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 Combined Score

Encoding: 7-Zip Compression

Encoding: 7-Zip Decompression

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

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

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: Here 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 Rendering Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU System Tests
Comments Locked

152 Comments

View All Comments

  • Krysto - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    Yes, it's total bullshit that they are misinterpreting what TDP is. I imagine this is how they'll get away with claiming a lower TDP than the real one in the 8700k chip, too, which has low base clock speed, but the super-high Turbo-Boost, which probably means the REAL TDP will go through the rough when that Turbo Boost is maximized.

    This is how Intel will get to claim that its chips are still faster than AMD "at the same TDP" (wink wink, nudge nudge).
  • Demigod79 - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    "What a load of ignorance. Intel tdp is *average* power at *base* clocks, uses more power at all core turbo clocks here. Disable turbo if that's too much power for you."

    I find it ironic that you would call someone ignorant, then reveal your own ignorance about the TDP and turbo clocks.
  • Spunjji - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    It is now, it wasn't before. Wanna bet on how many people noticed?
  • SodaAnt - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    I'm quite curious what happens if your system cooling simply can't handle it. I suspect if you designed a cooling solution which only supported 165W the CPU would simply throttle itself, but I'm curious by how much.
  • ZeDestructor - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    Strictly speaking, all forms of Turbo boost are a form of vendor-sanctioned overclocking. The fact that measured power goes beyond TDP when at max all-core turbo should really not be all that surprising. The ~36% increase in power for ~31% increase in clocks is pretty reasonable and inline when you keep that in mind. Especially when you factor that there has to have been a bit of extra voltage added for stability reasons (power scales linearly with clocks and current, and quadratically to exponentially with voltage).
  • Demigod79 - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    I agree. Everything looked good until that page. 190 watts is unacceptable, and Intel needs to correct this right away - either make the CPU run within the TDP limit, or update the TDP to 190 watts in the specs.
  • HStewart - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    It funny that people complain about CPU watts but never about external GPU watts. Keep in mind the GPU is smaller amount of area.
  • artk2219 - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link

    They most certainly do, that is one of the biggest gripes against Vega 64, people do seem to have short memory on how high GPU TDP's used to be however.
  • IGTrading - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link

    On a video card, the same manufacturer takes responsibility for the GPU, cooling system, design, PCB, components and warranty.

    On the CPU, you have somebody else designing the cooling system, the motherboard, the power lines and they all have to offer warranty for their components while Intel is only concerned with the CPU.

    If the CPU is throttling or burnt out, they will say "sufficient cooling was not provided" and so on ...

    It is a whole lot different.
  • whatevs - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link

    Thermal throttling is not a burn out and not a warranty event, you don't get to warranty your gpu when it throttles under load, cooling warranty does not include cpu/gpu chip performance and
    Intel designed the ATX specification and the electrical specification for the boards.

    You clearly don't know the things you're talking about.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now