MeGUI CPU Time Test - Compare different CPUs encoding x264

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
I started a thread over at doom9 inviting people with MeGUI installed on their machines to download a small mpg clip with processing scripts and run it, then report the results for the purpose of comparing different CPUs processing the same file. I'd like to extent that same invitation to the folks here.

To participate, you'll need to have MeGUI (which needs dotnet 2.0) and Avisynth installed. Here are links to d/l them:

dotnet 2.0
MeGUI
Avisynth

Download to test files has been removed since >2 weeks of inactivity.

Thanks all!

UPDATE:The results to-date were using a pretty aggressive avs file. I have since updated the files and made a new test.rar -- if you participated in the test PLEASE DELETE YOUR C:\WORK AND WORK.RAR and download the new one from the same URL which uses a more realistic avs file. The new test doesn't require you to mess with the threads setting at all - it is automatic for everyone. I'll start populating a new table with your new results. I started with my own.

Thanks all!

-------------------------------------

results-newer.gif


If you keep your CPU:Mem bus 1:1, you'll find that the data scale in a highly linear fashion albeit short of the theoretical maximum. Here is a little analysis on chantmak's data to this end.

graphs.gif


Finally, here is a subset of the data showing that, at least with MeGUI doing this avs, there is really no advantage to running with a higher FSB @ the same clockrate. Mem timing does seem to have an effect (last row). Have a look for yourself:

fsb.gif
 
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
Ha, finally upped the FSB on my machine from 200 to 225 and did the benchmark. The machine is actually stable at this level. Anyway, added to the table.
 
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
UPDATE:The results to-date were using a pretty aggressive avs file. I have since updated the files and made a new test.rar -- if you participated in the test PLEASE DELETE YOUR C:\WORK AND WORK.RAR and download the new one from the same URL which uses a more realistic avs file. The new test doesn't require you to mess with the threads setting at all - it is automatic for everyone. I'll start populating a new table with your new results. I started with my own.

The URL is in the first post in this thread.
 
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
@jeffy: as always, thanks for the large data set. If I entered them correctly, there are two things that stand out to me.

1) It's kinda odd that both the 3.2 GHz examples gave identical results suggesting that the FSB isn't the bottleneck for this experiment (x264.exe with this clip).

2) The overclocking efficiency for your chip is also interesting. If you look at the % increase of the clock vs. the % increase in performance, they aren't 1:1 (see table in first post of this thread). I guess you can also look it in terms of clock rate and work done.

Here's a plot of clock rate vs. encoding time.

graphoj6.gif


Since you and The Scientist both have data @ clock rate for this chip, I set the error bars to that difference (2.5 %). I'm no statistician, but that's probably okay for these purposes -- we aren't landing a man on the moon after all!

The point I'm making is that you can see a similar trend in the clock rate vs. encode time, suggesting that at some point in your O/C, you face a diminishing return or a loss of efficiency at higher clock rates. Clearly, you'd need a larger number of points in the curve to figure out the sweetspot, but it's interesting none-the-less :)

...if we assume one factor in the decrease of efficiency is heat (which is probably a safe assumption), I wonder if this sort of data set correlates loosely to "chip health"? In other words, a "healthy" overclock probably isn't on the extreme of the plot and is more likely is the inflection point in the curve? What do you guys think about this? Am I missing something?
 
C

chantmak

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2006
13
0
18,510
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
Cool man! Thanks for the great data! I'll update the table in a few... was your CPU:mem clock 1:1 for all these? There's quite a drop off in the output as the clock rate went up unless I entered the number wrong or did the math wrong.
 
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
Are you using an Intel 965 chipset board?

RJ pointed me to this thread which shows how FSB values from about 360-400 tend to hurt your memory performance which may explain the lower values in your 9x375 result.
 
C

chantmak

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2006
13
0
18,510
I'm using the P5B Deluxe board(965 chipset) and yes I'm using 1:1. Ya, I noticed it too, not a big performance boost after the 360 mark, not worth the stress on the cpu...
 
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
If you read through that link, it's normal to drop off like that. The author recommends starting at 401 FSB. You wanna give 9x401 a go and see how the results track with what you've done?
 
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
As you requested: 401 x 8: (20 sec. 69.06), (64 sec. 23.11).
............................333 x 9: (22 sec. 66.11), (69 sec. 21.61).

Memory at 1-1 both times.
Click to expand...

Thanks man! One thing I was also wondering is at a given clock rate, are results better with a higher fsb?

8x401 = 3.2 ghz
9x356 = 3.2 ghz

...any chance to get your to do the experiment @ 9x356 with mem:cpu 1:1 :)
 
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
Hey don't worry about.. I'm glad enough you could post some numbers. You do realize that the film clip is viewed @ 24 fps and that both your's and drjay's machines will encode to x264 faster than you can watch the film, right... that's pretty slick!
 
K

korbin44

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2006
118
0
18,680
Yeah, it's pretty cool. I love how fast the cpu is. Nothing seems to slow it down. I'm also using air cooling right now. So, once I get my watercooling system in, I can post some faster times. I got the cpu to boot into windows and validated it with CPU-Z running at 3.73ghz, on air! I tried to run Sandra Lite 2007, but it restarted before I could get any results. At that speed, idle with aircooling, I was getting 50C. Pretty hot, but not that bad.
 
G

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
Ok! Updated the chart. Interesting that for O/C'ed machines, in general, the work values (1st pass FPS) seem to track closer to the clockrate than the total video encode time does... I still can't figure that one out.
 
D

darkstar782

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
1,375
0
19,280
Calling setup of processor failed with error Can't find encoder C:\work\tools\lame\lame.exe, please check settings!
Click to expand...

:(

Got hold of lame.exe, still wont work. It seems I'm missing loads of stuff that should be in c:\work\tools....
 
D

darkstar782

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
1,375
0
19,280
It seems I'm missing loads of stuff that should be in c:\work\tools....
Click to expand...

When you load up MeGUI, run the update function which should d/l everything you need.

Silly me, I avoided that thinking that you had specifically asked us to use an older version, and that a newer (different) version would invalidate the results :D
 
D

darkstar782

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
1,375
0
19,280


3.6GHz, 360*10. DDR2-720 3-3-3-10





3.6GHz, 400*9. DDR2-800 4-4-4-12
Actually slightly slower, probably due to relaxed memory timings. Will try again @ 360*10 4-4-4-12.





3.24GHz, 360*9. DDR2-720 4-4-4-12
Sticking with 4-4-4-12 now to make them more comparable.





3.00GHz, 333*9. DDR2-667 4-4-4-12





2.7GHz, 300*9. DDR2-600 4-4-4-12





2.4GHz, 266*9. DDR2-533 4-4-4-12
e6600 stock speeds





3.6GHz, 360*10. DDR2-720 4-4-4-12
4-4-412 results @ 360*10 as promised, it seems FSB speed has a minimal affect on FPS. Memory latencies are far more important.





3.3GHz, 333*10. DDR2-667 4-4-4-12





3GHz, 300*10. DDR2-600 4-4-4-12





2.66GHz, 266*10. DDR2-533 4-4-4-12
e6700 at stock



And finally, just because I want to have the highest Dual Core result:


3.9GHz, 390*10. DDR2-780 4-4-4-12
Who needs Quad Core for real time encoding? :p
 
D

darkstar782

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
1,375
0
19,280
And I have just realised I left the full time cut off in ALL those.

Oh well. You have FPS at least, I'll redo them later, probably wont be home till the weekend :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom