New Benchmark Coming Soon: HWBOT x265 Benchmark (encoding in 1080P and 4K)
Not so long after a successful integration of the GPUPI benchmark developed by Matthias from overclockers.at, we will soon feature another new benchmark with submission API functionality: HWBOT x265 Benchmark.
The benchmark is developed by Czech overclocker Havli who is home to hw-museum.cz. The benchmarks renders a video in 1080P or 4K resolution using the x265/HEVC encoder. It can take advantage of modern CPU instructions set and multi-threaded. The benchmark is also capable of running even on old gear such as Athlon XP, be it rather slowly of course. The benchmark supports two presets: 1080P and 4K.
The integration with HWBOT is similar to GPUPI: it supports both direct submission from the application as well as saving the data file to submit at a later point in time. Currently the benchmark is in alpha phase. You can download a version from the forum thread located HERE. The alpha version has been tested by our software team (read: Genieben) and it is solid enough to soon move to the beta phase. During the beta phase we will host a small competition so the hardcore competitive overclockers can put the benchmark through its paces.
It's nice to see a real-world rendering benchmark with solid API support come to life. With the right tweaking and tuning, I'm sure it will be as successful as GPUPI!
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
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).
Nice benchmark, will test this next week
Care for PIII test? Got one, but it is a lazy suxxka... very slow
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, it work
It mention that it use CPU features: MMX2, SSE and Cache32 (whatever that means) and 3% progress suggest that it works. I would wait for the final score, but seems that there is not any problem, even on highly nonstandard machine like the Dell OptiPlex GX110 is. (it use 24bit resolution depths - cannot have 32bit, so... even GPU-Z is buggy there, lol)
(pay no attention to the not detected ram frequency, that don't even latest CPU-Z detect well, as you see on the HWbot prime screenshot)
I downloaded a latest release 7 Java from there:
https://edelivery.oracle.com/akam/otn/java/jdk/7u80-b15/jre-7u80-windows-i586.exe
(for those, who did not have a Oracle account and not feeling like one, there are alternatives by me:
http://depositfiles.com/files/ulsoty1uf
http://www.mediafire.com/?vvg5k5nonuqwoip
http://rapidgator.net/file/190288e6602d80677c1490d15c35743d/JavaRuntime_build_7.80.exe.html )
...and at first, I give a HWbot prime a try. Worked:
(see the GPU-Z bug? Low level programming sometimes fail, expecting 32bit, where 24bits happen
)
So I try the x265 and it is running now. Albeit slowly, but that is somewhat expected on 512MB SDRAM running at "whooping" 100MHz. And even I gathered good 2-2-2-5 SDRAM chips, they all come to vain, as the FSB bus 133MHz is divided in the chipset to 100MHz for rams and that kill any chance of speed...
There is no swapping (witch is good, because the old 80G clunker would have a hard time and the PATA to SATA interface refused to work with 30G Corsair Nova2 SSD and better SSDs are currently busy with other tests...), so a 512MB of fresh WinXP SP3 install (just disabled the Security center service).
I understand that I slow down a bit the run when going for the screenshot and copying it over network to another PC, but all in all I doubt it will have any serious impact, as we all can predict that this is going to be the slowest run ever made yet
And you deserve to see that it does work. Hopefully the menu frontend can be done without dreaded Java in the future, either by using other programming language or at least including few need libs and that will be it.
Benchmarks should be standalone, IMHO.
Pretty good work, mate!
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.
Yep, I'm curious and I know that more people are curious too. And it did not even swap. 18% is done, so I wait for the final - overnight it will do the trick. The only time it start swapping was, when screensaver kick it. I have to go and disable it, lol.
Given the number of Java security holes I think that you should learn C/C++
I know, easier to say that done, but maybe for next version? 
Nevermind. I will report by the morning what is the result. Currently 0.06fps and 19.33% 
Not bad, we are almost in 1/5 done!
If it's open source I can look into porting it.
Hopefully it will be made Open Source... or at least closed source between you two?
