Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Apple TV and Home Theater

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 24, 2011, 05:50 PM   #1
dizzy130
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
How can I speed up Handbrake?

I've been Handbraking all of my movies, but it's a really slow process on my 2007 Macbook - it takes over an hour to do a movie, and about 30-45 minutes to do an episode of a TV show. Would this be significantly faster on a newer Macbook? Mine has the 2Ghz Core 2 Duo and only 1 GB of RAM, and I've been thinking of upgrading either to the new 13" MBP that came out today or the new MB whenever they refresh next. If Handbrake is the kind of thing that will run faster on a new computer it will be one more reason to upgrade.
dizzy130 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2011, 05:52 PM   #2
alust2013
macrumors 68040
 
alust2013's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: On the fence
Handbrake is one of the best examples of a speed boost from a new computer. If you do it enough to warrant a new computer, it will definitely make things go faster.
__________________
a computer with some GHz and a few GB, some stuff to play music.
-witty comment here-
alust2013 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2011, 06:01 PM   #3
P Mentior
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ohio
Handbrake will use as much processor power as your machine can throw at it. The faster your processor is that faster your encodes are going to be. I recently went from an '08 2.5GHz core2duo MBP giving me about real time encodes to a custom desktop running a i7 at 4.1GHz that can encode a TV show in 9-10 min. You probably won't get that good of speed on a mobile but it would be much faster then what you have now.
__________________
-P Mentior
15" 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro (retired) | 11" 1.4 GHz Macbook Air | 32GB iPad (retired) | 16GB Black iPad 2 (WiFi) | 16GB Black iPhone 3G (retired) | 32GB Black iPhone 4 (retired) | Apple TV 2
P Mentior is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 10:30 AM   #4
jasontrucks76
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Using Handbrake on my iMac 3.06 Intel Core 2 with 8 GB ram runs full movies to the ATV2 setting in about 30 minutes. give or take 5 minutes.

Your biggest problem I see is lack of RAM and processor power. If I am running HB and watching the activity monitor... It is amazing how much processor HB can use.

I would totally agree with the previous poster the HB will use all you can give it. So the answer is... Max out your current machine or upgrade??
jasontrucks76 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 11:27 AM   #5
theslaz
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Calgary; Alberta; Canada
Did a small test yesterday with Handbrake; a PC and a Imac. Decoded the same movie file ( Inception) on both computers. The Imac ( 2.4 Ghz with only 1 Gig of ram ) took just a little over an hour. The PC (3 Hhz with 2.5 gig of ram ) took 2 hours and 25 min.
Needless to say; I'll be using the mac for this purpose in the future.
Have been a PC user since the first day they came out. Purchased a Mac just this last Xmas. I can see myself slowly changing over to the world on Apple!
theslaz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 11:37 AM   #6
P Mentior
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslaz View Post
Did a small test yesterday with Handbrake; a PC and a Imac. Decoded the same movie file ( Inception) on both computers. The Imac ( 2.4 Ghz with only 1 Gig of ram ) took just a little over an hour. The PC (3 Hhz with 2.5 gig of ram ) took 2 hours and 25 min.
Needless to say; I'll be using the mac for this purpose in the future.
Have been a PC user since the first day they came out. Purchased a Mac just this last Xmas. I can see myself slowly changing over to the world on Apple!
Can you tell us a little more about the settings you used and the hardware specs involved. Your results seem a little suspicious to me. If the encode settings were the same and the processors were of the same family (Core2Duo, i5, i7) then the PC should have been faster.
__________________
-P Mentior
15" 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro (retired) | 11" 1.4 GHz Macbook Air | 32GB iPad (retired) | 16GB Black iPad 2 (WiFi) | 16GB Black iPhone 3G (retired) | 32GB Black iPhone 4 (retired) | Apple TV 2
P Mentior is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 11:46 AM   #7
theslaz
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Calgary; Alberta; Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by P Mentior View Post
Can you tell us a little more about the settings you used and the hardware specs involved. Your results seem a little suspicious to me. If the encode settings were the same and the processors were of the same family (Core2Duo, i5, i7) then the PC should have been faster.
Basically I use the default settings for ATV ( which it choose in Handbrake). Don't know if they are the same in the Mac version as the PC version. I'm not really particular about the settings I use!
theslaz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 11:59 AM   #8
Nuc
macrumors 6502a
 
Nuc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TN
Has anyone tested the new MBP with Handbrake? Particularly the base 2011 17" MBP? What times are you guys getting?
__________________
rMBP 2.6/16/512
&
2.33GHz 17" MBP C2D
Nuc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 12:12 PM   #9
P Mentior
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslaz View Post
Basically I use the default settings for ATV ( which it choose in Handbrake). Don't know if they are the same in the Mac version as the PC version. I'm not really particular about the settings I use!
Ok. What Processors are in the machines then? You said that you got you iMac just about a year ago so i assume that it has an i3/i5/i7 in it. Does the PC you tested it against have one of those too or is it something else like a core2duo or Pentium 4?
__________________
-P Mentior
15" 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro (retired) | 11" 1.4 GHz Macbook Air | 32GB iPad (retired) | 16GB Black iPad 2 (WiFi) | 16GB Black iPhone 3G (retired) | 32GB Black iPhone 4 (retired) | Apple TV 2
P Mentior is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 02:39 PM   #10
theslaz
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Calgary; Alberta; Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by P Mentior View Post
Ok. What Processors are in the machines then? You said that you got you iMac just about a year ago so i assume that it has an i3/i5/i7 in it. Does the PC you tested it against have one of those too or is it something else like a core2duo or Pentium 4?
The mac was bought at Xmas for a gift; it is listed as a core two. The PC is a P4. I didn't mention it; but the PC is loaded to the hilt. Probably has about 70 processes running at any one time.
theslaz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 02:51 PM   #11
P Mentior
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslaz View Post
The mac was bought at Xmas for a gift; it is listed as a core two. The PC is a P4. I didn't mention it; but the PC is loaded to the hilt. Probably has about 70 processes running at any one time.
That explanes it. A P4 is quite a bit slower than a Core2Duo.
__________________
-P Mentior
15" 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro (retired) | 11" 1.4 GHz Macbook Air | 32GB iPad (retired) | 16GB Black iPad 2 (WiFi) | 16GB Black iPhone 3G (retired) | 32GB Black iPhone 4 (retired) | Apple TV 2
P Mentior is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 08:40 PM   #12
rjderama
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
The guys at TonyMac have created a hack that allows any USB3 device to be connected to a hackintosh.

Regardless, Thunderbolt/Light Peak have surpassed USB3.
rjderama is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2011, 10:35 PM   #13
dXTC
macrumors 68000
 
dXTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Up, up in my studio, studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslaz View Post
The mac was bought at Xmas for a gift; it is listed as a core two. The PC is a P4. I didn't mention it; but the PC is loaded to the hilt. Probably has about 70 processes running at any one time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P Mentior View Post
That explanes it. A P4 is quite a bit slower than a Core2Duo.
Agreed. Here's an analogous comparison. My older Windows XP PC, which I use on occasion for HandBrake 'cause it's there, has an Athlon 64 3500+ processor, in the same class as the faster Pentium 4s. It takes almost as long to HandBrake a movie as it would be to play it-- well over an hour for most feature-length movie encodes on iPhone/iPod Touch settings, and even longer for higher resolutions.

By comparison, the iMac in my sig is a Core i3. It does most feature-length encodes in iPhone/iPod touch settings in 15-20 minutes.

My guess is, since the new MBPs boast twice the processor speed of previous ones, that HandBrake encodes would take half that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjderama View Post
The guys at TonyMac have created a hack that allows any USB3 device to be connected to a hackintosh.

Regardless, Thunderbolt/Light Peak have surpassed USB3.
Umm... wrong thread, perhaps?
__________________
dXTC
stuff: iMac 21.5" i3 MBP 17" Two 5g iPod nanos iMac G4 and more
...geeve to me LAAAHRGE keess!
dXTC is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2011, 09:54 PM   #14
yourmother
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Japan
I fail at handbrake

How do you guys get those speeds? What setting do you choose? I only get around 11FPS.

I have a 2008 2.2 core2duo MBP and it takes me around 6-8 hours to do a movie. Any help speeding up this process would be greatly appreciated.
yourmother is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 02:51 AM   #15
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by yourmother View Post
How do you guys get those speeds? What setting do you choose? I only get around 11FPS.

I have a 2008 2.2 core2duo MBP and it takes me around 6-8 hours to do a movie. Any help speeding up this process would be greatly appreciated.
Buy a new computer - preferably one with 4 cores.
theSeb is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 03:30 AM   #16
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzy130 View Post
I've been Handbraking all of my movies, but it's a really slow process on my 2007 Macbook - it takes over an hour to do a movie, and about 30-45 minutes to do an episode of a TV show. Would this be significantly faster on a newer Macbook? Mine has the 2Ghz Core 2 Duo and only 1 GB of RAM, and I've been thinking of upgrading either to the new 13" MBP that came out today or the new MB whenever they refresh next. If Handbrake is the kind of thing that will run faster on a new computer it will be one more reason to upgrade.
Use some other software to copy the DVDs on your computer, then put everything into a queue in Handbrake. Handbrake can quite nicely encode your movies overnight.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 06:37 AM   #17
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
Use some other software to copy the DVDs on your computer, then put everything into a queue in Handbrake. Handbrake can quite nicely encode your movies overnight.
Agreed. Also make sure that you have the latest nightly build and not the official latest release version - it has some bugs in it.

Back to the original question...

How do you speed up handbrake? I take you guys have not found the secret settings?

Open terminal and type in
SET CPU_FAST_MODE = TRUE and then hit "Enter"



Seriously guys, there is no way to "speed up" encoding movies, other than buying a new, faster computer. I am not sure what you're expecting from a 2007 or a 2008 CPU? Handbrake is multi-threaded and multi-core compatible so the more CPU power it has, the faster it will be. Encoding is a very CPU intensive activity. A 2010 12 core Mac Pro will encode like there is no tomorrow. A 2010 6 core Mac Pro will do the job quite adequately. A 2011 iMac i7 3.4 will do the job well and so forth.
theSeb is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 11:07 AM   #18
hexonxonx
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Denver Colorado
I used to have a 2008 Mac Pro 8 core that would rip a DVD in about 15-20 minutes. I think the MBP that I had at the time could do the same DVD in about 25-30 minutes. Both had the same stock 2MB ram. I could never afford to upgrade the ram on on the Mac Pro back then and I ended up selling it a year later.

I now have a 2009 MBP and a 2008 black MB and I let the MBP do all my ripping /copying these days simply because it has the faster processor
hexonxonx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 12:31 PM   #19
yourmother
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexonxonx View Post
I used to have a 2008 Mac Pro 8 core that would rip a DVD in about 15-20 minutes. I think the MBP that I had at the time could do the same DVD in about 25-30 minutes. Both had the same stock 2MB ram. I could never afford to upgrade the ram on on the Mac Pro back then and I ended up selling it a year later.

I now have a 2009 MBP and a 2008 black MB and I let the MBP do all my ripping /copying these days simply because it has the faster processor
Can you tell me what settings you use?
yourmother is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 02:51 PM   #20
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexonxonx View Post
I used to have a 2008 Mac Pro 8 core that would rip a DVD in about 15-20 minutes. I think the MBP that I had at the time could do the same DVD in about 25-30 minutes. Both had the same stock 2MB ram. I could never afford to upgrade the ram on on the Mac Pro back then and I ended up selling it a year later.

I now have a 2009 MBP and a 2008 black MB and I let the MBP do all my ripping /copying these days simply because it has the faster processor
Ripping and encoding are two different things. Which one are you doing or were you doing both? Exactly which 2009 MBP are you using? There is no way that a 2009 MBP could encode a SD quality standard length movie in 25-30 minutes, unless you were only ripping. I know because I have one lying around. My 2011 i7 MBA is significantly faster.
theSeb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 02:59 PM   #21
hexonxonx
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Denver Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by theSeb View Post
Ripping and encoding are two different things. Which one are you doing or were you doing both? Exactly which 2009 MBP are you using? There is no way that a 2009 MBP could encode a SD quality standard length movie in 25-30 minutes, unless you were only ripping. I know because I have one lying around. My 2011 i7 MBA is significantly faster.
Just ripping. Not sure what encoding is but all I was doing was ripping a few DVDs. I really don't do that anymore because the quality isn't as good as iTunes HD. I don't own a Blu-Ray player so I just buy everything in iTunes.

The MBP is the 2.53GHz/4GB ram.
hexonxonx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 03:18 PM   #22
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexonxonx View Post
Just ripping. Not sure what encoding is but all I was doing was ripping a few DVDs. I really don't do that anymore because the quality isn't as good as iTunes HD. I don't own a Blu-Ray player so I just buy everything in iTunes.

The MBP is the 2.53GHz/4GB ram.
What program were you using? In simple terms: Ripping is making a copy of the DVD on your HDD. Encoding is compressing that copy of the DVD

I have the same CPU in my 2009 MBP. It takes just over the length of the clip to encode on average. A 40 minute tv episode takes about 50 minutes to encode. If the clip is HD, then it takes a lot longer. I am glad I don't have to use it anymore because it was painful.
theSeb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 03:35 PM   #23
theusualsuspect
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
You can kinda speed up Handbrake on an older machine if you choose not to use H264 encoding. H264 is processor intensive, and although it is the best balance of quality/file size, if you're unwilling to wait, choose the MPEG4 option in the video codec setting.

This doesn't make your computer faster, but it will speed up the encoding times, at the expense of file size.
theusualsuspect is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 03:50 PM   #24
GeekGuys
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
CPU or GPU?

I always thought the primary device for Handbrake encodes was the graphic card. I don't think the CPU is that intensively used when I do encodes, but being an iMac I have no choice about the graphics card i use. I know the next generation iMac to mine has a much better graphics card and will encode about twice as fast. The CPU is only 0.2Ghz faster with no change in FSB or RAM speed.

Lion makes use of GPL processing, which Windows already does so this is why, in general, Windows on the same hardware will encode faster than Leopard (for example). However, Lion should reverse that now.

External H264 encoders help as they remove the GPL processing offboard from the graphics chip.
This will increase the speed of Handbrake considerably. Get Elgato Turbo.H264 HD and you will see a dramatic difference in your performance.....especially on older Macs.
GeekGuys is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2011, 03:56 PM   #25
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeekGuys View Post
I always thought the primary device for Handbrake encodes was the graphic card. I don't think the CPU is that intensively used when I do encodes, but being an iMac I have no choice about the graphics card i use. I know the next generation iMac to mine has a much better graphics card and will encode about twice as fast. The CPU is only 0.2Ghz faster with no change in FSB or RAM speed.

Lion makes use of GPL processing, which Windows already does so this is why, in general, Windows on the same hardware will encode faster than Leopard (for example). However, Lion should reverse that now.

External H264 encoders help as they remove the GPL processing offboard from the graphics chip.
This will increase the speed of Handbrake considerably. Get Elgato Turbo.H264 HD and you will see a dramatic difference in your performance.....especially on older Macs.
Handbrake uses CUDA for GPU encoding, therefore the rest of your post is impossible, unless things have changed dramatically since 2010 and I have not kept up with the news. In 2010 there was no encoder that uses the GPU that is faster than a CPU based encoder. I am getting a bit older, but I am pretty sure that the world has not left me behind yet.
theSeb is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Apple TV and Home Theater

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Benchmark only read speed without write speed? caspersoong Mac Applications and Mac App Store 1 Oct 24, 2013 07:47 AM
Handbrake Speed - Base i5 CPU versus 2.9 GHz i7? divergirl iMac 6 Oct 24, 2013 06:37 AM
Crucial M4 512GB SSD Write speed half of read speed? Kmad86 iMac 2 Jan 3, 2013 01:03 AM
Should i get a single-speed or multi-speed bike? GanChan Community Discussion 6 Sep 19, 2012 11:31 PM
How to test processor speed and/or hard drive speed? macuser1232 MacBook Pro 9 Aug 28, 2012 05:52 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC