Benchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests

One of the interesting elements on modern processors is encoding performance. This includes encryption/decryption, as well as video transcoding from one video format to another. In the encrypt/decrypt scenario, this remains pertinent to on-the-fly encryption of sensitive data - a process by which more modern devices are leaning to for software security. Video transcoding as a tool to adjust the quality, file size and resolution of a video file has boomed in recent years, such as providing the optimum video for devices before consumption, or for game streamers who are wanting to upload the output from their video camera in real-time. As we move into live 3D video, this task will only get more strenuous, and it turns out that the performance of certain algorithms is a function of the input/output of the content.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

7-Zip 9.2: link

One of the freeware compression tools that offers good scaling performance between processors is 7-Zip. It runs under an open-source licence, is fast, and easy to use tool for power users. We run the benchmark mode via the command line for four loops and take the output score.

Encoding: 7-Zip

7z loves threads. 7z loves it.

WinRAR 5.40: link

For the 2017 test suite, we move to the latest version of WinRAR in our compression test. WinRAR in some quarters is more user-friendly that 7-Zip, hence its inclusion. Rather than use a benchmark mode as we did with 7-Zip, here we take a set of files representative of a generic stack (33 video files in 1.37 GB, 2834 smaller website files in 370 folders in 150 MB) of compressible and incompressible formats. The results shown are the time taken to encode the file. Due to DRAM caching, we run the test 10 times and take the average of the last five runs when the benchmark is in a steady state.

Encoding: WinRAR 5.40

WinRAR is another benchmark like Agisoft, with some parts being serial and others multithreaded. When we compare the Core i7 to the Ryzen 7, the high ST performance helps push the Core i7 to the top despite the 2:1 thread deficit. On the other hand, the Core i5 has a 3:1 thread defecit to the Ryzen 5, and falls beneath it in the results.

AES Encoding

Algorithms using AES coding have spread far and wide as a ubiquitous tool for encryption. Again, this is another CPU limited test, and modern CPUs have special AES pathways to accelerate their performance. We often see scaling in both frequency and cores with this benchmark. We use the latest version of TrueCrypt and run its benchmark mode over 1GB of in-DRAM data. Results shown are the GB/s average of encryption and decryption.

Encoding: AES

AES is an optimized problem for modern processors, so add frequency and cores to get a proportionally better result. Again, the Core i7-2600K and the Core i5-7640X are almost neck-and-neck.

HandBrake v1.0.2 H264 and HEVC: link

As mentioned above, video transcoding (both encode and decode) is a hot topic in performance metrics as more and more content is being created. First consideration is the standard in which the video is encoded, which can be lossless or lossy, trade performance for file-size, trade quality for file-size, or all of the above can increase encoding rates to help accelerate decoding rates. Alongside Google's favorite codec, VP9, there are two others that are taking hold: H264, the older codec, is practically everywhere and is designed to be optimized for 1080p video, and HEVC (or H265) that is aimed to provide the same quality as H264 but at a lower file-size (or better quality for the same size). HEVC is important as 4K is streamed over the air, meaning less bits need to be transferred for the same quality content.

Handbrake is a favored tool for transcoding, and so our test regime takes care of three areas.

Low Quality/Resolution H264: He we transcode a 640x266 H264 rip of a 2 hour film, and change the encoding from Main profile to High profile, using the very-fast preset.

Encoding: Handbrake H264 (LQ)

High Quality/Resolution H264: A similar test, but this time we take a ten-minute double 4K (3840x4320) file running at 60 Hz and transcode from Main to High, using the very-fast preset.

Encoding: Handbrake H264 (HQ)

HEVC Test: Using the same video in HQ, we change the resolution and codec of the original video from 4K60 in H264 into 4K60 HEVC.

Encoding: Handbrake HEVC (4K)

Benchmarking Performance: CPU Web Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Office Tests
Comments Locked

176 Comments

View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    2700K, +1.5GHz every time.
  • shabby - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    So much for upgrading from a kbl-x to skl-x when the motherboard could fry the cpu, nice going intel.
  • Nashiii - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Nice article Ian. What I will say is I am a little confused around this comment:

    "Intel wins for the IO and chipset, offering 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes for USB 3.1/SATA/Ethernet/storage, while AMD is limited on that front, having 8 PCIe 2.0 from the chipset."

    You forgot to mention the AMD total PCI-E IO. It has 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes with 4xPCI-e 3.0 going to the chipset which can be set to 8x PCI-E 2.0 if 5Gbps is enough per lane, i.e in the case of USB3.0.

    I have read that Kabylake-X only has 16 PCI-E 3.0 lanes native. Not sure about PCH support though...
  • KAlmquist - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    With Kabylake-X, the only I/O that doesn't go through the chipset is the 16 PCI-E 3.0 lanes you mention. With Ryzen, in addition to what is provided by the chipset, the CPU provides

    1) Four USB 3.1 connections
    2) Two SATA connections
    3) 18 PCI-E 3.0 lanes, or 20 lanes if you don't use the SATA connections

    So if you just look at the CPU, Ryzen has more connectivity than Kabylake-X, but the X299 chip set used with Kabylake-X is much more capable (and expensive) than anything in the AMD lineup. Also, the X299 doesn't provide any USB 3.1 ports (or more precisely, 10 gb per second speed ports), so those are typically provided by a separate chip, adding to the cost of X299 motherboards.
  • Allan_Hundeboll - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Interesting review with great benchmarks. (I don't understand why so many reviews only report average frames pr. second)
    The ryzen r5 1600 seems to offer great value for money, but i'm a bit puzzled why the slowest clocked R5 beats the higher clocked R7 in a lot of the 99% benchmarks, Im guessing its because the latency delta when moving data from one core to another penalize the higher core count R7 more?
  • BenSkywalker - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    The gaming benchmarks are, uhm..... pretty useless.

    Third tier graphics cards as a starting point, why bother?

    Seems like an awful lot of wasted time. As a note you may want to consider- when testing a new graphics card you get the fastest CPU you can so we can see what the card is capable of, when testing a new CPU you get the fastest GPU you can so we can see what the CPU is capable of. The way the benches are constructed, pretty useless for those of us that want to know gaming performance.
  • Tetsuo1221 - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Benchmarking at 1080p... enough said.. Completely and utterly redundant
  • Qasar - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link

    why is benchmarking @ 1080p Completely and utterly redundant ?????
  • meacupla - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link

    I don't know that guy's particulars, but, to me, using X299 to game at 1080p seems like a waste.
    If I was going to throw down that kind of money, I would want to game at 1440p or 4K
  • silverblue - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link

    Yes, but 1080p shifts the bottleneck towards the CPU.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now