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 Compression

Encoding: 7-Zip Decompression

Encoding: 7-Zip Combined Score

7-zip gives two contrasting stories here. For compression, full cores are needed to get the best performance, with frequency helping as well. However, for decompression, the extra threads help a lot. The combined result looks more like the decompression score, with the Ryzen 5 2400G sitting between the six-core Core i5-8400 and the quad-core Core i3-8350K.

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 a good scaler with cores, frequency, and memory performance. The eight threads and DDR4-2933 contributes a good amount to the performance here, especially in light of where AMD was. The jump from the Ryzen 5 1400 to the 2400G is also noticable, due to the uptick in frequency and memory speed. The high single-thread performance of the Intel cores still wins out, however.

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 Web Tests Benchmarking Performance: CPU Office Tests
POST A COMMENT

179 Comments

View All Comments

  • speely - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    "Where is the i5-8400 that has the same price as the 2400G?
    Oh, yeah, they totally left it out from the benchmarks since it would have proved an absolute supremacy of the Intel offering.
    Ops."

    In which benchmarks do you expect to see the i5-8400 prove its "absolute supremacy" where the i5-7400 didn't? Seriously, I'd like to know.

    Because what I see is either the i5-7400 beating the 2400G or going punch to punch with it, or being thoroughly decimated by it.

    If the i5-7400 beats or competes with the 2400G, the i5-8400 refresh chip will do the same. If the i5-7400 gets trounced by the 2400G, the i5-8400 refresh chip isn't suddenly and magically going to beat it.

    I fail to see anything in the article to indicate a pro-AMD bias on AT's part, either intentional or unintentional.

    What I do see is a fanboy who's upset to see his team losing some benchmarks.
    Reply
  • Kamgusta - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Ehm sir, 7400 is 4 core and 8400 is 6 core.
    Other reviews shows a 30% performance dominance of i5-8400 over the 2400G.
    Reply
  • speely - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Fair point, and my apologies. I keep forgetting that they upped the i5's to 6 cores after a decade of 4c4t i5's (including the 4690K I currently use).

    That being said, the i5-8400 itself is the same price as the 2400G, but getting the i5-8400 running is not the same price as getting the 2400G running. The 2400G was tested on an MSI B350I Pro AC (https://www.anandtech.com/show/12227/msi-releases-... which is new and doesn't yet have a publicly-known MSRP, but is built and featured like other $70-80 B350 motherboards. What motherboards are on the market today for $70-80 that support the i5-8400?

    So we've taken into account the additional 2 cores and the subsequent boost to the CPU-focused benchmarks, which the 7400 sometimes lost and sometimes won against the 2400G, and put a couple small notches into the 8400's belt. For another 50 bucks or so on the motherboard just to use the 8400, that's not too bad I suppose. It's what I would expect pitting a 6c6t CPU against a 4c8t CPU in CPU benchmarks. It's certainly not "absolute supremacy" but it's something, right?

    Were you expecting that "absolute supremacy" to show up in iGPU gaming? I'll just laugh about that and move on.

    Sure, the 8400 could probably step past the 2400G in gaming and graphics if you paired it with a $120-or-so graphics card (assuming you can find one at $120 or so), but then you're comparing a dGPU to an iGPU and you're still only barely stepping past.

    So the only real way to make the 8400 show "absolute supremacy" over the 2400G is to cherry-pick just the benchmarks you like, and bolster the 8400 with another $200 of additional hardware.

    "Absolute supremacy".
    Reply
  • Manch - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    No it's not.In regards to vs the 8400, its a mixed bag. For programs that favor Intel CPU's there is a clear advantage. For programs that favor AMD the advantage swings the other way. For everything else that's generally proc agnostic they tie, pull ahead slightly or gets beat relatively evenly in regards to CPU performance.

    Now GPU wise, it gets crushed. That's obvious that is gonna happen.

    If you plan on getting a DGPU with some beef, either is good, If you looking to game on the cheap, which is the target of the AMD proc in this review, its the hands down winner. Comparable perf, but with a beefier iGPU that can hang with a 1030. Also it gives you the option of adding a DGPU later when you need more grunt. It's clearly the better buy this go around. No other site that Ive seen has argued against this.
    Reply
  • dromoxen - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    Are these going to get a 12nm refresh , as all the other ryzen cpus? I am thinking of upgrade either i58400 or r5 1600/1700 or possibly 2400g.. decision decisions ... Reply
  • Manch - Wednesday, February 14, 2018 - link

    Originally it was labeled as 12nm, now referred to 14nm+.Probably will be updated. Reply
  • cheshirster - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    You need Z370 for the "supremacy" to work.
    Ops.
    Reply
  • bug77 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    That will be fixed when lower tier 300-series chipsets launch. However, it's a significant problem for those wanting to build a cheap setup until then. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    I used the chips I have on hand for the tests, forgot to add already tested chips - we haven't tested the i5-8400 IGP, but the CPU results are on hand in Bench. I can add those results to the graphs when I get a chance. Reply
  • Manch - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Ian, I dont know if fhis is just when browing from a phone but the bench when listing CPUs while alphabetic, bc of the chips names ~lake, etc. The listing jumps all over the place. 8 series before 4 seriez then 7 series. Can yall fix this? Thanks Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now