CPU recommendations?

This timing is actually pretty good for that specific movie and encoding speed.
I already picked up Adobe Premiere Pro, and today I grabbed the bundle featuring Handbrake and some video conversion tools.

It’s pretty obvious my CPU is just too weak regardless.
I'm looking at a B450 motherboard paired with that Ryzen 1600 AF
I guess it seems like the most cost-effective move, and it would probably be a massive step up from what I'm running now.

Edward Thompson86 said:This timing actually works out pretty well for that specific movie and encoding speed.
I picked up Adobe Premiere Pro recently, and today I added a bundle containing Handbrake plus an HD Video Converter and Video Watermark to my toolkit.

It’s pretty clear that my processor is just too weak to handle this effectively.
I’m currently looking at a B450 motherboard paired with a Ryzen 1600 AF.
It seems like the most sensible way to go, and honestly, it would be a massive step up from what I’m struggling with right now.

???Well, my results aren't quite hitting your marks, mostly because you mentioned earlier that you can encode 16 hours of footage in about 7 hours—which is roughly twice as fast as real-time playback—whereas I’m not even hitting 1.5x faster than playback 🤷 (though we have to account for scaling down from 4K to 2K, don't we?)...but if you're feeling the itch to upgrade, those 1600 series chips are such a great value, and in terms of synthetic performance, they are in a completely different league compared to what I have...personally, I use DaVinci Resolve for my editing, where almost everything relies on the GPU, so having a top-tier processor isn't necessarily the make-or-break factor.

Edward Thompson86 said:That timing works perfectly for that movie and encoding speed.
I picked up Adobe Premiere Pro, and today I grabbed a bundle with Handbrake and an HD Video Converter...

My CPU is definitely too weak regardless.
I'm looking at a B450 motherboard paired with a Ryzen 1600 AF
It seems like the best value, and it would be a massive step up from what I'm running now.

How's the CPU usage with the Adobe Premiere Pro version? And is the GPU handling things faster than before?

If you have software that supports GPU acceleration, maybe you could borrow an NVIDIA GTX 1060 or even an RX 570 or 580 to test out some encoding. You can find those kinds of cards used for $233 pretty cheap...

I don't have anyone to borrow from. My case is pretty small, so besides using a mini-ITX motherboard, the Graphics Card won't fit.

Edward Thompson86 said:I'm currently encoding 16 hours of video.

I encode streams 24/7 for IPTV.
Due to circumstances, I just encode whatever I can manage. I don't have a strict deadline; I just work as fast as possible.
The processor is old and wasn't really intended for this—it was meant for web tasks—but it'll do until I put together a new build.

Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 with Intel Core i3
Processor: DualCore Intel Core i3-6098P, 3600 MHz (36 x 100)
Memory: Kingston HyperX KHX2400C12D4/4GX 8 GB
Motherboard: MSI H110I Pro (MS-7995)
Liquid Cooling.

Drive 1 - Intel SSDSC2BW120H6 (111 GB) D: E: F:
Drive 2 - NVMe SAMSUNG MZVLW128 (119 GB) C:
Drive 3 - WDC WD7502ABYS-02A6B0 (698 GB) H:

It's outdated since I didn't need it for anything other than the internet.
Regarding my budget, I don't want to spend huge amounts. I need to upgrade the motherboard, CPU, and RAM. I also need at least another 8 GB of RAM. I can reuse the existing NVMe SSD.
Once 50-60 GB of content is encoded, it gets moved to servers, so I don't really need a massive SSD.

I'm wondering how much time I could save with something like a Ryzen 7. Right now, it takes me 7 hours to process 16 hours of 1080p video.
If a new configuration lets me finish that same job in just 1 hour, then it would be worth the investment.

As far as the motherboard goes, I can only use m-ITX; no other form factor works for me.

Something doesn't add up here. You didn't mention if you're encoding with the CPU or the GPU.
Which codec are you using? Is it x264 or x265? It’s obviously x264 since it takes you that little time.
Are you doing one pass or two? Clearly, it's one pass, since everything is moving relatively quickly for you.

If your goal is 720p or 1080p x264 with a low bitrate (since it's for IPTV), I think you need to use the CPU with a two-pass approach. A GPU, like a Vega 64, will finish the job extremely fast, but it won't match the quality of CPU processing, especially when we're talking about bitrates around 1000 or lower.
I haven't tried Adobe Premiere Elements, but I've used plenty of others like TMPEgEncoder, Handbrake, Avidemux, Sony Vegas, Premiere, AVS, and many more I've never even heard of. Of all those, I still use Avidemux (for cutting out letters or commercials in series) and Handbrake for encoding. Give Handbrake a try...

You have an older card than an RTX 2080 Ti.


If you're doing everything via the GPU right now, you won't see any benefit from upgrading the processor. You can't compare CPU speed to GPU speed. However, you can't compare GPU quality to CPU quality either, particularly at low bitrates.

That image above just shows one part where the GPU falls behind. In certain other scenes, modern GPUs actually perform better than x264 on a CPU.

Arthur Anderson10 said:That top image just shows one specific spot where the GPU is choking. In other scenes, a modern GPU actually outperforms x264 on the CPU.

Is that middle shot (HEVC 4K) also at 6mbps? It looks like it has the best quality to me.

He mentioned somewhere that he uses NVENC... but from what I can gather, he’s encoding in HEVC, which would imply his CPU is being hammered at 100% utilization, which just doesn't seem right. There are actually a few little "tricks" when you're working with hardware encoders; for instance, if you're trying to stream 60 fps while simultaneously running gameplay, the hardware encoder has to operate in a different mode—let's call it a "fast-low quality" setting—if frame rate needs to take priority over visual fidelity, unlike when you're simply transcoding a video file. I have the ability to manually select this when using AMD VCEENC, and honestly, the results turn out quite decent.

wiredotter14 said:Is that middle image (HEVC 4K) also 6mbps? It looks like the best quality to me.

That middle one is the source.

wanderingbison9 said:He mentioned somewhere that he uses NVENC... and from what I gather, he encodes in HEVC, which would normally peg his CPU at 100%, but that isn't happening. There are a few tricks with Hardware encoders. For example, if you're streaming 60 fps plus gameplay, the hardware encoder has to run in a different mode—let's call it fast-low quality—if framerate takes priority over quality. That’s different from just transcoding a video. I can actually choose this setting with AMD VCEENC, and the results are quite good.

If he's using Hardware to encode in H.265, how can he finish a 16-hour job in just 7 hours? He's only running an i3 and a 1050.

Regarding video: GPUs, especially these newer RTX models, deliver solid results. However, if your main priority is still pure image quality, the CPU is still king in that department. A CPU will take as long as it needs to process the image perfectly. If it takes 8 hours to finish 1 minute of footage, so be it; you'll end up with The Best. With ATI, I don't see any options for two-pass encoding on the GPU, and that's where the main issue lies.

I ran a one-minute sample through Handbrake and pulled two screenshots. This was 4K video encoded in x264.
This machine runs a Xeon 5440 and an AMD R7 360—everything is about 10 years old.

GPU encoding took 2:16 with a single pass, and the file is 3200 bitrate at 25MB.
CPU two-pass encoding took 5:15, and the file is 1500 bitrate at 12MB.
I have a 3200 CPU as well, but even on this setup, you can see that the much smaller CPU-encoded file provides a sharper image than the GPU encoding.



For anyone interested, here is the link to the clips used for the screenshots.
https://www.transfernow.net/wW6K01092020
.

Arthur Anderson10 said:The mid-range is where it all starts.

But if we are looking at his Hardware, how on earth can he finish an H.265 encode in 7 hours when it usually takes 16? He’s only running an i3 paired with a 1050 card.

When it comes to video work, modern RTX GPUs definitely deliver impressive results, but if your main priority remains pure image quality, isn't the CPU still king in that department? A CPU will simply take whatever amount of time is necessary to process the frame perfectly. If it takes 8 hours just to render one minute of footage, so be it, because you'll end up with The Best result. In my experience, ATI doesn't really offer those two-pass options via the GPU, which seems to be the primary limitation there.

[/B]
.

Well, if he’s utilizing an NVIDIA GPU encoder, there isn't actually much difference between cards within the same generation, assuming it works at all... it doesn't rely on CUDA for that specific task; instead, it uses a dedicated ASIC that is essentially identical across all GPUs of that generation. Now, I've heard the 20-series cards supposedly assist the NVENC process by leveraging CUDA... but does that same logic apply to the 16-series? That's the real question. I suppose I could try testing Adobe Premiere Pro on an RTX 2060 back at the studio, but I don't really feel like heading in there unless work absolutely requires it. 😁

P.S: It is possible that the AMD transcode profile supports 2-pass encoding...

I updated my Graphics Card drivers yesterday. I don't think I've ever actually done that before, since you have to go through their official website to get them.
With the new drivers, everything works perfectly now. My hardware is exactly as I described in my previous posts.

If my source is 720p in H.264, I just convert it to H.265 at that same resolution.
Or if the source is 1080p, I move it to H.265 at the same resolution; basically, all my content ends up encoded in H.265.
When dealing with 4K, I downscale it to 1080p in H.265. The reason I don't stick with 4K is that some people struggle even with 1080p due to slow internet, so 4K would just cause unnecessary headaches and issues.

I just tested out Handbrake, and these are the results shown in the image below.
To process a 3-hour video, it takes 18 hours at 720p H.265.



That same video now takes an incredible 15 minutes when processed in 720p H.265.



For a 1080p H.264 source being converted to 1080p H.265, it takes about 17 minutes for a 2-hour and 15-minute file, which is unbelievably good compared to how it used to be.
To me, this feels like science fiction.



My main issue is that I have to run the process twice—once to add logos and text, and again to merge about 10 to 15 files together to reach a total of 24 hours of video.
I am satisfied now, and I don't see any need to upgrade my hardware if things stay like this.

During encoding, I monitored the CPU usage, and it sits around 70%.

Meanwhile, using Adobe Premiere Elements for 24.5 hours of footage takes nearly 6 hours.

It is impossible to have such a massive discrepancy just because you switched software.
I can tell immediately that you ran deinterlacing via Handbrake, which naturally slowed everything down.
Did you select an Nvidia GPU in Handbrake, or did you stick with the CPU? That is exactly where that huge difference in duration comes from.

To actually compare two programs, you need to use identical settings, like a fixed bitrate, rather than the CQ you are using now.
Set a maximum fixed bitrate, and all your movies will maintain consistent quality.

Handbrake is one of the best—if not the absolute best—free tools for encoding just about anything.

It looks like you prioritized speed over quality. Converting something from H.264 to H.265 is complete madness.
H.265 source material exists. When you are lowering the bitrate, the quality of the source material is vital. If your goal is to get 720p in H.265, you should start with high-bitrate 4K footage, not some butchered 720p H.264 file that someone else already wrecked with their encoder.

Regarding adding logos and subtitles.
For the best results, use VirtualDub via DirectShow filters, though that is the most complex method. AviDemux has some subtitle filters, and you can technically add a logo there too by simply adding a line of text to the subtitle file, but it is far from a professional solution.

As for merging everything into a 24-hour loop: AviDemux was built specifically for cutting and joining footage, and it does it perfectly. It allows for cutting at I/B/P frames to prevent audio desync. It also features a SAVE/COPY mode, meaning it doesn't re-encode; it just copies the data, so joining two movies takes about a minute.
Basically, you handle the subtitles, the logo, and the encoding first. Then, in AviDemux, you bring in that film, cut at the last I-frame, bring in the next one, cut at its last I-frame, and repeat until you hit 24 hours. Select "copy" for the video, and it will merge everything into one file in minutes.
The speed of this process depends on your drives. If you are moving files between different disks, it flies. If you are doing it all on one drive, it depends on how fragmented that drive is, much like any standard file copy.

EDIT:
Here is the breakdown of the speed difference when you enable a deinterlace filter versus leaving it off. We are talking about CPU encoding here; if you switch to an Nvidia GPU instead of the CPU, you go from 6 hours down to 15 minutes.




I see you used ready-made presets, which is a mistake.
Why? Take your example: you chose a 720p 30 fps preset. What if your source material is 25 fps? You will end up with unwatchable video that stutters because it's skipping 5 fps every second. Set your framerate to "Same as Source," turn off all filters, select the Nvidia GPU, and then try Handbrake again.

What drivers do I actually need to register for to get the download?

wiredotter14 said:What kind of drivers am I supposed to register for to actually get the download?

The app? 😁

wanderingbison9 said:An APP? 😁

🐔

Basically, Windows usually keeps graphics drivers stuck on the latest WHQL version, which is at most six months old. You aren't going to see massive performance gaps there.

Does anyone happen to know which specific preset this video Converter is running? I've noticed that Handbrake performs just as quickly as VSDC on my machine—even when I'm doing GPU encoding and scaling 4K down to 2K—but for some reason, my video encode graph for HB stays pinned at 100% usage. Is there a reason for that discrepancy?

HB uses ffmpeg under the hood. I have no idea what's running inside that VSDC software.
I downloaded the free version today and it’s an absolute disaster.
It didn't even give me the option to select an AMD GPU or the x265 codec. I'm not sure which version you all are using, but the one I grabbed was a complete wreck.

http://www.videosoftdev.com/ so I just went ahead and downloaded their video Converter.

I haven't really installed any graphics drivers, maybe just once when I was building the PC.
Every single time I try to run a driver upgrade, it forces me to create a user account before the installation even starts.

As for the trade-offs, the reason I switch from H.264 to H.265 is strictly file size. For a 24-hour UFC event, if I don't compress it, H.265 is over 34 Giga. If I used H.264, that single stream would be about 70 Giga.

With 100 streams like that, you're looking at 7 or 8 Terabytes immediately.

Since we aren't just dealing with local subtitles here—we're talking original English, Italian, and German content—and we have such a high volume, it adds up fast.
I suppose you have to make compromises somewhere.

Here is an example so you can see what I mean: http://andtv.local-hd.com:8080/get.p...&output=mpegts
I have 100 connections open for testing.

I will probably move to more powerful hardware, likely a Ryzen 5, but I am in no rush.

Arthur Anderson10 said:HB uses ffmpeg under the hood. I have no idea what that VSDC thing actually uses.
I downloaded the free version today, and honestly, it's a disaster.
It didn't even give me the option to select an AMD GPU or the H.265 codec. I don't know which version you guys are running, but the one I grabbed was total garbage.

http://www.videosoftdev.com/ so I just downloaded a video Converter.

This supports H.265

I don't get it. Why use H.265 for 720p? There is absolutely no reason to convert 720p H.264 to H.265 when you could just take a 4K H.265 source, downscale it to 720p H.265, and end up with something twice as sharp and half the artifacts.
It doesn't even have to be 4K; 1080p in x264 works fine. Encoding 720p H.264 is just pointless. These days, you can encode everything in FHD or 4K. Sure, it might take 20 minutes instead of 15, but 🙂

Edward Thompson86 said:[/url]
This supports H.265.

It didn't offer that to me, and after a few minutes, it crashed right where it belongs... total junk. 🙂 HB is BEST.
I tried messing around with x264 l, but that software has zero options. Who are these preset settings actually for?
How can you encode a 23.98 UFC fight at 30fps? The native frame rate is 23.976. Or if it's an American movie at 25fps, why move it to 30 fps? That creates a massive jitter issue.
I assume there is a way to fix it, but it’s never a simple process, so people usually avoid it.

Regarding the AVATAR file—did you intentionally use Spanish audio, or did you just mess up?
Am I seeing this right? Is the audio DTS-stereo? I can't see the bitrate, but I suspect it's low.
If you want to save bandwidth, you should lower the audio too, like using AAC at 96kbps instead of DTS.
The video looks like decent old DivX, but it stutters constantly. That’s exactly what I was talking about. The film has 30fps instead of 23.98, and you can really feel that lack of fluidity.
Okay, maybe my wife doesn't notice on her screen, but my eyes hurt after watching this for a few minutes. It's incredibly blurry; you can see it yourself.

The OTE CINEMA quality is terrible. It looks like bad DivX, just a bunch of Lego blocks.🙂
I've seen handheld CAM-ov that look better than this.



When looking at this now, it feels like old-school DivX-Xvid material rather than modern x265 code. I have a 500MB file at home—just the video—that is 2 hours long in 4K, and it looks light-years ahead of this. And it's only 500MB.

Video quality and encoding speed are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The faster you encode, the worse the quality. This SS above proves it.

Run that AVATAR or UFC clip through MediaInfo so I can see the video and audio bitrates.

I can tell you this: my 720p x264 encodes, with 1000kbps video and 96kbps audio, come out to about 470MB per hour. Compared to yours, the picture looks like 4K. If I did the same thing in x265, the file would be roughly four times smaller, around 120-150MB per hour, with identical quality.

General : Livada.mp4
Format : MPEG-4 at 1 .102 kb/s
Length : 407 MiB for 48 min 34s 507 ms
Video #0 : AVC at 1 .000 kb/s
Aspect : 1280 x 546 (2.344) at 25.000 fps
Audio #0 : AAC at 96,0 kb/s
Infos : 2 channels, 48,0 kHz

Don't get it twisted, I'm just running tests here to figure out which combinations actually work best.
I'll probably get it sorted out eventually, I guess..