So, my result is - 0.08fps (it get faster when I did not take screens/screensaver don't run):
The resulting file is rather big, 512k in size, so there it is:
http://depositfiles.com/files/zpjnjf80g
(backups: http://www.mediafire.com/?fvuar520p60dukc
http://rapidgator.net/file/4d0330c7bdd04c0cbf3ca79120217cfe/_HWBOT_x265-1080p_0.08_fps.hwbot.html
https://mega.co.nz/#!LFMBkZrK!0_aCBZJDmvloKG4wqDMrsnCqSyFMVynq2Mtw1igBFzo )
Hopefully that helps
Testing new version - this is really cool!
<3
Definitively it is! Also NTB encoding 4k at 0.58fps? Wow
Nice, man, nice.
On it!
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.
useplatformclock = no
useplatformclock = yes
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)?
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?
Or set the score as MBit/s rather than FPS.
19,86 FPS with 4790K @ 4,4 and 1333 C9 mems (Bios default settings), gonna try later with more clock and better mem settings
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.
This is nice. I'm liking it.
http://forum.hwbot.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3178&stc=1&d=1439948039
About the granularity of the score: note that HWBOT will only show granularity up to 2 digits.
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.
how many time needed with pIII ?!
Sweet bench, have problems with GPUPI & HWBPrime on my office box absolutely no problems what so ever with this bench, NICE JOB.
About two hours to complete but the important thing is that it works on old glories.
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.
Hey if the FPS counter is too low in term of digits, maybe you can use a `score derivation` per say :
22.73fps = 22730 score. But then it is weird.
If the bench output like 30FPS as score does that mean you could basically watch the video live as it encode ?
gigioracing -
About 4 hours estiminated. I just run it and get to sleep and took the score in the morning
If there won't be the taking screens during the run and the screensaver won't kick it (that is the only time the machine start swapping during the test at 512MB of ram), the speed might be a bit faster. 3.5h maybe?
Hope that tell you something
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
This submission verification screen is a "bit" wrong, lol:
http://hwbot.org/submission/2955489_trouffman_hwbot_x265_benchmark___4k_core_i7_3615qm_0.78_fps
BTW, tried the last portable version and got this error:
Hardware detection error, please restart the program.
Log:
...witch is weird, because latest CPU-Z works well for me ( http://valid.x86.fr/fygs46 ), same as all versions before it on this rather standard MSI P4 mobo
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.
x265 Benchmark works nicely on Win7 gaming machine, but absolutely fail to work on my WinXP SP3 main machine, claiming that:
havli suggested to try older CPU-Z versions, but it does not do anything to help. I tried the latest CPU-Z 1.73, then I go by versions 1.72.1, 1.70, 1.68 and 1.66 and then I give up, it just fail to run all the time.
CPU-Z works w/o a glitch on this P4 machine, so any suggestions what could get wrong are more that welcome.
The config is really nothing special AT ALL:
Windows XP SP3 Czech
MSI PM8M3-V (VIA P4M800) - Thermalright SI-128 SE
Pentium 4 650 3400MHz (200x17) 1.375Vcore
2048MB OCZ4002048ELDCPE-K 2-3-2-5 200MHz 2.50V
Sapphire R9100 128MB 250/200MHz @ 293/248MHz
250G Samsung 850 PRO 512MB cache (MZ-7KE256BW) MLC chips
1024G Western Digital Black 64MB cache (WD1003FZEX)
...so, anyone get this standalove version to work on WinXP w/o Java installed?
I’ve had no problems without a java install using XP SP3 english both socket 939 & 1366 although 1366 scores sucked and probably the 939 also just nothing to compare to.
My input:
Doesn't display properly on HiDPI displays - allow for 150% / 200% scaling.
The submit 'take a screenshot' takes a long time when running high resolution displays. If you're going to implement a result submission that relies on a checksum, I'd suggested limiting the screenshot to an ALT+PRTSCN application that just captures the benchmark window.
Show the time taken to process the benchmark at the end
Show the estimated time to complete during the benchmark
Allow a command line interface to run the benchmark which screenshots the result, saves the HWBOT file, and quits out automatically. That way someone could script up 50 runs and just choose to submit the best.
Automatically generate a result text file with a verbose output, or in the log include the benchmark result.
Include 8K. For LOLz.
Out of interest, have you spoken at all to MultiCoreWare in preparing this benchmark? They develop the x265 algorithm which is meant to be the toughest and most efficient in the business. I had a good long chat with their VP of product management about our own x265 encoding tests at AnandTech, relating to overclocked stability while transcoding, last week at IDF. We even discussed the potential of an open benchmark, like x264 HD 5.0 and the like. Looks like you're already ahead here, albeit with Java in tow. But it might be interesting if you did a cross collaboration on this. I can make intros where necessary, hit me up.
Report on machine with 512MB of ram:
1080 test is possible, lenghty, but possible: http://hwbot.org/submission/2959296_
4k test is impossible, machine run out of the swap (768MB specified, user size, no enlargement)
Conclusion: 1G ram requirments valid for 4k, 512MB possible for 1080p test.
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.
High DPI: It's one of those things everyone is trying to get right. Perhaps offer two versions of the interface, one that fits nicely into a 4K screen
Screenshot: Awesome, thanks
Time left/time taken: Also, thanks!
CLI: I ask for this in the sense that say I'm testing a bunch of CPUs at stock for a review, and I want to automate the process but still have the results applicable for comparison. So you can disable HWBot submissions with CLI mode, but just so I could get a score out without having to babysit my benchmarking routine.
8K: Do it. Do it. Do it.
If you can find an appropriate video to add to the download (1GB?). You'll be surprised and how the x265 algorithm deals with small frames and big frames, where L3 cache / eDRAM matters and whether it can exploit IPC. That's when the step ups to larger L3/core might be more significant.
MultiCoreWare: Like I said, I only discussed it as part of an IDF meeting and they hadn't given it much thought at that point so you wouldn't have seen any basic benchmark online from them yet. But we did discuss and they were keen - they'd work with anyone who is/was willing to develop one and spread it out.
I'll see what I can do about the DPI scaling. If all goes good, it might get implemented after v1.2
Time labels are in place and working quite good. Of course the remaining time is not very accurate - encoding speed is not linear, so time sometimes go backwards, depending on current scene.
CLI: Oh, I understand now. I'm testing processors for web magazine too (retro hardware), unfortunately my methodology forces me to keep the benchmarking sequence running in person. It should be possible to implement batch run - using command line to start the benchmark and save results automatically... in theory at least. This will take some work, so no ETA on this one. Currently the code is not designed for operation like this.
8k: The download is big enough as it is (almost 500 MB). Adding another big video... uh, that would be too much IHMO. Also RAM capacity might become a limiting factor. 1080p ffmpeg + x265 needs at least 512 MB (no problem here), 4k = 1,5GB, 8k = who knows, I bet it would be a lot. Also when running "overkill mode" (aka multiple instances of encoder at the same time), RAM requirements grows very fast.
L4 cache can indeed make a huge difference in some applications, mostly games. I saw the Broadwell reviews. Huge Haswell-EP Xeons with large L3 cache (>20 MB) sometimes can pack similar boost. Apparently when performance critical part of the application can fit in L3 or L4 cache, performance increase is massive.
Why not make a special 8K benchmark application? So only if you really want to run 8K, you'll download the huge file.
I wonder if Tim has 8K footage though
...and if there is a good, 8k footage, then what will be the size to download
Memory requirments around 4G is expected and not all that impossible to meet on hi-end machines and for nothing else is this 8k rendering loop aimed at. Clearly PIII is out of the question, unless someone get a PIII machine with at least 2G of ram _AND_ SSD as swap drive. That might produce result in 8k... but it will took ages.
Just a little heads up.
Version 1.2.0 is ready. There are some security measures implemented as well a couple of improvements and bugfixes.
http://hw-museum.cz/hwbot_x265_benchmark.php
This version will be mandatory for submissions as of Monday 14th of September (a week from now). Until then v1.1.1 is still valid. Unfortunately it is not possible to use both versions simultaneously. I must switch them manually - which will happen next Monday.
Old saved data files will become invalid.
Hi guys, when submitting, is overkill and PMode scores valid?
I already seemed to score abnormally high http://hwbot.org/submission/2973796_quantumx_hwbot_x265_benchmark___4k_core_i7_6700k_5.04_fps
With 4x overkill mode I scored 5.51
Yes, both are allowed.
From now on only version 1.2.0 is allowed.
I made two submissions using v1.2.0 and all seems to be working well. If you find some bug, please report it here.
http://hwbot.org/submission/2976861_
http://hwbot.org/submission/2976863_
Hi.
Just wanting to try x265 Bench.
double-click on exe, splash screen for 2 seconds, and black screen with only visible cursor, system freezed, had to reboot.
8350 @stock, M5A99X Evo R2.0, R9 390, Catalyst 15.7, W7 Pro 64 bits.
Using the jar or exe? Any system services turned off, i.e WMI?
Jar is no longer available in v1.2.0, only exe remains. And it is configured to use only the built-in java to avoid possible incompatibility with various java versions. HW/SW detection relies on cpu-z, so WMI shouldn't be an issue.
When the splash screen is displayed, the benchmark is starting in the background... there are two things that could cause crash.
1. Artificial CPU load is launched on n-1 cores/threads (7 in case of FX-8350) to determine correct frequency for full load.
2. When the load is active, cpu-z is launched to generate HW & SW report.
I guess the artificial CPU load part really shouldn't crash your PC. And if it does, it wouldn't be able to complete the benchmark anyway, as the x265 encoder is much more demanding. So maybe some sort of cpu-z incopatibility? You could try to use older version (1.72), maybe it will fix the problem. Just replace cpuz_x32.exe in the x265 directory.
Agreed. Multithreaded Prime95 or SuperPi 32M or wPrime 1024M do it for my ASRock at 227x17, but x265 bench did not. At 225x17 it does pass. At 227x17 two cores (single it passed!) it does hang at about 87%...
Thanks Havli, i will give it a try !
Edit : After replacing with 1.72, and even another 1.73 cpu-z, it's working.
I don't remember the cpu-z admin rights popup the first time, so i suppose that was the load which crashed my system.
Great bench you did here !
Have ran a few 939 only glitch 3200 Manchester came up as a NewCastle when I uploaded the file, correct in the window in OS.
Nice bench!!!
I am on windows 10 64
an idea of the problem ??? yet enabled in the bios !!
"HPET timer not active, it is required for windows 8 and later.
HPET can be enabled by following command: bcdedit /set useplatformclock yes.
Same as GPUPI. Open Command Prompt as admin and type "bcdedit /set useplatformclock yes" and hit Enter. Restart your computer and you're set.
THANKS MAN !!!!!!
When I use submit button and enter HWBot username/pwd I get this, then once click OK I get this.
So the way I did the sub is just by uploading data file and screenie using PRTSCRN.
Now is this breaking rule:-
Cheers.
*** edit ***
I see data file has the screenie
, so guess I'm all good?
Yes, the screenshot is integrated in the datafile - all OK
Tried downloading 5 -6 times from different PC the HWBOT_X265_2.0.rar file. it downloads successfully but when i unzip it gives following error.. any solution.
In your screenshot there is a whitespace in the userpath, sometimes Winrar can be a bit fussy about that.
Have you tried to copy the rar file to a directory without spaces in its name like "C:\Benchmarks"?
Same message when copied new download on root of D drive and windows user have full permission on root of the drive so no file permission error.
Also downloaded via two different sources same issue.
https://hwbotdownloads.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/benchmarks/HWBOT_X265_2.0.rar
http://hw-museum.cz/data/hwbot/HWBOT_X265_2.0.rar
To eliminate all software issues i formated my HDD install WIN10 with all updates, AV will all updates and again downloaded from hwbot site. this time AV gives a warning please check ..
It seems you are having two problems:
1. The x265 Benchmark package is compressed using rar5 format, which is not compatible with older versions of Winrar.
2. With 99.999% chance a false positive detection by your AV software. I'm afraid there is no solution to this other than either add an exception to your AV to ignore "HWBOTx265Benchmark.exe" (if possible) or use a different AV software.
The problem was with the WinRAR setup .. so download the latest one and all solved.
Unrar successfully with WinRAR Version 5.1 or above.
Thanks all for great feedback.
Is it possible to have it packaged as a ZIP archive please ?
A much more convenient and universal format
sagt:
Hi, i detect some bug whem use this command with one Core i9-7900X: bcdedit /set useplatformclock yes
After applying this command, several games applications have performance declines.
Simply disable using the command(or simple dont use the firts command, but HWBOt X265 Bench dont wotk to): bcdedit /set useplatformclock no
That the results normalize.
I've got this weird problem on a stripped W7 image of mine.
Latest version of the bench program.
Bench runs fine, puts out a score etc. But the save file button doesn't do anything.
and since removed all LAN capabilities of the image, i cannot upload a score.
Tried on W10, stock and it worked just fine there. So its either something with W7, or something with my image.
sagt:
Correcting...
It does not just happen with the Core i9-7900X, it happens with all CPU.
[]
Most likely something is missing in your special win7 install. I never had this problem in windows 7 and neither anywhere else. But I never use modded OS, so it must be the reason.
Havli, X265 does not detect unlocked cores? I mean, it detects and runs the cores correctly in the bench and GUI, but they're not included in the data file.
Example: CPU 960T unlocked to 5 or 6 cores shows and runs correctly in the GUI and bench, but the data file still designates it as 4 cores active and you cannot edit the sub's core count.
Also, cannot edit core count after submission.
Cores count is shown in the GUI but the data file doesn't contain this information.
Only CPU name and socket count are stored there. Core count is determined by HWBOT based on the CPU model (either by autodetection or by manual typing what CPU you have).
The truth is editing of existing submission to fill in correct CPU parameters is kinda broken.
For example I've just submitted this as a test. http://hwbot.org/submission/3713436_ (I'll delete it tomorrow) The CPU model wasn't detected, so at first I selected X4 960T unlocked to 5 cores... worked. Then I edited to unlocked 6 cores, also worked. Then switched to X2 550 unlocked to 4 cores... also worked. But now when I want to edit to 3 active cores the edit fails with a white screen.
I'm not sure how HWBOT API detection works on real unlocked parts - they are usually detected by diferent name than original. If it is not detected properly and you have to type the name yourself, then it should be also possible to select actual unlocked status. If it is detected correctly (like X4 960T) and editing after submission has been uploaded doesn't work, there is one workaround. Instead of saving the datafile and manual uploading later, you can upload directly from X265 and there is an option to disable CPU detection. In that case it should be possible to choose correct CPU and core count.
I guess it would be also handy to have this option with data-file saving. I can add it in future version, shouldn't be a problem. Or working edit function on hwbot could solve this.
I get it.
Thanks.
I'll try the work around.
Hi Everyone, I know this is a long shot but I was wondering if anyone has experience or ideas about running this benchmark properly on an older magny-cours opteron setup.
Running 4x 12 core 6170 CPUs, 48 cores in total. For starters the benchmark only seems to show 36 cores and 3 CPUs in the GUI, but I thought that might just be an anomaly. Running the benchmark itself though is pretty damn slow. Using the built in monitoring it shows around 80% CPU usage, but windows server 2008 Perf mon shows around 30% (which I'm more inclined to believe judging by the speed). I've tried every variation of overkill (2-12x) but I can't seem to get it to utilize even half of my CPU power. I was wondering if maybe it's because they don't support some of the newer instruction sets?
Any help is appreciated! Thanks guys
Hi,
that is a very nice system you have. Unfortunately to get somewhat good score in x265, you need at least SSE4.1 compatible CPU. K10 doesn't even support SSSE3 and because of that the fps is very low. Using overkill will help to some extent... but not much. 15h Opterons are much faster on the G34 platform.
I'm aware of the wrong cores count in GUI on this kind of systems... but why it doesn't work properly I'm not sure. Anyway it is for display only, has no effect on score or anything else.
Thank you for getting back to me. That's a shame, but they are pretty old tech so I should have expected that! I do have some bulldozer architecure opterons around somewhere (62xx) so will try them out as they have sse4.1 I believe.
Latest version again with cpuz 1,81 for better hardware recognition (8350k for example)
http://hw-museum.cz/data/hwbot/HWBOT_X265_2.1_cpu-z_1.81.zip
Hi
I cant summit from the website it says "No client version given, required version: 2.1.0" but it works when I submit from the benchmark and I am running 2.1.0.
This often happens when cache of the browser or cookies are not cleared, it can also be a general browswer problem we saw lately. Using another browser or clearing cache and cookies often helps to solve this
A note on unlocked cpu scores - because of whatever reason hwbot does not recognize 3 and 5 core results done with unlocked (useless
) AMD cpus, and users and staff can´t edit these. This also is a problem at the moment for other benchmarks, but for these we usually could fix it in the past.
We will see if we can fix this, but now we are all busy with rev7 and other stuff
We have a problem againn with a xeon
http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?p=504423#post504423
It seems CPU-Z detects this CPU as Xeon E5-2637, while in reality it is E5-1607. Unfortunately not much I can do here, as x265 relies on CPU-Z detection... so if CPU-Z fails to detect properly the CPU used, the same mistake appears in x265 also.
Sometimes this happened to me too, but should be possible to edit the submission manually and select the correct CPU once it is uploaded.
At the moment, I'm finishing my work on small update of x265 bench.
Not so long ago there was some discussion concerning the granularity of the score. Since the beggining there were (and still are) just two decimal places. For most systems this is good enough to reflect even very small change in the performance. But not all of them - and since the attention is shifting more towards the 4k preset, maybe it is time to consider adding 3rd decimal place.
Getting 3 decimal places is easy and after quick test it seems HWBOT API supports it also.
So the question is - switch to 3 decimal places or stay at 2? This is double-edged sword, some people might benefit from it, others would lose points.
3 places.
Excellent bench BTW. Becoming one of my favorites.
I am all for it. Gives me more reason to rebench my g470 with ram on dice so people don't take my gold with .611 fps
Ok then - 3 places it is.
Other than G470
it should also make benchmarking of very old HW more interesting. With the legacy mode even PIII / first gen K7 should be able to run. Who is brave enough to run 4k on slot A Athlon? 
I will.
I think I've found your man
as long as he has a slot A athlon around. https://hwbot.org/submission/3735265_mickulty_hwbot_x265_benchmark___4k_mobile_celeron_800mhz_(coppermine)_0_fps
sagt:
Heaps of slot A ... how solid is your wallet
I have 4 slot A boards and a box of processors. GFD too.
I wouldn't have said I'd do it if I didn't have the gear.
sagt:
That timing worked out well. Reminded me to hunt for a bigger slot A. Found a 850 Thunderbird cheap $15US. All win today
Version 2.2.0 is ready for release.
http://hw-museum.cz/data/hwbot/HWBOT_X265_2.2.ZIP
What is new:
1. there was a mistake in HPET detection of V2.1.0 - on systems that require HPET only error message was shown but the Run button wasn't deactivated... Therefore it was possible to run and submit the benchmark even without HPET (such results can be still recognized on screenshot - they contain red message "HPET timer not active"). This issue is now fixed.
2. Coffee Lake added to the non-HPET whitelist. Currently the list contains: Skylake, Skylake-X, Kaby Lake, Kaby Lake-X, Coffee Lake.
3. added option to select CPU name to submit. The first two options are 1) name like CPU-Z detects it 2) BIOS string. The third options leaves the field empty - this should solve the problem with unlocked AMD CPUs that are misdetected and can't be edited later.
4. increased the score precision to 3 decimal places. There is is a catch however. It seems HWBOT doesn't support it properly after all. Internally there are 3 decimal places - as they can be seen on the pre-submit screen... and also later when editing the submission. On the score page there are only two and how the rankings are calculated I'm not sure. Let's see if better precision can be implemented on the HWBOT side at some point in the future, x265 is now ready for it.
http://hwbot.org/submission/3793276_
5. updated CPU-Z to version 1.83.
Awesome. Can we use this for subs now or does it have to be approved.
Yes, the new version is already allowed to submit scores.
And if there are no problems with v2.2.0, it should be made mandatory after some time.
Thanks
Nice! Looking forward to rebenching this: http://hwbot.org/submission/3735265
7.5 hrs
You missed the 6 days preceding that
Precision at HWBOT has been adjusted to 3 digits for new X265 submissions.
Nice.
Fast too.
Thank you.
Hmm... I need to finish binning my g470s and get some dice for the mems then. Perhaps I can still break 0.62
Also just had this come in today, so that should help a lot https://imgur.com/a/VymnL
Updated package with CPU-Z 1.89.1 and newer version of bundled Java is now available.
http://hw-museum.cz/data/hwbot/HWBOT_X265_2.2_cpu-z_1.89.1.zip
The benchmark itself remains exactly the same, no changes from version 2.2. The new Java might help in some rare cases of application crash when saving the data file. CPU-Z 1.89.1 improves HW detection.
cant hwbot host this? 40KB/s is pretty slow going for a 500GB file!
I would normally be okay with what is voted by the community. I have a problem with x265 2.2 in scoring. This my be classified as a BUG or a CHEAT it's all how you wish to look at it
We have the x265 4K 2.2 in this years TC - 2019. I pulled out my "OLD i3-6320" to compete in the Dual Core section. I noticed that SWEET - (I've talked to and also looked at other scores) using the same Motherboard and CPU combo - BEAT - -> Destroyed <- my x265 submission. I had over 1.3GHz higher CPU&IMC speed but he scored 2x better than me??? https://hwbot.org/submission/3955708_maddmutt_hwbot_x265_benchmark___1080p_core_i3_6320_8.845_fps
Is this problem reproducible YES... Here are screen shots of the the x265 1080p and 4K results. I do not have my system overclocked but running at BIOS default.
Is this limited to only this CPU, CPU/MB combo, Software, Ect, Ect???
Thank You
special non K bios being used? AVX coding goes down the drain over a certain Bclock (102.8ish) Perfectly could explain why your OCed submission scores way lower than the top scores (at way lower MHz)
Not to mention, Alex is about a thousand times better bencher than you are.
sagt:
What he said ^. Bclk bouncing at/ over 103 will break it.
When using Overkill does anyone else see the top or bottom progress bar run away from the other? I've played with a bunch of different things and it feels like it's a Windows 10 scheduler bug. Or is that normal behavior? I've only seen one person bench it on YouTube and I myself only have about a day of experience playing with the benchmark.
Seen it before. No idea what causes it.
I know overkill likes a lot of memory though, if that helps you out.
I see that big difference between the overkill bars when priority is above NORMAL - in either Win 7 or Win 10. Try all the priorities and take a peak in task manager during the run to see what actual priority is being used for the workload processes.
I've played with all the priorities too, but that alone didn't cure it for me. I did see favorable results combining that while playing with other Windows power plans though.
What program is it in Task Manager? Is it Javaw?
Yes
That stays Normal when I change priority in the bench, but messing with that Javaw priority didn't yield different results.
Javaw.exe is just the benchmark GUI, this one should be left as it is. It has no effect on the performance. When you launch the benchmark run with overkill enabled, then 2 or more instances of the x265 encoder will show up in the device manager and these should have the selected priority set.
When running overkill with high(er) priority, the Windows scheduller might assing more system resources to one instance and less to the other - which results in one instance running faster and the other slower. If the score varies too much, then final score won't be valid.
Is there anything that can be done about the scheduler assigning more resources to one instance over the other? Or is that by design?
In my experiences the gap between the two is usually 40% ~ 45%.
Perhaps some Windows tweaks, but that is just a wild guess. I never liked tweaking OS.
Try playing with pagefile, no pagefile, try playing background service priority and different win32priorityseparation values in the registry, try the new 20** build of windows 10 or depending on your hardware windows 8 or server 2012. Sometimes it is what it is and fails due to variance. Run it again.
I had issues with this today, tried many diff mem timings and mem speed but the only thing that solved it for me was to lower the cpu speed by 100 MHz, ymmv
Ooh, I read your write up over at Tom's and am eager to try dual rank my next go around. And will give your above suggestions a try too. Many thanks.
Roger that.
should add support for more than 64cores/128threads if possible
capped at 64 when overkill is an option is
There is no artificial limit to cores/threads. Perhaps the encoder doesn't scale with so many cores.... it is 4 years old after all.
Version 2.3 will be finally implemented early 2021 Havli due to the imposed HPET.
Finally the Bot will be getting somewhere!
guys, any tip why I can not on fresh OS (Win10) run this benchamrk? I got only first screen and still loading...and program is not fully opened.
Did you use maxmem ? blocked by win smartscreen ?
W11. W790. Enabled hpet and system is crawling trying to open and run this benchmark. Any ideas?
HPET system-wide enabled + many cores = no performance.
It's all bottlenecked by the slow timer calls.
I'm assuming no way around this? Merger with BM maybe and it could be fixed?
Yes, BM could fix this. But x265 is hard to inject into due to using Java for the wrapper. It's also very big and would double the download size of BenchMate.
Adding x265 is on my list. No promises though.
Bitte einloggen oder register to comment.