havli
-
Posts
413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by havli
-
-
-
Here is my submission :
http://hwbot.org/submission/2955489_trouffman_hwbot_x265_benchmark___4k_core_i7_3615qm_0.78_fps
Using 2 screens, x265 run on the second monitor, the popup was on the first monitor when clicking submit... so no score being shown ( as it is on the seond screen
Tested with bench screen on first monitor. And the Submit popup on the second monitor :
http://hwbot.org/submission/2955494_trouffman_hwbot_x265_benchmark___4k_core_i7_3615qm_0.78_fps
Screenshot always take on the first monitor then
Yeah, the java function to take screenshot only works on the primary monitor (by default). I'll do some research to see whether it is possible to extend it to capture the whole desktop.
-------
trodas -> sent PM.
-
Thank you, I'm glad you like the benchmark.
It is good to hear it really works on old school hardware. I did some quick testing during development, but I didn't have the patience to wait this long.
Aleslammer:
Dual Socket 771 PC was one of my testing rigs... I did a lot of alpha testing there. I like dual-CPU boards very much, so I tried to optimize the benchmark frontend to work well on these things.
11.4 fps @ 1080p s really good score for "old" Core 2 architecture. My best score is around 4.5 fps for single Xeon L5410 and ~2 fps for 2x Xeon 5110.
-
Well, no need to change the score precision then.
The Windows Vista - 10 mixup seems to be cpu-z error, this is beyond my power to fix. And Skylake is not affected by the RTC bug, so no problem there. http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?p=402927#post402927
If the OS is detected wrong on older platforms too, please use older cpu-z version 1.72.1 (copy it to the x265 older) - there was no problem with win10 during my testing.
http://hwbot.org/benchmark/hwbot_x265_benchmark_-_1080p/
http://hwbot.org/benchmark/hwbot_x265_benchmark_-_4k/
Enjoy.
-
Hey Havli, if this would ever make it to HWBot as a for-points benchmark, I think it would be helpful to add another decimal to FPS. Easy to do? Difficult?
Yes, this is possible and relatively easy. X265.exe only provides two decimal digits, but I can calculate the final score with more precision easily as: total frames / elapsed time. It would be best to implement this change before the benchmark goes public.
MBit/s sounds kinda weird. FPS is a common unit for video encoding speed, I want to keep it that way.
-
You are using windows 10, right? Weird thing is cpu-z detects it as Vista. Therefore the benchmark runs even without HPET.... which it shouldn't.
Can you please upload hardware.txt located in x265 folder (only available when the benchmark is running)?
-
Well, opensource... I don't know, the code is quite a mess.
And also rather long - over 10000 lines of code. Maybe in future. The screenshot inside data file is in PNG format, I dont like the artifacts usually produced by JPEG.
0.58fps @ 4K is good score af a ULV Laptop. My workstation based on two Core2 Xeons (4C/4T in total) only scores 0.4fps.
I'm looking forward to see the Skylake score. Hopefully the Timer detection will be working reliably, as it does on older platforms.
-
Cool, so it works on PIII after all. And even with 512 MB RAM.
Unfortunately Java is the only suitable language for me. My c++ or c# skills are way too low for complicated project like this. The final version however will be a portable benchmark with built-in java...
Thank you for the testing.
btw - little reminder - no need to waste more power and time continuing this run (unless you are curious what the final score will be
). The result file is not valid for (future) submission. -
Yeah, if it works, then I will update the minimum system requirements.
Also the final version is almost ready. All the mentioned "Known bugs / things to be improved in the final version" things are fixed / implemented.
-
Well, 290X 4GB and 8GB are ok as one category. The overclock doesn't differ much and 4GB is more than enough for all benchmarks at the moment. So no problem here.
I'm sure there are plenty of VGAs like 290X (no performance and OC difference). These can be merged for sure.
The opposite example is GeForce 2 MX. 32MB overclocks better and because of that it is faster in 3DMarks 2000 - 2003. 64MB wins in Aquamark because it is less dependent on AGP texturing in there.
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce2_mx400_32mb/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce2_mx400_64mb/
I guess this is not the only case...
So the conclusion - I agree to merge some categories but others should remain separate. It is going to be difficult to decide. And even more difficult in case of adding hardware that isn't in the database yet.
-
Wait a minute - so this means the existing categories with different RAM capacity are getting merged? I don't think this is a good idea. Cards with more RAM overclocks worse most of the time... so they would be in disadvantage. Also they tends to have lower stock clocks. In some benchmarks this is compensated by better performance (3DMark 06 128MB vs 256 MB). But mostly the performance is the same at the equal clock.... and lower in absolute.
For example these two FireGL X1:
http://hw-museum.cz/view-vga.php?vgaID=68 -> http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/firegl_x1_128/
http://hw-museum.cz/view-vga.php?vgaID=186 -> http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/firegl_x1_256/
Obviously the 256MB version is much harder to overclock and because of AGP Pro it can't be used on fastest AGP motherboards like AM2NF3-VSTA or 4core-Dual-sata2.
-
Strange - I've just installed 340.52 and OpenCL is still giving me "invalid result" message. GPUPI 1.4 @ CUDA is working fine. GPUPI 2.2 @ OCL = the same as 1.4 @ OCL.
2.2 @ CUDA... as I wrote before. Maybe I should try it on clean windows install. Maybe it will help.
-
Unfortunately, batch size seems to have no effect. I tried 1M, 2M, 4M, 5M, 10M, 20M
Always halt few seconds after "Batch 4 finished". Reduction Size doesn't help either.
-
This is certainly step in the right direction. Now all presets up to 100M works fine @ CUDA
. 500M and above however results in this error:
OpenCL never worked for me, not even in old 1.4 GPUPI. I think you said it is caused by poor nvidia OCL implementation on these old GPUs.
-
I'm sorry to bring this up again... but despite all efforts Nvidia G200 still refuses to work with GPUPI 2.2 (legacy). Although the error message is different this time.
If you manage to fix this issue, I promise to bench all G200 videocards I can find.
LOG START at 2015-08-16 01:03:07 ---------------------- Starting run to calculate 1000000 digits with 1 batches Batch Size: 1M Maximum Reduction Size: 64 Message box: Press OK to start the calculation. (Start) Error while calculating series term! Result digits: 000000000 Result time: 0.006000 Device statistics for NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285: Calculated Batches: 1 of 4 (25.000000%) Kernel time: 0.000000 seconds Reduction time: 0.000000 seconds Message box: Invalid result! (Error)
-
Seriously... why so many complains about one simple problem?
Just keep trying older cpu-z versions and eventually you will find a working one. Why insist on validation for aquamark? Simple screenshot will do.
-
How about this?
Pentium 4 3.06 GHz
Rage 128 Pro 32MB
512 MB DDR
Asus P4S333
Windows 98 SE + some random Ati drivers
Clearly all textures are in place, so no bugged run. I can run 3DMark like this all day and it will always score +/- 12k at default clocks. Is this proof good enough?
-
Oh, one more thing - I am really curious how good Skylake is in this benchmark.
If you have one, please post a screenshot. Preferably using Windows 8 / 8.1 / 10 with HPET enabled and disabled (so I can check whether timer detection works on socket 1151 platform).
-
Update:
Version 1.1.1 is online http://downloads.hwbot.org/downloads/temp/HWBOT_x265_Benchmark_final_portable.rar The alpha stage has been successful, it is time to move on. I've enabled Beta status, the benchmark is open for submissions. Plenty of free gold cups to take.
At the moment we have no dedicated video encoding benchmark on HWBOT. So I thought it would be nice to create one. There are plenty of video encoders available on the internet and benchmark applications for most of them already exists. I don't like reinventing the wheel...
Therefore I picked the most modern encoder - H265/HEVC.Only one benchmark exists (that I know of) and it isn't really suitable for our needs. http://x265.ru/en/x265-hd-benchmark/'>http://x265.ru/en/x265-hd-benchmark/ My benchmark is working the same way, but GUI is used instead of command line interface. I also added some tweaks and options to get the best possible score on most computers, even very extreme ones.
HWBOT x265 Benchmark is based on the open source x265 encoder (http://x265.ru/en/). It can take advantage of modern CPUs instructions set and multithread support is also very good. However this benchmarks is also capable of running even on as old processors as Athlon XP (maybe Pentium III as well). Of course on the legacy hardware the encoding time is rather long. There are two presets available - 1080p and 4k. The main goal of both of them is to convert H264 source video to H265/HEVC and measure average fps.
Now to describe the new Benchmark options:
1. Benchmark type - 32bit or 64bit encoder. Use 64bit if possible, it is faster, on some platforms by quite a big margin.
2. Priority - priority of the encoder process, not much to say here.
3. Pmode - enables better thread utilization, improves performance on some platforms. Also can slow things down a bit, depends on CPU type.
4. Overkill mode:
For even better multithreading support it is possible to activate the overkill mode. Two or more (up to 8 in the current version) instances of the encoder will run simultaneously and when all of them are finished, the final score is sum of all sub-scores minus small compensation to avoid score gain by uneven compute time. If the sub-scores time variability is bigger than 5%, the overkill run is considered invalid and no score is generated.
The HWBOT x265 Benchmark implements security features which should block any attempt to replace external components of the benchmark (source videos, ffmpeg, x265 encoder) or score manipulation. There are two ways to upload score to HWBOT. Save the data file which contains screenshot and all necessary information. Or direct online submission from the benchmark (currently in development, will be ready in the final version).
Also this benchmark should be safe to run using Windows 8(+) - when HPET is active.
Minimum system requirements:
Athlon XP / Pentium 4 (maybe PIII)
1 GB RAM (1080p) / 2 GB (4K)
1 GB free HDD space
Windows XP SP3
Java SE 7 or later
Recommended system requirements:
AMD FX / Core 2 Quad 45nm (with SSE 4.1)
4 GB RAM
1 GB free HDD space
Windows 7 x64 (SP1 for AVX support)
Java SE 7 or later
Beta testing of v1.0.0 has been running on local PC-related forums for a week or so and no serious bugs were found. So I think the benchmark should be ready soon. There are still some features to finish. When all is done I will enable the public status.
In the meantime if you like to test the current v1.0.0 (1080p only), link to download: http://hw-museum.cz/data/hwbot/HWBOT_x265_benchmark.rar
Warning - this version (1.0.0) is meant only for testing, saved data files will not be accepted when the submit option is enabled in the future.
Known bugs / things to be improved in the final version:
- wrong Overkill mode formula is displayed. Time of each instance is shown instead of fps.
- final score will be moved below the "1080p benchmark complete" message to be more clear
- online submission feature is work in progress
- portable version of the benchmark (java included) - No need to install java, can be useful on computers where you don't have permission to install stuff
- perhaps enhance the Overkill mode to use more than 8 instances of x265. Could be useful for very large servers (more than 30 CPU cores).
Combined score table from ongoing beta testing at http://forum.cnews.cz/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27656 and http://pctforum.tyden.cz/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=229511 You can get some inspiration here - what to expect from your CPU.
Score------------CPU--------------------Cores/Threads----------Clock-------------OS.............Tester
85,58........2x Haswell-EP ES Xeon........24/48..............3,2GHz.........Win 7 x64--------DOC-Zenith
30,03........Core i7 5820K...................6/12..............4,2GHz.........Win 10 x64-------le1tho
29,68........4x Xeon X7550................32/64.............2,0GHz.....Win Srv 2008 R2 x64--skipped1
21,81........Core i7 4770K...................4/8...............4,7GHz........Win 10 x64--------l.zdvorak
19,92........Core i5 4690K...................4/4...............4,9GHz.........Win 10 x64-------iOioo
19,44........Core i7 4790....................4/8...............4,0GHz.........Win 10 x64-------skipped1
16,05........Core i5 4670K...................4/4...............4,3GHz.........Win 10 x64-------Darth Daron
14,26........Core i5 4670K...................4/4...............3,6GHz.........Win 7 x64--------JXP
14,03........Core i7 2600K...................4/8...............4,4GHz.........Win 7 x64--------Caderom
13,39........FX-8350.........................8/8...............4,4GHz.........Win 7 x64--------husbja
12,92........Core i5 3570K...................4/4...............4,6GHz.........Win 7 x64--------NoNeStaciTi
12,51........FX-8350.........................8/8...............4,0GHz.........Win 10 x64-------berazde
12,20........Core i7 3770K...................4/8...............3,7GHz.........Win 7 x64--------Killing joke
11,85........Core i5 2500K...................4/4...............4,6GHz.........Win 10 x64-------havli
11,21........FX-8300.........................8/8...............3,6GHz.........Win 7 x64--------Mani2
10,94........Core i5 3470....................4/4...............3,8GHz.........Win 7 x64--------pohodar
10,79........Core i5 3570K...................4/4...............3,8GHz.........Win 10 x64-------Profi-Lama
6,75.........FX-6300.........................6/6...............3,6GHz.........Win 10 x64-------kolecko
6,72.........Core i7 5500U...................2/4...............2,7GHz.........Win 8.1 x64------Tomix
5,81.........A10-5700........................4/4...............3,7GHz.........Win 10 x64-------hob
4,83.........Core i5 3230M...................2/4...............3,0GHz.........Win 10 x64-------RayEndCZ
4,83.........Core i3 2100....................2/4...............3,1GHz.........Win 7 x64--------Caderom
4,45.........Xeon L5410......................4/4...............2,33GHz........Win 7 x64--------havli
4,37.........Core i5 2410M...................2/4...............2,7GHz.........Win 10 x64-------cpt.America97
3,68.........Core i5 520M....................2/4...............2,66GHz........Win 10 x64-------hob
3,05.........Phenom II X4 965..............4/4...............3,4GHz.........Win 10 x64-------cpt.America97
2,9..........Athlon 5350.....................4/4...............2,05GHz........Win 7 x64--------Tralalák
2,49.........A8-3850.........................4/4...............2,9GHz.........Win 8.1 x64------Jan Olšan
2,22.........Core i3 2367M...................2/4...............1,4GHz.........Win 7 x64--------Tralalák
2,17.........2x Xeon 5110....................4/4...............2,0GHz.........Win 7 x64--------havli
2,12.........Phenom II X3 720..............3/3...............3,2GHz.........Win 10 x64-------siddhi
1,42.........Atom Z3740......................4/4...............1,86GHz........Win 8.1 x64------Jan Olšan
1,16.........VIA U4650E......................4/4...............1,0GHz.........Win 7 x64--------Tralalák
0,71.........Core 2 Duo T5500..............2/2...............1,66GHz........Win XP-----------melkor unlimited
0,38.........Pentium 4 640...................1/2...............3,2GHz.........Win XP-----------skipped1
-
Early GF6200 are based on the NV43 GPU which sometimes is possible to unlock as Mr.Scott pointed out. But even then the performance is somewhat slower than regular 6600. Some features still remain inactive after unlock - I think some kind of Z-buffer compression... although not really sure about that.
I can assure you Leadtek GF6200 NV43 indeed exists and with some luck it can be unlocked using Riva Tuner. Here is a hires photo:
http://hw-museum.cz/view-vga.php?vgaID=207
And screenshot of default pixel shader configuration:
http://abload.de/img/6200_agp07pfl.png
Unlocked hardware always go to the original category, as far as I remember. Thats the point of unlocking...
-
HD 4800 should work just fine. Well, at least it did when using older GPUPI 2.0. http://hwbot.org/submission/2830026_havli_gpupi___1b_radeon_hd_4870_16min_54sec_963ms
Maybe I'll try it again tomorow with latest GPUPI version.
-
Please add this board:
ENMIC 8TTX+
thx.
-
Funny guy. Of course I have set Vsync off in the ATI panel settings If I don't, there will be just 15, 30 and 60fps results on the screen...
No offence... but as I said - you need to learn much about effective benchmarking. You really thing vsync = 15 / 30 / 60 fps? And that vsync checkbox off in ATi CP = 100% sure disabled vsync? This is real world, things doesn't always work as expected here.
Christian Ney:
Well I'm sure I didn't take advantage of that "tweak". 10k+ score on Rage 128 Pro is easy to get and no questionable methods are required for it. For example http://hw-museum.cz/benchmark-2-2.php - I did this back in 2009... before I even registered on HWBOT, no overclocking, no tweaks, and still 12k score on a 128 Pro.
-
Turn off vsync
And a little advice - stop accusing others of cheating. You still have much to learn about proper old-school benchmarking.
HWBOT x265 Benchmark
in Benchmark software
Posted
trodas:
Thank you, I'll update the RAM requirements section. P4 Celeron is really slow by the way
borandi:
I'm aware of the scaling issue. Java Swing doesn't work well with non-default DPI, so I disabled the scaling completely to avoid weird looking and broken GUI layout.
In the current version (1.1.1), screenshot is captured as a png. I realise now the size of lossless png is too big, especially for large screens. So I'm going to use jpg instead to keep the size reasonable in the next update.
Total time and ETA to finish should be possible to add if I find a free spot for it in the GUI.
Command line interface - I don't think this is a good idea, there ale enough options to to get the best score possible as it is. And most people are running default settings anyway.
Actually, the x265 console output is written to text file after each run even now. It looks like this:
8k - when quantum computers are ready.
No, I didn't speak to them. I just saw this http://x265.ru/en/x265-hd-benchmark/ , did some testing on various hardware and realized the x265 is very good for benchmarking both latest CPUs and legacy hardware as well. I thought - the encoder is opensource... so why not create my own GUI for it and use it on HWBOT.