How many threads does ffmpeg use by default?
up vote
34
down vote
favorite
I see that there's a -threads <count>
command line option in ffmpeg. What is the default value of this option?
ffmpeg
add a comment |
up vote
34
down vote
favorite
I see that there's a -threads <count>
command line option in ffmpeg. What is the default value of this option?
ffmpeg
add a comment |
up vote
34
down vote
favorite
up vote
34
down vote
favorite
I see that there's a -threads <count>
command line option in ffmpeg. What is the default value of this option?
ffmpeg
I see that there's a -threads <count>
command line option in ffmpeg. What is the default value of this option?
ffmpeg
ffmpeg
edited Aug 11 '11 at 4:03
studiohack♦
11.3k1880113
11.3k1880113
asked Jun 22 '10 at 9:22
scompt.com
3792413
3792413
add a comment |
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
accepted
it depends on codec used, ffmpeg version and your CPU core count. Sometimes it's simply one thread per core. Sometimes it's more complex like:
With libx264 it is cores x 1.5 for frame threads and cores x 1 for slice threads.
Thanks. Do you have a reference to the defaults for some standard codecs supported by ffmpeg?
– scompt.com
Jun 22 '10 at 9:26
5
Don't rely on it. My ffmpeg 0.7.8 on Linux uses 1 thread by default no matter what.
– Barafu Albino
Dec 22 '11 at 19:30
What value can be used to get the better result? PS I am using FFMpeg in Android framework.
– Killer
Aug 1 at 11:05
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
As of 2014, it uses an optimal number.
You can verify this on a multi-core computer by examining CPU load (Linux: top
, Windows: task manager) with different options to ffmpeg:
-threads 0
(optimal);-threads 1
(single-threaded);-threads 2
(2 threads for e.g. an Intel Core 2 Duo);none (the default, also optimal).
2015 edit: on a 12-core CPU, some ffmpeg commands have Linux top
showing at most 200% cpu (only 2 cores), no matter what number is given to -threads
. So the default may still be optimal in the sense of "as good as this ffmpeg binary can get", but not optimal in the sense of "fully exploiting my leet CPU."
1
Note that this only seems to be true for encoding, not general processing. If it is not actually producing output frames then it won't parallelize. e.g. if you're de-shaking from 02:00 onwards then you will only get parallelism from 02:00 onwards, but everything up to 02:00 will still need to be processed serially.
– Mehrdad
Aug 19 at 3:14
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
In 2015 on Ubuntu 14.04 with ffmpeg 0.8.10-6, it used 1 core on a 4 core system.
htop
showed this; only one core was used, and I got 16 fps conversion rate for a FullHD video.
Using -threads 4
made all my CPU cores go to 100% and I got a conversion rate of 47 fps.
I used the following command:
$ ffmpeg -i foo.mp4 -y -target pal-dvd -aspect 16:9 dvd-out.mpg
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
I was playing with converting in a CentOS 6.5 VM (Ryzen 1700 8c/16t - vm assigned 12 of 16 cores).
Experiments with 480p movies netted the following:
Thread option/Conversion Rate (fps @ 60 secs)
(none/default)/130fps
-threads 1/70fps
-threads 2/120fps
-threads 4/185fps
-threads 6/228fps
-threads 8/204fps
-threads 10/181fps
The interesting part was the CPU loading (using htop
to watch it).
Using no -threads
option wound up at the 130fps range with load spread out across all cores at a low-load level.
Using 1 thread did exactly that, loaded one core at 100%. Using anything else resulted in another spread-load situation.
As you can see, there's also a point of diminishing returns, so you'd have to adjust the -threads option for your particular machine. For my setup specifically, using the -threads 6 (on a 12 core machine) resulted in the best FPS when converting the video (from h264 to x264 at a different bitrate to force a conversion) and returns actually diminished the more threads I threw into it.
It could have been a memory issue too - it only had 1GB assigned to the VM. I may tweak that and see if that changes anything. Still - it does show that using the -threads
option can increase performance so run some tests on your particular machine at different levels to find your setups sweet spot.
Could you please add what do you mean by "converting"? Ideally, the exact command.
