heat resulting from using AVX 512 outweigh the benefits.
    let's say this is true, for how long, who's to say there won't be a better implementation in the future and or a x264 implementation
    So essentially you are encouraging someone to gamble that a system built with an Intel HEDT processor supporting AVX 512 today that might presently not be very useful to him could become more useful at some unknown future time. [Edit]To clarify, I mean a Skylake X processor is not worth buying just to have AVX 512 available. That does not mean that someone should not buy one for other reasons. [End Edit]


    If we are going to indulge in speculation, some things that I read about Intel's version of AVX 512 indicated that it is only a partial implementation, so future processors could, in theory, include an improved version. It might be better to wait a few years for an improved version of AVX 512 to arrive. On the other hand, AVX 512 itself might be superseded by something better.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 30th Sep 2018 at 12:21.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  17. Yes, improvements of AVX512 are very likely. Better use by software developers. More instructions (needs new CPU). Less downclocking/power/heat (needs new CPU), hopefully with Ice Lake.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    So essentially you are encouraging someone to gamble that a system built with an Intel HEDT processor supporting AVX 512 today that might presently not be very useful to him could become more useful at some unknown future time.
    How is the Intel CPU not "very useful" "presently"? Even without AVX512 it is very powerful.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by sneaker View Post
    Yes, improvements of AVX512 are very likely. Better use by software developers. More instructions (needs new CPU). Less downclocking/power/heat (needs new CPU), hopefully with Ice Lake.

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    So essentially you are encouraging someone to gamble that a system built with an Intel HEDT processor supporting AVX 512 today that might presently not be very useful to him could become more useful at some unknown future time.
    How is the Intel CPU not "very useful" "presently"? Even without AVX512 it is very powerful.
    To clarify, I meant a Skylake X processor is not worth buying just to have AVX 512 available. That does not mean that someone should not buy one for other reasons.

    I will add the above clarification to my original post.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 30th Sep 2018 at 12:20.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
    Even Intel knows that AVX-512 in x265 gives almost nothing due to aggressive downclocking.
    https://networkbuilders.intel.com/docs/accelerating-x265-the-hevc-encoder-with-intel-a...nsions-512.pdf

    See how many active cores are in 8180 during test

    Ps. threadripper 2950 looks like optimal choice here because unlike 2990wx it can work in more useful UMA mode.
    Did you bother to read the pdf you linked to?

    https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/accelerating-x265-with-intel-advanced-vector...-intel-avx-512

    When choosing specific kernels that can be accelerated with Intel AVX-512, the same compute-to-memory ratio should be considered. If this ratio is high, using Intel AVX-512 is recommended. Also, when using Intel AVX-512, try to align the buffers to 64B in order to avoid loads that cross cache- line boundaries.
    For desktop and workstation SKUs (like the Intel® Core™ i9-7900X processor that we tested), Intel AVX-512 kernels can be enabled for all encoder configurations, because the reduction in CPU clock frequency is rather low.
    From the results, we see that for all profiles and presets, enabling Intel AVX-512 kernels results in a positive performance gains. On the Intel Core i9-7900X processor system, our measurements did not indicate any significant reduction in clock frequency. The cycle-count improvements from the kernels therefore directly reflect an increased encoder performance. When we observed the relative encoder performance per encode, we observed that there were no command lines that demonstrated lower performance with Intel AVX-512 than with Intel AVX2.
    It always shocks me when someone posts something they think supports their claim yet doesn't bother to actually read what he linked to says.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    On the other hand, the graph on page 3 of the whitepaper "Accelerating x265, the HEVC Encoder, with Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions 512" (above the concluding remarks) does seem to confirm that, for the tested processors, the improvements in fps using AVX-512 instead of AVX2 for encoding HEVC with x265 were under 10% except in the case where an Intel® Xeon® Platinum 8180 processor (using 4 active cores) was used to encode 4K main10, when it jumped to nearly 18%.

    Image
    [Attachment 46801 - Click to enlarge]
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    I'd like to know the fastest CPUs that can encode in HEVC 10-bit (1080p and 2160p). Currently I use an Intel i7-8700K
    i don't know what software you are using put would be curious to know if you have the Intel graphics turned on. In device manager under DISPLAY ADaptors you should see two assuming you also have a discrete graphics one as well. If not go into bios and turn it on(its of by default).A Intel i7-8700K is alot faster when you use hardware acceleration. and choose to use it. programs like Handbrake and Staxrip do.
    Last edited by isapc; 1st Oct 2018 at 01:31.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
    Even Intel knows that AVX-512 in x265 gives almost nothing due to aggressive downclocking.
    https://networkbuilders.intel.com/docs/accelerating-x265-the-hevc-encoder-with-intel-a...nsions-512.pdf

    See how many active cores are in 8180 during test

    Ps. threadripper 2950 looks like optimal choice here because unlike 2990wx it can work in more useful UMA mode.
    Did you bother to read the pdf you linked to?

    https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/accelerating-x265-with-intel-advanced-vector...-intel-avx-512

    When choosing specific kernels that can be accelerated with Intel AVX-512, the same compute-to-memory ratio should be considered. If this ratio is high, using Intel AVX-512 is recommended. Also, when using Intel AVX-512, try to align the buffers to 64B in order to avoid loads that cross cache- line boundaries.
    For desktop and workstation SKUs (like the Intel® Core™ i9-7900X processor that we tested), Intel AVX-512 kernels can be enabled for all encoder configurations, because the reduction in CPU clock frequency is rather low.
    From the results, we see that for all profiles and presets, enabling Intel AVX-512 kernels results in a positive performance gains. On the Intel Core i9-7900X processor system, our measurements did not indicate any significant reduction in clock frequency. The cycle-count improvements from the kernels therefore directly reflect an increased encoder performance. When we observed the relative encoder performance per encode, we observed that there were no command lines that demonstrated lower performance with Intel AVX-512 than with Intel AVX2.
    It always shocks me when someone posts something they think supports their claim yet doesn't bother to actually read what he linked to says.

    Somebody is blind here I guess...


    You do not need crystal ball to predict that with all 28 cores active you would get negative values in this graph! Intel knows that and therefore they show only results with 8 active cores. AVX-512 generates too much heat to be useful. Deal with it. Even if you gain some fps on lower count cpus I can guarantee that those gains will be easily eaten by avisynth non-avx-512 filters! Most filters still use plain SSEx.x instead of AVX2/512.
    Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 1st Oct 2018 at 05:18.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member Bernix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Europe
    Search Comp PM
    Hi,
    don't someone mentioned that encode with double digit number of cores (1 video) = lower quality of encoded video? Not sure if for both H.264 and H.265 or it is just problem of x264 or x265 or both? So probably therefore they do not use all cores. But you can be right. Probably it is not problem x265 codec, just x264.


    Bernix
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Bernix View Post
    Hi,
    don't someone mentioned that encode with double digit number of cores (1 video) = lower quality of encoded video? Not sure if for both H.264 and H.265 or it is just problem of x264 or x265 or both? So probably therefore they do not use all cores. But you can be right. Probably it is not problem x265 codec, just x264.


    Bernix
    From what I recall being said in discussions that happened at VideoHelp over the past two years, quality is reduced when too many cores are used to encode a single video file with either x264 or x265.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 1st Oct 2018 at 09:48.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads