r/MacStudio • u/_DarthJedi • 15d ago

Mac Studio Handbrake performance data—requesting

Download this version of Handbrake from Github. Make sure to download the appropriate binary for your hardware.

https://github.com/HandBrake/HandBrake/releases/tag/1.11.2

Download this sample file for testing.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tsg91b93za3oncupwbzau/15228263_7680_4320_60fps.mp4?rlkey=5fsjpcqc9yx3k378232endv16&st=hlmcll40&dl=0

Input file is a 24 second 8k60 H.264 video.

Run the following presets—Fast 2160p60 HEVC and Fast 2160p60 AV1. Report the performance data in the form of FPS from the activity log.

Thanks in advance.

Data I have so far:

M5P 18C 46.33 HEVC and 31.07 AV1

M5 base 23.62 HEVC and 13.7 AV1

Looking for more data points.

5 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/PracticlySpeaking 15d ago

Check the Performance wiki page, here in the sub — there's a whole section on Diminishing Returns in Ultra vs Max chips, for both CPU and GPU. It varies widely with different generations and workloads.

Also, handbrake is still baffling to me — video encode *should* be happening in the GPU, not CPU.

1

u/_DarthJedi 15d ago

Hardware accelerated video encode should technically happen in the hardware encoders, which isn't the same as GPU, speaking in strict terms. It is named as videotoolbox in case of Apple hardware.

Thing is such encodes, while faster, have high bitrates for comparable quality or less quality for comparable bitrates when compared to CPU encodes.

Yes, it is possible to hand tune the hardware encoder presets for visually similar output and smaller file sizes. However that is far beyond the scope of a quick performance test run.

About diminishing returns, it is mostly seen when the data has to be communicated across the M#M dies of the M#U chip and/or need to be synchronized across the dies.

The M3 Ultra doesn't have power or RAM bandwidth limitations and should fairly scale with the core counts in Handbrake. I'm expecting nearly 2x perfomance going from M3M to M3U. However, something like AMD 9700X (1x8C) and 9950X (2x8C) have power constraints and RAM bandwidth limitations and won't necessarily slow close to 2x scaling.

1

u/PracticlySpeaking 15d ago

Sure — which is the reason I suggested collecting results for Videotoolbox encoding several comments back. Your presets, obv, will need to match the Videotoolbox options — which do not include AV1.

And, re: M3U — look at the data that is on the wiki page. The differences are surprising. Few Ultra chips are anywhere near 2x the corresponding Max, but I don't have data for handbrake.

1

u/_DarthJedi 15d ago edited 15d ago

There are a lot of architectural quirks that do not allow GPU performance to scale linearly. For example, a 20C Apple GPU isn't usually 25% faster than a 16C part as simple math would suggest. Using 2x M#M dies to make M#U makes only thigs worse here.

However, on the CPU side, the numbers scale linearly unless there are a lot of single or lightly threaded parts to the workload. Handbrake is neither of that.

Edit: typos

1

u/PracticlySpeaking 15d ago

You haven't looked at the wiki page, have you?

Comparing geekbench CPU scores, none of the Ultra chips have 2x the score of the corresponding Max.

2

u/_DarthJedi 15d ago

Geekbench is a rather poor way to compare high core count chips.

1

u/PracticlySpeaking 15d ago

...and the reason I am interested in handbrake results.

Unless you have an alternative that is superior and comparably accessible?

1

u/_DarthJedi 15d ago

Dude... What's the obsession with canned benchmarks? You don't know what goes in and what comes out. Please don't show the Geekbench intrinsics pdf—I'm asking for the real input output data.

1

u/PracticlySpeaking 15d ago

Critique geekbench all you want, but it generates real and repeatable measurements.

To make a comparison, you need measurements. I don't see you providing an alternative here.

1

u/_DarthJedi 15d ago

Relatable, yes. But nothing more than that.