Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 14th August 2018, 08:19   #6281  |  Link
Magik Mark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 525
Same problem ma
__________________
Asus X99 Sabertooth - Xeon E5 2695 - Asus Strix GTX 960 4G - DDR4 16GB Predator - Pioneer KRP 600M (isf calibrated) - Yamaha A3030 - Windows 10 x64 - Kodi with DSplayer - Lav - MadVR - XYsubtitle
Magik Mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2018, 08:37   #6282  |  Link
Ma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magik Mark View Post
Same problem ma
Thanks for info!

Did you check ver. 2.8+48 (form test.7z in post #6260)?
Ma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:44   #6283  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 6,528
Ryzen Threadripper 2990wx uses 4 NUMA nodes and I would like to check if running 4 instances with manually adjusted --numa-pools could improve performance.
Can somebody verify if those are correct switches?

Code:
Instance 1 = --numa-pools "+,-,-,-" 
Instance 2 = --numa-pools "-,+,-,-"
Instance 3 = --numa-pools "-,-,+,-"
Instance 4 = --numa-pools "-,-,-,+"
Without any adjustments 5 instances give this

2990wx@3.4GHz(all core turbo) is only 20% faster than 1950@3.4GHz

Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; Yesterday at 19:51.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:14   #6284  |  Link
Sagittaire
Testeur de codecs
 
Sagittaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: France
Posts: 2,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
Ryzen Threadripper 2990wx uses 4 NUMA nodes and I would like to check if running 4 instances with manually adjusted --numa-pools could improve performance.
Can somebody verify if those are correct switches?

Code:
Instance 1 = --numa-pools "+,-,-,-" 
Instance 2 = --numa-pools "-,+,-,-"
Instance 3 = --numa-pools "-,-,+,-"
Instance 4 = --numa-pools "-,-,-,+"
Without any adjustments 5 instances give this

2990wx@3.4GHz(all core turbo) is only 20% faster than 1950@3.4GHz
well 5 instance just became too low for 1080p source ...

32C/64T for 5 instance for 1080p is more than 6C/12T for each 1080p instance. Unfortunaly, x265 have threading problem at 8 thread (and more) for 1080p source.

If you want really saturate 64 thread CPU, you must use at least 8 instance for 1080p source or at least 2 instance for 2160p source. And perhaps that 8x 1080p instance will saturate RAM with particular CCX connexion (even with quad DDR4 channel).
__________________
Le Sagittaire ... ;-)

1- Ateme AVC or x264
2- VP7 or RV10 only for anime
3- XviD, DivX or WMV9

Last edited by Sagittaire; Yesterday at 23:23.
Sagittaire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 10:17   #6285  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 6,528
No it is not too low. Dual socket (2 NUMA) Intel Xeon E5-4660 v3 (56 threads total) still scales much better than single socket (4 NUMA) 2990WX.
It would probably scale even better if I set numa pools manually.

According to x265 documentation ( https://x265.readthedocs.io/en/default/threading.html )
Quote:
If you are running multiple encoders on a system with multiple NUMA nodes, it is recommended to isolate each of them to a single node in order to avoid the NUMA overhead of remote memory access.
Can somebody verify than I'm setting numa pools correctly in my previous post?

Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; Today at 10:22.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 11:58   #6286  |  Link
zub35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 47
x264 has a good optimization option
--tune film [--deblock -1:-1 --psy-rd <unset>:0.15]

why not have the same for x265 ?
--tune film [--no-sao --no-strong-intra-smoothing --psy-rd 4]

Last edited by zub35; Today at 12:00.
zub35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 14:09   #6287  |  Link
RieGo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by zub35 View Post
x264 has a good optimization option
--tune film [--deblock -1:-1 --psy-rd <unset>:0.15]

why not have the same for x265 ?
--tune film [--no-sao --no-strong-intra-smoothing --psy-rd 4]
afaik a film preset is on the todo list... probably may take a while till they/we figure out all sane parameters.

now... why does everyone think it's a good idea to switch off Sample Adaptive Offset in-loop filter? i read about it and it sounds like a nice feature to improve efficiency - no matter what kind of video content is encoded.
i understand that there was supposely a little problem in the early stages of x265 with sao integration. but is this still a thing or is everybody just blindly turning off sao?
RieGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 14:36   #6288  |  Link
froggy1
ffx264/ffhevc author
 
froggy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by RieGo View Post
afaik a film preset is on the todo list... probably may take a while till they/we figure out all sane parameters.

now... why does everyone think it's a good idea to switch off Sample Adaptive Offset in-loop filter? i read about it and it sounds like a nice feature to improve efficiency - no matter what kind of video content is encoded.
i understand that there was supposely a little problem in the early stages of x265 with sao integration. but is this still a thing or is everybody just blindly turning off sao?
SAO still blurs too much so many people disable it if they want to retain as much details as possible. However, at very low bitrates where other artifacts are more visible/present, the blur of SAO produces "better looking" images than an encode without it
froggy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 16:51   #6289  |  Link
RieGo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by froggy1 View Post
SAO still blurs too much so many people disable it if they want to retain as much details as possible. However, at very low bitrates where other artifacts are more visible/present, the blur of SAO produces "better looking" images than an encode without it
thanks.
i did some visual comparisons lately but wasn't able to detect any kind of differences at high bitrate - i didn't look at still images, only at video scenes.
at very low bitrate (300kbit/s) there was a lot of quality differences with different parameters, but I didn't look at no-sao...

so probably i'm just a bad quality judge.
RieGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 17:58   #6290  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by RieGo View Post
thanks.
i did some visual comparisons lately but wasn't able to detect any kind of differences at high bitrate - i didn't look at still images, only at video scenes.
at very low bitrate (300kbit/s) there was a lot of quality differences with different parameters, but I didn't look at no-sao...

so probably i'm just a bad quality judge.
SAO should do less as QP goes down, so what you see is how it should work.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Instant Video

My Compression Book

Amazon Instant Video is hiring! PM me if you're interested.
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.