CPU Performance: Encoding Tests

With the rise of streaming, vlogs, and video content as a whole, encoding and transcoding tests are becoming ever more important. Not only are more home users and gamers needing to convert video files into something more manageable, for streaming or archival purposes, but the servers that manage the output also manage around data and log files with compression and decompression. Our encoding tasks are focused around these important scenarios, with input from the community for the best implementation of real-world testing.

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

Handbrake 1.1.0: Streaming and Archival Video Transcoding

A popular open source tool, Handbrake is the anything-to-anything video conversion software that a number of people use as a reference point. The danger is always on version numbers and optimization, for example the latest versions of the software can take advantage of AVX-512 and OpenCL to accelerate certain types of transcoding and algorithms. The version we use here is a pure CPU play, with common transcoding variations.

We have split Handbrake up into several tests, using a Logitech C920 1080p60 native webcam recording (essentially a streamer recording), and convert them into two types of streaming formats and one for archival. The output settings used are:

  • 720p60 at 6000 kbps constant bit rate, fast setting, high profile
  • 1080p60 at 3500 kbps constant bit rate, faster setting, main profile
  • 1080p60 HEVC at 3500 kbps variable bit rate, fast setting, main profile

Handbrake 1.1.0 - 720p60 x264 6000 kbps FastHandbrake 1.1.0 - 1080p60 x264 3500 kbps FasterHandbrake 1.1.0 - 1080p60 HEVC 3500 kbps Fast

7-zip v1805: Popular Open-Source Encoding Engine

Out of our compression/decompression tool tests, 7-zip is the most requested and comes with a built-in benchmark. For our test suite, we’ve pulled the latest version of the software and we run the benchmark from the command line, reporting the compression, decompression, and a combined score.

It is noted in this benchmark that the latest multi-die processors have very bi-modal performance between compression and decompression, performing well in one and badly in the other. There are also discussions around how the Windows Scheduler is implementing every thread. As we get more results, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Please note, if you plan to share out the Compression graph, please include the Decompression one. Otherwise you’re only presenting half a picture.

7-Zip 1805 Combined7-Zip 1805 Compression7-Zip 1805 Decompression

WinRAR 5.60b3: Archiving Tool

My compression tool of choice is often WinRAR, having been one of the first tools a number of my generation used over two decades ago. The interface has not changed much, although the integration with Windows right click commands is always a plus. It has no in-built test, so we run a compression over a set directory containing over thirty 60-second video files and 2000 small web-based files at a normal compression rate.

WinRAR is variable threaded but also susceptible to caching, so in our test we run it 10 times and take the average of the last five, leaving the test purely for raw CPU compute performance.

WinRAR 5.60b3

AES Encryption: File Security

A number of platforms, particularly mobile devices, are now offering encryption by default with file systems in order to protect the contents. Windows based devices have these options as well, often applied by BitLocker or third-party software. In our AES encryption test, we used the discontinued TrueCrypt for its built-in benchmark, which tests several encryption algorithms directly in memory.

The data we take for this test is the combined AES encrypt/decrypt performance, measured in gigabytes per second. The software does use AES commands for processors that offer hardware selection, however not AVX-512.

AES Encoding

CPU Performance: Rendering Tests CPU Performance: Synthetic, Web and Legacy Tests
Comments Locked

114 Comments

View All Comments

  • Xex360 - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    Aren't the "10th"gen CPUs launching 20/05?
  • Mobile-Dom - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    ooft, thats a slaughter
  • BedfordTim - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    You are right. The 3300X is a clear winner.
  • Koenig168 - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    There's also the 3600X to consider. On launch, the price difference between 3600 and 3600X is USD50. That has now narrowed to USD15 as of 18 May on Amazon (USD189.99 vs USD204.99).
  • crimson117 - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    $50 was way too much, but $15 for slightly more MHz and a better cooler is a fantastic deal.
  • Spunjji - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    That's nuts!
  • GreenReaper - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    In the UK it's £152.00 vs. £184.24 (vs £260.98 for the 3700X).
    On the plus side, that makes the 3600 cheaper than the USA!
    You have to be careful who you're buying from, though - some sellers don't have good feedback.
  • flyingpants265 - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    The 3600 is $172.
  • myself248 - Monday, May 18, 2020 - link

    On the general theme of "once in a while, a truly great CPU comes along and dominates the market", check out this beautiful trip down memory lane from Australia's Red Hill Consulting:

    https://www.redhill.net.au/iu.html

    It's a long read, but for those of us who were building PCs back in the Socket 3 through Socket 7 era, it's a neverending stream of "Oh yeah I remember when that came out!" and "Whoah, those actually existed?" and "I think I still have one of those in the basement..."
  • Lord of the Bored - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - link

    Aww, heck yeah! More 486es and K6-2s and Athlons than you can shake a stick at!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now