Overclocker Sets Two X265 Benchmark World Records With Intel Celeron CPU

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,874
This is pretty cool. I used to be heavily into x264 rendering, and was investigating x265

"Adkins didn’t have to change any settings to then break the 1080p benchmark because the system was limited by FSB, not CPU core speed or memory. The 4K benchmark was harder to break than the 1080p counterpart, Adkins said, because of how long each run took.

“In total, the cascade was running for 11 hours straight, which caused my room to get above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and 11 hours of sitting next to the noise a cascade makes is not too fun,” Adkins said. “But overall it was mostly down to just being lucky with being able to bin so many CPUs to take the record.”"

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/overclocking-world-record-x265-benchmark-cpu
 
I’ve been slowly moving my 1080p movies to h265. You can cut the file size of the movie 30-50%, which is like getting a bigger harddrive. You do possibly loose compatibility, so you have to think about that.

Oh and this is the most useless overclocking record. A $40 AMD Athlon with built-in video encoding will beat this by 10x and require only a pathetic & meager heatsink.
 
Last edited:
What am I missing? How can you break any records with a 7 year old celeron? Especially running at 2.2Ghz?!! Maybe at 10GHz, I could imagine it beating an 5ghz 10900K in single core performance but at 2.2? WTF?!

Is that a typo or what? 2.2 is only a 10% OC, you wouldn't even need exotic cooling for that.
 
M76 said:
What am I missing? How can you break any records with a 7 year old celeron? Especially running at 2.2Ghz?!! Maybe at 10GHz, I could imagine it beating an 5ghz 10900K in single core performance but at 2.2? WTF?!

Is that a typo or what? 2.2 is only a 10% OC, you wouldn't even need exotic cooling for that.
Click to expand...

It's a single core cpu record. It is an FSB only OC.

Yes, it's meaningless.
 
Derangel said:
Why does it matter is a record is "useful"? Pull the sticks out of your collective asses folks and just enjoy things.
Click to expand...
No OC record is ever useful, but this one is not even exciting.
What's the secret to enjoying a record that lost its relevance 10 years ago?
 
M76 said:
No OC record is ever useful, but this one is not even exciting.
What's the secret to enjoying a record that lost its relevance 10 years ago?
Click to expand...

Is it really that hard to look at something, go "huh, neat" and move on with your life? Not everything in the world needs to be relevant. Things can simply be "neat" and nothing more.
 
Whats wrong with going "Useless" and moving on with our lives? Thats what we did, but you had to argue..
 
Hmm might have an amd k6-2 in a box in the attic, might have to break that out and try to get some overclock records.
 
westrock2000 said:
I’ve been slowly moving my 1080p movies to h265. You can cut the file size of the movie 30-50%, which is like getting a bigger harddrive. You do possibly loose compatibility, so you have to think about that.

Oh and this is the most useless overclocking record. A $40 AMD Athlon with built-in video encoding will beat this by 10x and require only a pathetic & meager heatsink.
Click to expand...

The lower filesize is nice, but I have seen several h265 encodes that look like absolute shit compared to h264. It seems really noticeable in darker areas or where there's a lot of contrast.
 
Derangel said:
Is it really that hard to look at something, go "huh, neat" and move on with your life? Not everything in the world needs to be relevant. Things can simply be "neat" and nothing more.
Click to expand...
We'd have moved on already if you didn't come in complaining about others not being impressed by this.
 
MavericK said:
The lower filesize is nice, but I have seen several h265 encodes that look like absolute shit compared to h264. It seems really noticeable in darker areas or where there's a lot of contrast.
Click to expand...
I noticed that too, dark parts in x265 encodes are absolute shite, but that's maybe just wrong encoder settings? I never looked into it. The speed difference is not worth it for me to use. 10x tiems slower encode for 40% smaller files? No thanks. Storage is cheaper than my time, and my time is cheaper than most.
 
M76 said:
I noticed that too, dark parts in x265 encodes are absolute shite, but that's maybe just wrong encoder settings? I never looked into it. The speed difference is not worth it for me to use. 10x tiems slower encode for 40% smaller files? No thanks. Storage is cheaper than my time, and my time is cheaper than most.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if this could be done as background tasks. Like folding@home screensaver, pc is idle for so long, it resumes encoding videos. Though yea, tossing another drive on the media center is a pretty fast process lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top