What's an ideal SSD for Handbrake conversions on an hourly basis??

Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
15
So far, I got a PNY CS1311 240GB and it's great, but there's got to be better alternatives and I plan to upgrade later.

So what MLC/TLC SSD can I truly go for that won't degrade quickly due to well, constant encoding?
 

diizzy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
2,602
I'm not sure what you're getting at, they do assemble their own SSDs.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
I'm not sure what you're getting at, they do assemble their own SSDs.
they assemble but do not design the whole thing. That is my point. Only a few companies actually make their own SSDs. Micron, Intel, Samsung, Sandisk, and a couple others. Lite-on onlt assembles with premade parts. they didn't design any of the parts
 

diizzy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
2,602
You need to define design, there's quite a difference between designing a product (ground up) and having all components in-house.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
You need to define design, there's quite a difference between designing a product (ground up) and having all components in-house.
i said make since the beginning and assembling other people parts isn't exactly making an SSD. I do not consider SSD of microSD cards making or designing an SSD or taking everyone else's parts and putting it into a completed product.

you are the one playing with words here not me...do not know why you are trying to argue this so badly...face it...lite-on doesn't make, manufacture and design SSDs...they simply assemble them.
 
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
As noted, HandBrake barely touches storage devices when it comes to the encoding process, at the absolute max you're looking at a few megabytes per second reads and writes - that's megabytes per second which is nothing these days. Even if you were encoding several Blu-rays at the same time you'd be looking at less than 50MB/s (yes, again, megabytes per second) for reads and writes. It's just not a storage intensive process for any reason at all.

Modern SSDs made in the past 2-3 years are designed to have extremely long lifespans by comparison to devices 4-6 years ago. Recent testing on many tech review websites has proven that even the consumer level "budget" minded SSDs can typically handle vastly more terabytes of write cycles than their manufacturers rate them for (they're giving out the "safe" estimates but the hardware has proven to be capable of much much more in spite of the lower expectation statistics).

I'd say it's not even a concern at all. Use software like SSD Life to keep track of writes (since reads don't really damage an SSD at all, it's the write cycles that kill 'em over time) or the manufacturer's "toolbox" or whatever they make for them to keep an eye on things but I personally wouldn't worry about such usage at all. You'd have to be encoding like a terabyte a day or more before I'd even take note of things and even then you'd still be looking at a few years of such usage before any problems would potentially crop up.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
As noted, HandBrake barely touches storage devices when it comes to the encoding process, at the absolute max you're looking at a few megabytes per second reads and writes - that's megabytes per second which is nothing these days. Even if you were encoding several Blu-rays at the same time you'd be looking at less than 50MB/s (yes, again, megabytes per second) for reads and writes. It's just not a storage intensive process for any reason at all.

Modern SSDs made in the past 2-3 years are designed to have extremely long lifespans by comparison to devices 4-6 years ago. Recent testing on many tech review websites has proven that even the consumer level "budget" minded SSDs can typically handle vastly more terabytes of write cycles than their manufacturers rate them for (they're giving out the "safe" estimates but the hardware has proven to be capable of much much more in spite of the lower expectation statistics).

I'd say it's not even a concern at all. Use software like SSD Life to keep track of writes (since reads don't really damage an SSD at all, it's the write cycles that kill 'em over time) or the manufacturer's "toolbox" or whatever they make for them to keep an eye on things but I personally wouldn't worry about such usage at all. You'd have to be encoding like a terabyte a day or more before I'd even take note of things and even then you'd still be looking at a few years of such usage before any problems would potentially crop up.
if you use CUDA you can see 10-20MBps but yea it is slow.

if you are ripping you are seeing 10-50MBps
 

diizzy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
2,602
@ SomeGuy133
Thing is I have no idea what you're getting at... There's no brand that has all components in house why it matters is beyond me but whatever.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,348
It makes no difference, disk IO is far from the being the limiting factor.

I tested this several years ago with my Intel 160GB versus 2x 1TB RAID0 of spinners. There was no difference in FPS in handbrake.

Think about this way. Handbrake is ripping 1080p at 10-30 FPS if using CPU and maybe 100-200FPS using Intel QuickSync.

You are probably using constant quality, but lets say you are using constant bitrate and using 16Mb/s, which is really high for h264. Divide that by 8 (bits to bytes) and you are looking at 2 megabytes of data per second. 2MB per 24 frames....thats it! So even if handbrake is doing Quicksync at 150FPS you are only looking at about (150/24 =~ 6) 6 *2MB/s.....so about 20MB/s. It's trivial.

Here's some examples. This is "worst case" scenario, using Intel QuickSync and high bitrate. This will have the highest amount of bandwidth.

This is reading from RAID0 240GBx2, writing to Intel 160GB

Q6qm4WC.jpg


This is from RAID0 SSD to RAID0 1TBx2 HDD

1KlP2IA.jpg


There is no difference, and you can see that the drive is not even having to stream continuously, it fills up the buffer and then dumps periodically.

Now here, is going from Optical to HDD. You can see there is a considerable drop in throughput.

DoOKO8Y.jpg


Now you might be thinking "A-ha! I'll copy the movie to the SSD and THEN encode and it will be super fast!" Well wait just a minute, remember that it takes time to copy the disc to SSD. You won't save any time copying it first, so it's more convenient to rip straight from the Bluray itself.

Remember I said that was "worst case" scenario? I don't think that you would actually use those settings when ripping high quality. Intel QuickSync doesn't like using constant bitrate, so you have to use Constant Quality to get good results. And I think CPU on "slow" preset still gives fantastic picture quality. But the processing speed drops considerably. And at that point, you are CPU bound. Even the optical drive can keep up with CPU encoding.

cwBLQ94.jpg


LV1kL1j.jpg


At this point the IO is just trickling. The drive buffer is more then able to keep up. And this is not random data, this is seqential, so even a platter drive is walking along.
 
Top