AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
by Dr. Ian Cutress on November 5, 2020 9:01 AM ESTCPU Tests: Encoding
One of the interesting elements on modern processors is encoding performance. This covers two main areas: encryption/decryption for secure data transfer, and video transcoding from one video format to another.
In the encrypt/decrypt scenario, how data is transferred and by what mechanism is 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.
HandBrake 1.32: Link
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 codecs, VP9 and AV1, there are others that are prominent: H264, the older codec, is practically everywhere and is designed to be optimized for 1080p video, and HEVC (or H.265) 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. There are other codecs coming to market designed for specific use cases all the time.
Handbrake is a favored tool for transcoding, with the later versions using copious amounts of newer APIs to take advantage of co-processors, like GPUs. It is available on Windows via an interface or can be accessed through the command-line, with the latter making our testing easier, with a redirection operator for the console output.
We take the compiled version of this 16-minute YouTube video about Russian CPUs at 1080p30 h264 and convert into three different files: (1) 480p30 ‘Discord’, (2) 720p30 ‘YouTube’, and (3) 4K60 HEVC.
7-Zip 1900: Link
The first compression benchmark tool we use is the open-source 7-zip, which typically offers good scaling across multiple cores. 7-zip is the compression tool most cited by readers as one they would rather see benchmarks on, and the program includes a built-in benchmark tool for both compression and decompression.
The tool can either be run from inside the software or through the command line. We take the latter route as it is easier to automate, obtain results, and put through our process. The command line flags available offer an option for repeated runs, and the output provides the average automatically through the console. We direct this output into a text file and regex the required values for compression, decompression, and a combined score.
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.
WinRAR 5.90: Link
For the 2020 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 , each 30 seconds, in 1.37 GB,
- 2834 smaller website files in 370 folders in 150 MB,
- 100 Beat Saber music tracks and input files, for 451 MB
This is a mixture of compressible and incompressible formats. The results shown are the time taken to encode the file. Due to DRAM caching, we run the test for 20 minutes times and take the average of the last five runs when the benchmark is in a steady state.
For automation, we use AHK’s internal timing tools from initiating the workload until the window closes signifying the end. This means the results are contained within AHK, with an average of the last 5 results being easy enough to calculate.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
339 Comments
View All Comments
LithiumFirefly - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link
I thought the whole point to a civilization game benchmark was a time to complete turn not FPS who cares about FPS and a turn-based game.dagobah123 - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link
The more benchmarks the better. These are general purpose CPUs. Wouldn't it be a shame if you bought a 120hz+ 4k monitor with an expensive graphics card, only to find out your CPU was limiting your frames? Sure the game is playable @ 5 FPS as the author mentioned. However, it's getting harder to make the CPU the bottleneck in a lot of these games at higher resolutions and quality settings, so they have to resort to this. Would anyone play a game @ 360p? No, but if you want to see which CPU is better I say lets include every benchmark we can find.CookieBin - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link
I find it funny that these huge gains mean literally nothing at 4K. So all these different review sites highlight sky high fps at 1080p because at 4K that huge advantage becomes less than a 0.3% improvement.. keep pounding sand linus tech tips. I've never seen such a big nothing burger. No idiot out there buys a $800 5950X to play video games at 1080p.chuyayala - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link
The reason they test 1080p is because game processing is CPU-bound at that resolution (they are testing the CPU after-all). The higher the resolution, the more the GPU is working (not the CPU). The reason why there aren't much gains in 4k is because processing is limited by the GPU power. If we assume we get ultra powerful GPUs that can run 4k games at 120+ frames per second, then the CPU becomes more important.dagobah123 - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link
This is simply not true. It only appears to 'mean nothing' if you don't realize the bottleneck in the testing system on most of the benchmarks are the GPU. Meaning the GPU is maxed out at 100%. In this case you're right, the difference between many CPUs will not matter, but what about next year when you decide to buy the next high-end GPU, only to find out the CPU you choose couldn't handle much more. This is why 360p, 720p, even 1080p benchmarks are included to show you just how much more ahead one CPU is over another. Check out the test setup--they are using a 2080 Ti. Come check out the updated reviews after they test all this on 3090s and 6900 XTs.Pit a Ferarri and a Ford Model T against one another. Sure they both keep up with one another in the grocery parking lot @ 15mph. Take em out on the freeway with a 70mph speed limit and you'll have a clear winner. Let alone let em loose on the race track.
Future proof yourself a bit, buy a 5600k or 5800k for your 4k gaming. If you don't update your CPU often you'll be glad you did a couple years out if you drop in that next GPU.
nandnandnand - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
5950X will make your web browsing snappier... so you can load more AnandTech ads. ;)zodiacfml - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
duh? Steam survey shows 1080p the most popular resolution for gaming. Aside from that, it is difficult to maintain frame rates for 240Hz/360Hz monitors.You might have a point with 720p res though
realbabilu - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link
First: I think you should compare with F or KF Intel version, for price comparison. Since they don't have internal Gpu. Somehow AMD not included the FAN also, beware good cooling isn't cheap.SECOND: it's nice to had coding bench with optimization here windows, with AVX2 and some flags compiling, Amd only provide optimization compiling on Linux only, I think they should be on windows too with optimized math kernel and compiler.
ThIrd: the price performance is justified now. In zen2 release the price was lower than Intel that time, made Intel justified the price for 10th Gen. Now from price sensitive, Intel still fine per price / performance ratio,even though it's need more power consumption.
duploxxx - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
the ryzens have a base TDP of 105W and peaking towards 140-150Wnot like the intels that peak at +200ish W, there you need good cooling.
A Dark rock slim or shadow rock can easily handle this and it will cost you 50-60$..
go find a cooler for the +200W so that it wont throttle all the time for the Intel
realbabilu - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
Great. I think Anand tech should do cooling shootout for 5900x/5950x bench.To find the minimum air cooler for this,
AMD only list noctua and bequiet as air cooler, others as liquid cooler at https://www.amd.com/en/processors/ryzen-thermal-so...
The slim rock and nh14s maybe the cheapest on the list. It is interesting could more budget double fan tower should enough for 5900x/5950x that has 145 watt max like deepcool gammax 400 pro (double fan), coolermaster ma410p, and shadow rock 2/3, and maybe cheapest aio coolermaster liquid master 120 lite that not listed on amd list.