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*

MBP 13", i7, 2,7 GHz, Intel X25 SSD, 4 GB RAM


FIRST: 9 min. 46 sec. / 24.417398 fps
(Start: 20:43:05, End: 20:52:53, "work: average encoding speed for job is 24.417398 fps")

SECOND: 10 min. / 23.923597 fps
Restart, Wifi off, no Dashboard loaded
(Start: 21:01:00, End: 21:11:00, "work: average encoding speed for job is 23.923597 fps")

Third: 9 min. 53 sec. / 24.193985 fps
Done after second run
(Start: 21:18:14, End: 21:28:07, "work: average encoding speed for job is 24.193985 fps")
 
Last edited:
17" MBP, 2.3GHz i7 quad, 8GB RAM, 750GB 7200rpm HDD: average 41.116745 fps, time 5:49

27" iMac, 2.93GHz i7 quad, 8GB RAM, 1TB 7200rpm HDD: average 42.063614 fps, time 5:39
 
Someone suggested running other machines for comparison, so here's the average of 3 runs:

3:34 @ 67.27fps

Mac Pro 3.33GHz 6 core / 16GB RAM / Intel X25M 160GB

Max CPU temp was 55C FWIW..
 
xxjudgmentxx said:
17" MBP, 2.3GHz i7 quad, 8GB RAM, 750GB 7200rpm HDD: average 41.116745 fps, time 5:49

27" iMac, 2.93GHz i7 quad, 8GB RAM, 1TB 7200rpm HDD: average 42.063614 fps, time 5:39
Click to expand...

These new Sandy Bridge chips sure are powerful. It will be interesting to see what the numbers are when Sandy Bridge iMacs come out.
 
MBP 13" - i5 2.3ghz, 240gb Mercury Pro SSD, 4gb ram

average encoding speed for job is 22.262236 fps

Total was - 10.41
 
From 22 to 24 fps on the 13" base 2.3 to 2.7... I can't see why anyone would bother buying the 13" with the i7 upgrade.

Would imagine very little reason to upgrade from a 2.2 to 2.3 on the 15/17" too. I'd imagine even the 2.0 is no slouch, but of course the GPU difference is a reason for people to go higher up the chain on the 15".
 
DerHexer said:
MBP 13", i7, 2,7 GHz, Intel X25 SSD, 4 GB RAM
Click to expand...
impressive! JUST as fast as the quad core variants...

iPadThai said:
17" MBP Core i7 2.2Ghz Quad Core 8GB RAM WD Scorpio 750gb
===>56.212345 fps @4:37
brentsg said:
This looks incorrect, it's way too far off from the pack.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
it kind of does - probably wrong preset.

brentsg said:
Someone suggested running other machines for comparison, so here's the average of 3 runs:

3:34 @ 67.27fps

Mac Pro 3.33GHz 6 core / 16GB RAM / Intel X25M 160GB

Max CPU temp was 55C FWIW..
Click to expand...
thanks for posting this, interesting to compare, that MP is a beast! imagine the 12 core :drool:
 
Ok, back from a day of skiing; I'll update the thread with the new results after some food and rest. Thank you to all that have run the test and everyone that plans to.
 
Great thread!

For my new MBP:
Early 2011 15" MBP Core i7 2.3GHz Quad Core 8GB RAM 240GB OWC SSD
-average speed = 44.117874 fps
-start time = 18:33:40
-end time = 18:39:06
-elapsed time = 5:26

For my iMac:
Late 2009 27" iMac Core i7 2.8GHz Quad Core 8GB RAM 1TB 7200RPM HDD
-average speed = 41.453953 fps
-start time = 21:36:44
-end time = 21:42:30
-elapsed time = 5:46
 
Last edited:
uuum where do I look to check average fps, and where do I look to see how long it took, or do I have to time the damn thing
 
WontonX said:
The torrent seems to have many seeds and is downloading pretty quickly.

13" MBP Core i5 2.3Ghz Dual Core 8GB RAM 320GB 5400RPM

Run 1: 11 min. 50 sec. @ 23.097168 avg fps
Run 2: 10 min. 18 sec. @ 23.377243 avg fps
Run 3: 10 min. 16 sec. @ 23.328012 avg fps
Run 4: 10 min. 16 sec. @ 23.319891 avg fps

Total average: 10 min. 42 sec @ 23.280579 avg fps

Not sure why my first run took so much longer. Seems like runs 2,3,4 are most representative of what you would get. Anyhow, hope this helps someone.
Click to expand...

Did you have anything running during the first encode that wasn't after?
 
I think I've found it

Average: 44.2fps
couldn't find the time right but I think it was under 4min

my specs are in the second part of my sig

EDIT: if I'm reading this right
Start: 11:09:24
End: 11:14:49

so about 5min 25s
 
Last edited:
iPadThai said:
Bingo.

SB - more idle power more potential turbo.
Click to expand...

Can you rerun and double-check? This 2.2 would have to be 800+MHz higher than the 2.3 to achieve this.

That's asking a lot of additional turbo due to the extra 10C or so of headroom.
 
I can rip a full dvd movie in 30 minutes or less on my 2.2 i7 15"... Beats the pants off the 2 hr time on my Core 2 Duo desktop... Good enough for me :p
 
brentsg said:
Can you rerun and double-check? This 2.2 would have to be 800+MHz higher than the 2.3 to achieve this.

That's asking a lot of additional turbo due to the extra 10C or so of headroom.
Click to expand...

There's no way new thermal paste is going to result in those kinds of changes. Either he downloaded the wrong file or used the wrong encoder settings.

Also, I updated my post above to include my iMac's Handbrake encode results.
 
Last edited:
Code: 
13" MBP 2.3GHz Dual Core i5 4GB RAM - 10 mins 41 secs @ 22.26 fps
13" MBP 2.3GHz Dual Core i5 8GB RAM - 10 mins 42 secs @ 23.28 fps



Sure this is correct?! 1 second faster but 1 fps less?
 
neteng101 said:
From 22 to 24 fps on the 13" base 2.3 to 2.7... I can't see why anyone would bother buying the 13" with the i7 upgrade
Click to expand...

Don't forget: There is also a difference in Memory. I will upgrade mine in a couple of weeks and will rerun this test to see, if this matters.
 
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
Back