– Ondra Žižka
Nov 14 at 2:40
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
assuming you have threading enabled, it assigned 1.5x number of cores.
1.5 x number of cores for frame threads. 1 x number of cores for slice threads. This is specific for (lib)x264. I'm not sure what the allocation is for other encoders.
– LordNeckbeard
Apr 3 '15 at 18:21
@LordNeckbeard How to switch between frame threading and slice threading!?
– Dr.jacky
Aug 16 '15 at 5:50
1
@Mr.Hyde Probably with-x264-params sliced-threads=1
. Or via usage of-tune zerolatency
.
– LordNeckbeard
Aug 17 '15 at 19:55
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Some of these answers are a bit old, and I'd just like to add that with my ffmpeg 4.1
, encoding with libx264
, all 6 cores/12 threads of my 2600X system were maxed without any -thread
argument.
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
accepted
it depends on codec used, ffmpeg version and your CPU core count. Sometimes it's simply one thread per core. Sometimes it's more complex like:
With libx264 it is cores x 1.5 for frame threads and cores x 1 for slice threads.
Thanks. Do you have a reference to the defaults for some standard codecs supported by ffmpeg?
– scompt.com
Jun 22 '10 at 9:26
5
Don't rely on it. My ffmpeg 0.7.8 on Linux uses 1 thread by default no matter what.
– Barafu Albino
Dec 22 '11 at 19:30
What value can be used to get the better result? PS I am using FFMpeg in Android framework.
– Killer
Aug 1 at 11:05
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
accepted
it depends on codec used, ffmpeg version and your CPU core count. Sometimes it's simply one thread per core. Sometimes it's more complex like:
With libx264 it is cores x 1.5 for frame threads and cores x 1 for slice threads.
Thanks. Do you have a reference to the defaults for some standard codecs supported by ffmpeg?
– scompt.com
Jun 22 '10 at 9:26
5
Don't rely on it. My ffmpeg 0.7.8 on Linux uses 1 thread by default no matter what.
– Barafu Albino
Dec 22 '11 at 19:30
What value can be used to get the better result? PS I am using FFMpeg in Android framework.
– Killer
Aug 1 at 11:05
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
accepted
up vote
21
down vote
accepted
it depends on codec used, ffmpeg version and your CPU core count. Sometimes it's simply one thread per core. Sometimes it's more complex like:
With libx264 it is cores x 1.5 for frame threads and cores x 1 for slice threads.
it depends on codec used, ffmpeg version and your CPU core count. Sometimes it's simply one thread per core. Sometimes it's more complex like:
With libx264 it is cores x 1.5 for frame threads and cores x 1 for slice threads.
edited May 8 at 10:58
answered Jun 22 '10 at 9:24
mOlind
41049
41049
Thanks. Do you have a reference to the defaults for some standard codecs supported by ffmpeg?
– scompt.com
Jun 22 '10 at 9:26
5
Don't rely on it. My ffmpeg 0.7.8 on Linux uses 1 thread by default no matter what.
– Barafu Albino
Dec 22 '11 at 19:30
What value can be used to get the better result? PS I am using FFMpeg in Android framework.
– Killer
Aug 1 at 11:05
add a comment |
Thanks. Do you have a reference to the defaults for some standard codecs supported by ffmpeg?
– scompt.com
Jun 22 '10 at 9:26
5
Don't rely on it. My ffmpeg 0.7.8 on Linux uses 1 thread by default no matter what.
– Barafu Albino
Dec 22 '11 at 19:30
What value can be used to get the better result? PS I am using FFMpeg in Android framework.
– Killer
Aug 1 at 11:05
Thanks. Do you have a reference to the defaults for some standard codecs supported by ffmpeg?
– scompt.com
Jun 22 '10 at 9:26
Thanks. Do you have a reference to the defaults for some standard codecs supported by ffmpeg?
– scompt.com
Jun 22 '10 at 9:26
5
5
Don't rely on it. My ffmpeg 0.7.8 on Linux uses 1 thread by default no matter what.
– Barafu Albino
Dec 22 '11 at 19:30
Don't rely on it. My ffmpeg 0.7.8 on Linux uses 1 thread by default no matter what.
– Barafu Albino
Dec 22 '11 at 19:30
What value can be used to get the better result? PS I am using FFMpeg in Android framework.
– Killer
Aug 1 at 11:05
What value can be used to get the better result? PS I am using FFMpeg in Android framework.
– Killer
Aug 1 at 11:05
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
As of 2014, it uses an optimal number.
You can verify this on a multi-core computer by examining CPU load (Linux: top
, Windows: task manager) with different options to ffmpeg:
-threads 0
(optimal);-threads 1
(single-threaded);-threads 2
(2 threads for e.g. an Intel Core 2 Duo);none (the default, also optimal).
2015 edit: on a 12-core CPU, some ffmpeg commands have Linux top
showing at most 200% cpu (only 2 cores), no matter what number is given to -threads
. So the default may still be optimal in the sense of "as good as this ffmpeg binary can get", but not optimal in the sense of "fully exploiting my leet CPU."
1
Note that this only seems to be true for encoding, not general processing. If it is not actually producing output frames then it won't parallelize. e.g. if you're de-shaking from 02:00 onwards then you will only get parallelism from 02:00 onwards, but everything up to 02:00 will still need to be processed serially.
– Mehrdad
Aug 19 at 3:14
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
As of 2014, it uses an optimal number.
You can verify this on a multi-core computer by examining CPU load (Linux: top
, Windows: task manager) with different options to ffmpeg:
-threads 0
(optimal);-threads 1
(single-threaded);-threads 2
(2 threads for e.g. an Intel Core 2 Duo);none (the default, also optimal).
2015 edit: on a 12-core CPU, some ffmpeg commands have Linux top
showing at most 200% cpu (only 2 cores), no matter what number is given to -threads
. So the default may still be optimal in the sense of "as good as this ffmpeg binary can get", but not optimal in the sense of "fully exploiting my leet CPU."
1
Note that this only seems to be true for encoding, not general processing. If it is not actually producing output frames then it won't parallelize. e.g. if you're de-shaking from 02:00 onwards then you will only get parallelism from 02:00 onwards, but everything up to 02:00 will still need to be processed serially.
– Mehrdad
Aug 19 at 3:14
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
up vote
17
down vote
As of 2014, it uses an optimal number.
You can verify this on a multi-core computer by examining CPU load (Linux: top
, Windows: task manager) with different options to ffmpeg:
-threads 0
(optimal);-threads 1
(single-threaded);-threads 2
(2 threads for e.g. an Intel Core 2 Duo);none (the default, also optimal).
2015 edit: on a 12-core CPU, some ffmpeg commands have Linux top
showing at most 200% cpu (only 2 cores), no matter what number is given to -threads
. So the default may still be optimal in the sense of "as good as this ffmpeg binary can get", but not optimal in the sense of "fully exploiting my leet CPU."
As of 2014, it uses an optimal number.
You can verify this on a multi-core computer by examining CPU load (Linux: top
, Windows: task manager) with different options to ffmpeg:
-threads 0
(optimal);-threads 1
(single-threaded);-threads 2
(2 threads for e.g. an Intel Core 2 Duo);none (the default, also optimal).
2015 edit: on a 12-core CPU, some ffmpeg commands have Linux top
showing at most 200% cpu (only 2 cores), no matter what number is given to -threads
. So the default may still be optimal in the sense of "as good as this ffmpeg binary can get", but not optimal in the sense of "fully exploiting my leet CPU."
edited Jul 13 '15 at 19:55
answered Mar 8 '14 at 15:59
Camille Goudeseune
75611329
75611329
1
Note that this only seems to be true for encoding, not general processing. If it is not actually producing output frames then it won't parallelize. e.g. if you're de-shaking from 02:00 onwards then you will only get parallelism from 02:00 onwards, but everything up to 02:00 will still need to be processed serially.
– Mehrdad
Aug 19 at 3:14
add a comment |
1
Note that this only seems to be true for encoding, not general processing. If it is not actually producing output frames then it won't parallelize. e.g. if you're de-shaking from 02:00 onwards then you will only get parallelism from 02:00 onwards, but everything up to 02:00 will still need to be processed serially.
– Mehrdad
Aug 19 at 3:14
1
1
Note that this only seems to be true for encoding, not general processing. If it is not actually producing output frames then it won't parallelize. e.g. if you're de-shaking from 02:00 onwards then you will only get parallelism from 02:00 onwards, but everything up to 02:00 will still need to be processed serially.
– Mehrdad
Aug 19 at 3:14
Note that this only seems to be true for encoding, not general processing. If it is not actually producing output frames then it won't parallelize. e.g. if you're de-shaking from 02:00 onwards then you will only get parallelism from 02:00 onwards, but everything up to 02:00 will still need to be processed serially.
– Mehrdad
Aug 19 at 3:14
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
In 2015 on Ubuntu 14.04 with ffmpeg 0.8.10-6, it used 1 core on a 4 core system.
htop
showed this; only one core was used, and I got 16 fps conversion rate for a FullHD video.
Using -threads 4
made all my CPU cores go to 100% and I got a conversion rate of 47 fps.
I used the following command:
$ ffmpeg -i foo.mp4 -y -target pal-dvd -aspect 16:9 dvd-out.mpg
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
In 2015 on Ubuntu 14.04 with ffmpeg 0.8.10-6, it used 1 core on a 4 core system.
htop
showed this; only one core was used, and I got 16 fps conversion rate for a FullHD video.
Using -threads 4
made all my CPU cores go to 100% and I got a conversion rate of 47 fps.
I used the following command:
$ ffmpeg -i foo.mp4 -y -target pal-dvd -aspect 16:9 dvd-out.mpg
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
In 2015 on Ubuntu 14.04 with ffmpeg 0.8.10-6, it used 1 core on a 4 core system.
htop
showed this; only one core was used, and I got 16 fps conversion rate for a FullHD video.
Using -threads 4
made all my CPU cores go to 100% and I got a conversion rate of 47 fps.
I used the following command:
$ ffmpeg -i foo.mp4 -y -target pal-dvd -aspect 16:9 dvd-out.mpg
In 2015 on Ubuntu 14.04 with ffmpeg 0.8.10-6, it used 1 core on a 4 core system.
htop
showed this; only one core was used, and I got 16 fps conversion rate for a FullHD video.
Using -threads 4
made all my CPU cores go to 100% and I got a conversion rate of 47 fps.
I used the following command:
$ ffmpeg -i foo.mp4 -y -target pal-dvd -aspect 16:9 dvd-out.mpg
edited Apr 3 '15 at 18:22
answered Apr 3 '15 at 18:10
cweiske
77811129
77811129
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
I was playing with converting in a CentOS 6.5 VM (Ryzen 1700 8c/16t - vm assigned 12 of 16 cores).
Experiments with 480p movies netted the following:
Thread option/Conversion Rate (fps @ 60 secs)
(none/default)/130fps
-threads 1/70fps
-threads 2/120fps
-threads 4/185fps
-threads 6/228fps
-threads 8/204fps
-threads 10/181fps
The interesting part was the CPU loading (using htop
to watch it).
Using no -threads
option wound up at the 130fps range with load spread out across all cores at a low-load level.
Using 1 thread did exactly that, loaded one core at 100%. Using anything else resulted in another spread-load situation.
As you can see, there's also a point of diminishing returns, so you'd have to adjust the -threads option for your particular machine. For my setup specifically, using the -threads 6 (on a 12 core machine) resulted in the best FPS when converting the video (from h264 to x264 at a different bitrate to force a conversion) and returns actually diminished the more threads I threw into it.
It could have been a memory issue too - it only had 1GB assigned to the VM. I may tweak that and see if that changes anything. Still - it does show that using the -threads
option can increase performance so run some tests on your particular machine at different levels to find your setups sweet spot.
Could you please add what do you mean by "converting"? Ideally, the exact command.
– Ondra Žižka
Nov 14 at 2:40
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
I was playing with converting in a CentOS 6.5 VM (Ryzen 1700 8c/16t - vm assigned 12 of 16 cores).
Experiments with 480p movies netted the following:
Thread option/Conversion Rate (fps @ 60 secs)
(none/default)/130fps
-threads 1/70fps
-threads 2/120fps
-threads 4/185fps
-threads 6/228fps
-threads 8/204fps
-threads 10/181fps
The interesting part was the CPU loading (using htop
to watch it).
Using no -threads
option wound up at the 130fps range with load spread out across all cores at a low-load level.
Using 1 thread did exactly that, loaded one core at 100%. Using anything else resulted in another spread-load situation.
As you can see, there's also a point of diminishing returns, so you'd have to adjust the -threads option for your particular machine. For my setup specifically, using the -threads 6 (on a 12 core machine) resulted in the best FPS when converting the video (from h264 to x264 at a different bitrate to force a conversion) and returns actually diminished the more threads I threw into it.
It could have been a memory issue too - it only had 1GB assigned to the VM. I may tweak that and see if that changes anything. Still - it does show that using the -threads
option can increase performance so run some tests on your particular machine at different levels to find your setups sweet spot.
Could you please add what do you mean by "converting"? Ideally, the exact command.
– Ondra Žižka
Nov 14 at 2:40
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
I was playing with converting in a CentOS 6.5 VM (Ryzen 1700 8c/16t - vm assigned 12 of 16 cores).
Experiments with 480p movies netted the following:
Thread option/Conversion Rate (fps @ 60 secs)
(none/default)/130fps
-threads 1/70fps
-threads 2/120fps
-threads 4/185fps
-threads 6/228fps
-threads 8/204fps
-threads 10/181fps
The interesting part was the CPU loading (using htop
to watch it).
Using no -threads
option wound up at the 130fps range with load spread out across all cores at a low-load level.
Using 1 thread did exactly that, loaded one core at 100%. Using anything else resulted in another spread-load situation.
As you can see, there's also a point of diminishing returns, so you'd have to adjust the -threads option for your particular machine. For my setup specifically, using the -threads 6 (on a 12 core machine) resulted in the best FPS when converting the video (from h264 to x264 at a different bitrate to force a conversion) and returns actually diminished the more threads I threw into it.
It could have been a memory issue too - it only had 1GB assigned to the VM. I may tweak that and see if that changes anything. Still - it does show that using the -threads
option can increase performance so run some tests on your particular machine at different levels to find your setups sweet spot.
I was playing with converting in a CentOS 6.5 VM (Ryzen 1700 8c/16t - vm assigned 12 of 16 cores).
Experiments with 480p movies netted the following:
Thread option/Conversion Rate (fps @ 60 secs)
(none/default)/130fps
-threads 1/70fps
-threads 2/120fps
-threads 4/185fps
-threads 6/228fps
-threads 8/204fps
-threads 10/181fps
The interesting part was the CPU loading (using htop
to watch it).
Using no -threads
option wound up at the 130fps range with load spread out across all cores at a low-load level.
Using 1 thread did exactly that, loaded one core at 100%. Using anything else resulted in another spread-load situation.
As you can see, there's also a point of diminishing returns, so you'd have to adjust the -threads option for your particular machine. For my setup specifically, using the -threads 6 (on a 12 core machine) resulted in the best FPS when converting the video (from h264 to x264 at a different bitrate to force a conversion) and returns actually diminished the more threads I threw into it.
It could have been a memory issue too - it only had 1GB assigned to the VM. I may tweak that and see if that changes anything. Still - it does show that using the -threads
option can increase performance so run some tests on your particular machine at different levels to find your setups sweet spot.
edited Nov 14 at 3:07
Ondra Žižka
3742721
3742721
answered Apr 6 '17 at 16:04
Bill Rookard
311
311
Could you please add what do you mean by "converting"? Ideally, the exact command.
– Ondra Žižka
Nov 14 at 2:40
add a comment |
Could you please add what do you mean by "converting"? Ideally, the exact command.
– Ondra Žižka
Nov 14 at 2:40
Could you please add what do you mean by "converting"? Ideally, the exact command.
– Ondra Žižka
Nov 14 at 2:40
Could you please add what do you mean by "converting"? Ideally, the exact command.
– Ondra Žižka
Nov 14 at 2:40
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
assuming you have threading enabled, it assigned 1.5x number of cores.
1.5 x number of cores for frame threads. 1 x number of cores for slice threads. This is specific for (lib)x264. I'm not sure what the allocation is for other encoders.
– LordNeckbeard
Apr 3 '15 at 18:21
@LordNeckbeard How to switch between frame threading and slice threading!?
– Dr.jacky
Aug 16 '15 at 5:50
1
@Mr.Hyde Probably with-x264-params sliced-threads=1
. Or via usage of-tune zerolatency
.
– LordNeckbeard
Aug 17 '15 at 19:55
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
assuming you have threading enabled, it assigned 1.5x number of cores.
1.5 x number of cores for frame threads. 1 x number of cores for slice threads. This is specific for (lib)x264. I'm not sure what the allocation is for other encoders.
– LordNeckbeard
Apr 3 '15 at 18:21
@LordNeckbeard How to switch between frame threading and slice threading!?
– Dr.jacky
Aug 16 '15 at 5:50
1
@Mr.Hyde Probably with-x264-params sliced-threads=1
. Or via usage of-tune zerolatency
.
– LordNeckbeard
Aug 17 '15 at 19:55
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
assuming you have threading enabled, it assigned 1.5x number of cores.
assuming you have threading enabled, it assigned 1.5x number of cores.
answered Sep 12 '12 at 19:19
rogerdpack
83121428
83121428
1.5 x number of cores for frame threads. 1 x number of cores for slice threads. This is specific for (lib)x264. I'm not sure what the allocation is for other encoders.
– LordNeckbeard
Apr 3 '15 at 18:21
@LordNeckbeard How to switch between frame threading and slice threading!?
– Dr.jacky
Aug 16 '15 at 5:50
1
@Mr.Hyde Probably with-x264-params sliced-threads=1
. Or via usage of-tune zerolatency
.
– LordNeckbeard
Aug 17 '15 at 19:55
add a comment |
1.5 x number of cores for frame threads. 1 x number of cores for slice threads. This is specific for (lib)x264. I'm not sure what the allocation is for other encoders.
– LordNeckbeard
Apr 3 '15 at 18:21
@LordNeckbeard How to switch between frame threading and slice threading!?
– Dr.jacky
Aug 16 '15 at 5:50
1
@Mr.Hyde Probably with-x264-params sliced-threads=1
. Or via usage of-tune zerolatency
.
– LordNeckbeard
Aug 17 '15 at 19:55
1.5 x number of cores for frame threads. 1 x number of cores for slice threads. This is specific for (lib)x264. I'm not sure what the allocation is for other encoders.
– LordNeckbeard
Apr 3 '15 at 18:21
1.5 x number of cores for frame threads. 1 x number of cores for slice threads. This is specific for (lib)x264. I'm not sure what the allocation is for other encoders.
– LordNeckbeard
Apr 3 '15 at 18:21
@LordNeckbeard How to switch between frame threading and slice threading!?
– Dr.jacky
Aug 16 '15 at 5:50
@LordNeckbeard How to switch between frame threading and slice threading!?
– Dr.jacky
Aug 16 '15 at 5:50
1
1
@Mr.Hyde Probably with
-x264-params sliced-threads=1
. Or via usage of -tune zerolatency
.– LordNeckbeard
Aug 17 '15 at 19:55
@Mr.Hyde Probably with
-x264-params sliced-threads=1
. Or via usage of -tune zerolatency
.– LordNeckbeard
Aug 17 '15 at 19:55
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Some of these answers are a bit old, and I'd just like to add that with my ffmpeg 4.1
, encoding with libx264
, all 6 cores/12 threads of my 2600X system were maxed without any -thread
argument.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Some of these answers are a bit old, and I'd just like to add that with my ffmpeg 4.1
, encoding with libx264
, all 6 cores/12 threads of my 2600X system were maxed without any -thread
argument.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Some of these answers are a bit old, and I'd just like to add that with my ffmpeg 4.1
, encoding with libx264
, all 6 cores/12 threads of my 2600X system were maxed without any -thread
argument.
Some of these answers are a bit old, and I'd just like to add that with my ffmpeg 4.1
, encoding with libx264
, all 6 cores/12 threads of my 2600X system were maxed without any -thread
argument.
answered Nov 21 at 3:01
Matt M.
1034
1034
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f155305%2fhow-many-threads-does-ffmpeg-use-by-default%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown