Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Handbrake encoding Sandy Bridge *Updated with several results*

xxBURT0Nxx

xxBURT0Nxx

macrumors 68020
Jul 9, 2009
2,189
2
adrian1480 said:
yea, you're right. I was moving too fast and grabbed the FPS instead of the time.

Taking the best 2.3 time and the best 2.2 time on the 15"ers, we have a 6% difference (20 seconds). with the same, very basic math:

20/(10*60) * 7200 =

0.03 * 7200 = 240 seconds, or 4 minutes saved per 2 hours.

or, for every 1 hour of transcoding you do, you save about 2 minutes of life time.

Continuing on with the simple calculations:

In order to save 1 hour of lifetime, you'd have to transcode at max speed for 30 hours.

Not nearly as much as 300 hours...but still, how many people are going to spend even 30 hours transcoding video or rendering 3D? The same concept applies as before: if you're doing 3D CAD-type work or do video encoding/transcoding for a living, you could potentially save a few hours a year by going with the $300 CPU upgrade. Whether that is worth the investment is purely a function of how much transoding you calculate that you do annually and how much your time is worth. And if you're doing *that much* transcoding, you're probably doing it from a desktop anyway, right?

For the other 99% of Mac owners who aren't transcoding hundreds of of audio/video or rendering 3D scenes...your gain is going to be next to nothing. $300 by far better spent on a reliable SSD.
Click to expand...

and as i said in my original post... the vast majority of users probably wouldn't even notice the CPU difference between the 2.0 and 2.2, much less the 2.2 to 2.3, i was simply stating that the differences would be more noticeable if you were doing heavy duty professional work, which is what the higher end processors are designed for... never did i suggest people buy the 2.3 because it could save them a few minutes off a full bluray encode!
 
I

imahawki

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2011
612
8
I'll be very curious to see the new iMac benchmark scores... I want to see where the sweet spot is vs. going the highest end CPU. I do a lot of encoding for my media server and I'd like to get the biggest upgrade over my Mini without selling the farm to pay for it.
 
N

Nanker/Phelge

macrumors regular
Dec 6, 2010
168
1
imahawki said:
i'll be very curious to see the new imac benchmark scores... I want to see where the sweet spot is vs. Going the highest end cpu. I do a lot of encoding for my media server and i'd like to get the biggest upgrade over my mini without selling the farm to pay for it.
Click to expand...

+1
 
R

raysmd

macrumors member
Sep 4, 2007
67
0
5'17" iMac 3.1GHz quad (apple store)
6'5" iMac 2.7GHz quad (apple store)
 
Last edited:
firestarter

firestarter

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2002
5,506
227
Green and pleasant land
Interesting stuff. Thinking of changing to a newer machine, so here's the speed of my current Mac.

MacPro 2.8GHz 8 core, 6GB (2008) - 5min 43s, 41.81fps

Kind of annoying to see that this 3 year old machine is still faster than most of the laptops and iMacs.
 
G

gakio12

macrumors newbie
Mar 15, 2011
9
0
firestarter said:
Interesting stuff. Thinking of changing to a newer machine, so here's the speed of my current Mac.

MacPro 2.8GHz 8 core, 6GB (2008) - 5min 43s, 41.81fps

Kind of annoying to see that this 3 year old machine is still faster than most of the laptops and iMacs.
Click to expand...

Why is that annoying? The Mac Pro has 8 cores, while the iMacs only have 8 virtual cores (threads, w/e). I'd be happy my 3 year old computer is still faster than other new computers :D
 
cambookpro

cambookpro

macrumors 604
Feb 3, 2010
7,201
3,326
United Kingdom
Got my new MBP last week. Even though this model has been done, I thought I'd do it again to give an average. I'll also do it next week when my 8GB RAM comes!

Specs: 15" MBP 2.2GHz Quad Core i7 4GB RAM - 5 mins 21 secs @ 43.52 fps
 
MH01

MH01

Suspended
Feb 11, 2008
12,107
9,297
The new MBP are impressive, might have to get one to replace the ancient dual core.

For what its worth

i7 2.8 iMac

6:40 at 36FPS

i7 980X @4.2

3:02 @ 76FPS
 
D

dolphin842

macrumors 65816
Jul 14, 2004
1,172
29
Wow... impressive data collection folks!

The only pieces missing in my mind are results from the new iMacs, specially the upper-end 27" machines with the 'normal' 2400 and 2600 desktop chips.

Based on my testing at the Apple Store, the low-power i5's in most of the iMacs are slower than the quad-core MBP's. As there were no i7's at the, I'm also curious how much of a role hyperthreading is playing in the Sandy Bridge chips (they didn't do a whole lot when I tested the Lynnfield chips last year). I'll go poke the iMac forum and see if we can get some contributions.

EDIT: Nevermind, they're already on it! Handbrake benchmarks: iMac edition. Adjusting for clock speed, looks like hyperthreading is offering a boost of ~15%. The 2600 itself appears ~25% faster than the 2400.
 
Last edited:
acedickson

acedickson

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 6, 2004
727
0
ATL
dolphin842 said:
Wow... impressive data collection folks!

The only pieces missing in my mind are results from the new iMacs, specially the upper-end 27" machines with the 'normal' 2400 and 2600 desktop chips.

Based on my testing at the Apple Store, the low-power i5's in most of the iMacs are slower than the quad-core MBP's. As there were no i7's at the, I'm also curious how much of a role hyperthreading is playing in the Sandy Bridge chips (they didn't do a whole lot when I tested the Lynnfield chips last year). I'll go poke the iMac forum and see if we can get some contributions.

EDIT: Nevermind, they're already on it! Handbrake benchmarks: iMac edition. Adjusting for clock speed, looks like hyperthreading is offering a boost of ~15%. The 2600 itself appears ~25% faster than the 2400.
Click to expand...

The OP of that thread actually contacted me about this thread and asked if it would be ok; courteous new member. Although, I would've had no problem had they not asked.
 
D

DJ Buck

macrumors newbie
Jun 3, 2011
1
0
Turnhout
iMac 24"

iMac 24" (late 2008) 2,8Ghz Core 2 Duo 4GB RAM: 18 mins 49 seconds, 13,89 fps (avg)

I welcome any tests with the iMac 21", 2,5Ghz i5 quadcore: I presume it would end up rendering around 35fps?
 
Last edited:
J

JamesM

macrumors regular
Jan 27, 2007
248
4
For what its worth heres mine, good job my 27" i7 iMac is on its way!!

2006 MBP C2D 2.33Ghz, 3gb, 500gb Momentus XT

10.6fps
22m 33s
 
V

vro25

macrumors newbie
Jun 11, 2011
2
0
A Few More Macs

All these tests were only run once - I just wanted some incentive to get an new Mac. That said, looks like the '07 iMac is holding it's own against my other Macs.


Mac Mini (Mid-2010) 2.4GHz C2D 2GB RAM (1067Mhz) - 19 mins 10 secs @ 12.47 fps

13" MBP (Mid-2009) 2.26GHz C2D 4GB RAM (1067MHz) - 18 mins 52 secs @ 12.61 fps

11" MBA (Oct-2010) 1.4GHz C2D 4GB RAM (1067MHz) - 32 mins 30 secs @ 7.32 fps

20" iMac (Mid-2007) 2.4GHz C2D 4GB RAM (667MHz) - 18 mins 44 secs @ 12.69 fps

27" iMac (Early-2011) 2.7GHz i5 Quad Core 12GB RAM (1333MHz) - 6 mins 9 secs @ 38.69 fps

13" MacBook Air (2011) 1.7GHz i5 4GB RAM (1333MHz) - 12min 17secs @ 19.37fps



Just for comparison I ran the test on a new PC I built to be my Windows Home Server, looks to be about equivalent to the 2.7GHz Dual Core i7...

Core i3 3.1GHz (32nm) 4GB RAM (1333MHz) - 9 mins 23 secs @ 25.50 fps
 
Last edited:
S

superericla

macrumors 6502
Sep 27, 2010
301
0
Base 15" 2011 MacBook Pro 4GB ram
Around 6 minutes 3 seconds at 39.456917 fps
My results seem interesting in that I'm getting a higher fps than a computer with the same specs by about 4.
 
kfscoll

kfscoll

macrumors 65816
Nov 3, 2009
1,147
139
Now for some internet nutswinging...:D

I just ran this encode with my brand-new 27" Core i7-2600 (3.4GHz) Sandy Bridge iMac, 16GB DDR3-1333 RAM, ATI Radeon HD 6970M 2GB video card, 256GB SSD + 2TB HDD:

  • [21:07:13] starting job
    [*][21:11:27] work: average encoding speed for job is 56.367241 fps

It looks like the elapsed time was 4 minutes 14 seconds. Woot!
 
KasperH

KasperH

macrumors regular
May 26, 2011
189
0
Another 27" 2011 iMac 3.4ghz i7, 16GB RAM, 2GB 6970, 1TB Seagate

[10:01:36] starting job
[10:05:49] work: average encoding speed for job is 56.641369 fps

4 min 13 sec
 
D

djalterego

macrumors newbie
Jul 21, 2011
7
0
2011 Mac Mini Server

6 minutes 48 seconds @ 35.179611 fps

Hardware Overview:

Model Name: Mac mini
Model Identifier: Macmini5,3
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Memory: 4 GB
Boot ROM Version: MM51.0075.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.77f0


homeserver:EncodeLogs bill$ cat big_buck_bunny_1080p_surround\ 2011-07-21\ 21-27-01.txt | head -4
HandBrake Activity Log for /Users/bill/Desktop/big_buck_bunny_1080p_surround.m4v: 2011-07-21 21:27:01 -0400
Handbrake Version: 0.9.5 x86_64 (2011010300)

[21:27:01] macgui: Rip: Pending queue count is 0
homeserver:EncodeLogs bill$ cat big_buck_bunny_1080p_surround\ 2011-07-21\ 21-27-01.txt | tail -1
[21:33:50] libhb: work result = 0
homeserver:EncodeLogs bill$ cat big_buck_bunny_1080p_surround\ 2011-07-21\ 21-27-01.txt | grep average
[21:33:49] work: average encoding speed for job is 35.179611 fps
homeserver:EncodeLogs bill$
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom