New components ordered

[MSIC]

Hi all, just wanted to post that i've finally ordered to upgrade my Sandy Bridge i5 to a new Skylake i5.
Am going down from 16GB to 8GB, however 16GB was always stupid overkill (i ordered back when it was very cheap, so didnt really cost much - i just never benefited).

I do quite a bit of H265 Handbrake encodes these days, so i'll post some before and after benchmarks

[Gronich26]

I'm surprise you didn't go for a Skylake i7 - It shows a substantial performance jump over the i5 in H265 and H264 encoding:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/i...-generation/18

I went for a 5820K aiming for 25 fps for Blu-Ray; Medium setting for H265; which it does consistently when overclocked...Then I discovered the Denoise filters which reduces the file size considerable but slows it down to around 10 fps...

Good Luck with your new build.

[MSIC]

Thanks.
Primarily, i didnt want to spend as much on the i7 (£100 more), but also with a small consideration to heat - this will be a MiniITX system.
Thanks though, will update once i have some progress

[MSIC]

Converting a 1080p video file, approx 2 hours long, with ac3 audio.

Settings to convert using handbrake 0.10.2.7286 (64 bit).
Video: h265
Constant quality: 17.5
X265 preset : slow
Audio : ac3 pass thru
Resolution etc all default (same as source).

With my sandy bridge i5, am getting an average frame rate of exactly 01.0 fps.
This converting, this is taking a while...

My new hardware is now here, so I hope to get up and running before next week

[MSIC]

Well, with my Core i5 6500, i'm now getting 1.4 fps under those settings.

On the one hand, 1.4fps is still a Loooooong time!
On the other, its a 40% improvement on my previous CPU!

I have read from a number of review sites that comparing Skylake to SandyBridge architecture, there is an approx 25% improvement like-for-like; I have also gone from a 2.8Ghz CPU to a 3.2Ghz CPU, RAM has also changed from DDR3 to DDR4, and also of course motherboard / chipset has changed, so those will play a part too.

[Bonebreaker777]

How's the consumption and the noise of the system under load in such a refined space?

[MSIC]

Havent measured power consumption, however i am happy with heat output - far less now, though am sure my GPU change is a significant here too.

I think, if i'm being honest, there have been far better value computer purchases i've made in the past - this cost me about £350 for CPU, mobo and RAM, and i cant say that i "needed" it - however i've recycled my old bits to family, so the waterfall effect will benefit others too.

[peterb]

Hmm, value is subjective, could you have achieved the same performance (including power consumption) for less cash outlay? And how much time would you have spent in research.

If it is doing what you want (and expected) then the job is a good 'un!

[MSIC]

Hmm, value is subjective, could you have achieved the same performance (including power consumption) for less cash outlay? And how much time would you have spent in research.
If it is doing what you want (and expected) then the job is a good 'un!

Quite right, and on that basis i justified ordering the bits!

I just i was just thinking about the wider parts of my life that compete for that same pot of cash...
I'm not sure for example that if Sony brought out a new TV that was otherwise feature identical, but had measurably lower power use, i'd spend over £300 to upgrade.

Still PCs are for me, like many here i suspect more than a rational purchase - they are our hobby and interest, for some even a passion; so it's horses for courses.
I have no regrets.

[watercooled]

I'm surprise you didn't go for a Skylake i7 - It shows a substantial performance jump over the i5 in H265 and H264 encoding:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/i...-generation/18

I went for a 5820K aiming for 25 fps for Blu-Ray; Medium setting for H265; which it does consistently when overclocked...Then I discovered the Denoise filters which reduces the file size considerable but slows it down to around 10 fps...

Good Luck with your new build.

Video encoding (specifically x264/x265 anyway) is something which generally sees *very* little benefit from hyperthreading, the differences between i5 and i7 are more likely attributable to the clock speed differences between the two processors rather than the additional threads. You could likely get the same result from overclocking the i5 to i7 clock speeds unless stability is paramount. If you were looking to spend the (currently absurdly inflated) cost of a Skylake i7, you'd be much better off with more cores on a Haswell-E platform for video encoding TBH.

IMO the i5 the OP chose is a solid choice vs the i7 for video encoding especially considering current retail prices.

[Gronich26]

Converting a 1080p video file, approx 2 hours long, with ac3 audio.

Settings to convert using handbrake 0.10.2.7286 (64 bit).
Video: h265
Constant quality: 17.5
X265 preset : slow
Audio : ac3 pass thru
Resolution etc all default (same as source).

With my sandy bridge i5, am getting an average frame rate of exactly 01.0 fps.
This converting, this is taking a while...

Well, with my Core i5 6500, i'm now getting 1.4 fps under those settings.

On the one hand, 1.4fps is still a Loooooong time!
On the other, its a 40% improvement on my previous CPU!

MSIC If you are encoding for Archiving I personally wouldn't use x265 in Handbrake: I tested at CQ17 and still found blockiness in dark graduated areas i.e. background walls. While you still can get this with x264 you can find advanced settings to get around this.

If your heart is set on x265 and you accept that there will be some background blockiness I wouldn't go beyond CQ23 for Full HD, CQ22 for 720p & SD. Also, using Medium instead of Slow (Medium is 3 times quicker than Slow) - Running a comparison between Q17 and Q23 on my 46" Samsung I subjectively can't see any difference.

[MSIC]

MSIC If you are encoding for Archiving I personally wouldn't use x265 in Handbrake: I tested at CQ17 and still found blockiness in dark graduated areas i.e. background walls. While you still can get this with x264 you can find advanced settings to get around this.

I am aiming for something close to original quality, at least in terms of visual perception; as such, my thinking was that i could get as good as H264 settings using H265, but with half the file size (or at least the video codec part of the file); I'm always up for learning though.
Can you describe any better settings for H265 encodes? Or are you suggesting that, irrespective of compression settings, that H264 gives a better picture compared to H265?

[watercooled]

I am aiming for something close to original quality, at least in terms of visual perception; as such, my thinking was that i could get as good as H264 settings using H265, but with half the file size (or at least the video codec part of the file); I'm always up for learning though.
Can you describe any better settings for H265 encodes? Or are you suggesting that, irrespective of compression settings, that H264 gives a better picture compared to H265?

Just to clear something up, h264 and h265 are video coding formats, x264 and x265 one of many software encoders which encode video to the former format standards.

x264 is an excellent h264 encoder and far more mature than x265 which is still comparatively new. In theory yes, you should be able to achieve higher compression for a given image quality with h265 over h264 but what you actually achieve will depend on the encoder and the source material. I'm inclined to agree than unless you really need to watch file size I'd probably stick with x264 with plenty of bitrate for archiving at the moment.

[Gronich26]

I am aiming for something close to original quality, at least in terms of visual perception; as such, my thinking was that i could get as good as H264 settings using H265, but with half the file size (or at least the video codec part of the file); I'm always up for learning though.
Can you describe any better settings for H265 encodes? Or are you suggesting that, irrespective of compression settings, that H264 gives a better picture compared to H265?

I would say using the same settings for H264 vs H265 - H265, subjectively, produces a better picture quality and smaller file size. At the moment, but correct me if I'm wrong, H265 in Handbrake doesn't have the advance features tab that H264 does. So unless your willing to use a command line H265 encoder you won't have the full control you have with H264 encoding.

Personally, I prioritise File size then Speed while maintaining a Good to Very Good quality. Depending on the material H265, can give between 20 to 50% smaller file size for similar quality. Though, it does have the drawback, for me, of not being able to play 1080p on my tablet without dropped frames while H264 plays without a glitch.