INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: What is considered a faster PC?  (Read 2211 times)

JustinChase

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Getting older every day
What is considered a faster PC?
« on: August 26, 2011, 07:25:57 pm »

This was asked in another thread here, and I in others I've seen, and I don't know the answer, and haven't seen any great answers anywhere else, so I thought I'd ask it here.

has anyone narrowed down the "minimum" hardware requirements to use HQ (madVR)?

a fast GPU is necessary, but what is 'just' fast enough?

I believe it's shader cores that do all the work, and I know all types of videos will have varying demands, but I'm considering building a new system, and don't want to overbuy the video card, to save some energy, but mostly I'm just curious.

Has anyone compiled feedback, or otherwise knows the point where an ATI or nVidia card becomes "faster"?

Also, assuming an ATI card, we need to do software decoding using LAV, what would be considered the 'minimum' needed to have trouble-free video playback on most all content?

I'm guessing there isn't a definitive consensus (or I would like to think I'd have seen it by now), so maybe people could post feedback on what hardware they have, and whether or not it can handle Red October HQ.

I think a standard "difficult" file would be a good test; to compare apples to apples.  I can't remember, but it seems 1080i might be the most "demanding" but I could certainly have remembered that wrong.  I find Avatar scenes of heavy CGI moving fast in the trees causes issues for my system; sometimes.

I'm sure there is a better test file/scene, but I think many would be interested to know the answer to this.

Maybe not  :P
Logged
pretend this is something funny

justsomeguy

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2011, 07:46:08 pm »

I just played a 1080p x264 L5.1 encoded copy of Doomsday on my htpc. System is an AMD 7750 Dual-Core CPU @ 2.7GHz and a ATI Radeon HD4550. So definitely not a high end system for sure. My average cpu usage was between 50 to 65% and the GPU usage stayed between 50 - 55% most of the time, fast moving action it jumped around 60-65%. This is using RO High Quality w/MadVR.
Logged

Daydream

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2011, 11:28:50 pm »

I just played a 1080p x264 L5.1 encoded copy of Doomsday on my htpc.
That's not the most demanding scenario.

a fast GPU is necessary, but what is 'just' fast enough?

I'll throw some clear numbers in for the most current generations and some reasoning and if anybody wants to argue with them they'll have to bring proof :)

AMD: HD6570 (the DDR5 version)
Nvidia: GTX 550Ti.

With AMD you want UVD3 even if it's just for the remote chance that you'll want to play some 3D content, so that means the 6000 series. 6450 is too underpowered, 6570 is the next best. Tests on Anantech say the same. Price range $70-$80 as of August 2011. Keep in mind the 7000-series is just around the corner; might want to wait.
With Nvidia, as proven by tests on the web and here (ask Jmone), 550Ti is the minimum required in order to use LAV & Cuvid with madVR with the most demanding files (read: from 1080/60i (VC-1) files to the birds scene from Planet Earth, aka 'killa sample'). Price range $120-$150, again as of August 2011.
Logged

justsomeguy

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2011, 11:54:22 pm »

Quote
That's not the most demanding scenario.
Yes I know that's not the most demanding. It is close to what a majority of my movies are encoded like. I would guess 99% of actual content people play (not clips) isn't much more demanding either. I don't have Avatar like the OP mentioned but I'm sure it is probably on the more demanding side. My example was to just show what an "older" system can do and still have some headroom. Maybe this isn't what the OP was looking for though.

do you have a link for any of these "killa samples"? Wouldn't mind checking them out.
Logged

CountryBumkin

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2011, 06:49:20 am »

With Nvidia, as proven by tests on the web and here (ask Jmone), 550Ti is the minimum required in order to use LAV & Cuvid with madVR with the most demanding files (read: from 1080/60i (VC-1) files to the birds scene from Planet Earth, aka 'killa sample'). Price range $120-$150, again as of August 2011.

Where can I download this "bird scene"? Im currious how my system will perform with RO and RO+HQ, becuase I have (i3-2100) Nvidia GT440 on one machine and (core 2 Duo E8400) GTS450 on the other and both seem to play every BD I have without issue. I don't have any 1080/60i content. Is the entire Plant Earth BD in this format, or is this bird scene stricly made for testing purposes?
Logged

sunfire7

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2011, 11:12:47 am »

here is a link to the birds killer sample:
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?t=89353  (3rd post)

I have a GT220 and I can play anything with cuda + Madvr without dropped frames and smooth video, including the birds scene and other killer samples, so I dont know if the GTX 550Ti is the minimum?
Logged
Happy licensed MC 15-19 User :)
Mac version early bird
My english is not perfect! My native lang is spanish

Hendrik

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10788
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2011, 11:26:53 am »

The GT220 is too slow for full deinterlacing, however. It comes close, but highes quality deinterlacing at 60 frames per second is not smooth.

As a minimum card, you can probably get a GT 430 (it might be fast enough, sadly i haven't exactly seen a set of benchmarks), or to be on the safe side, GT 440 (go with the GDDR5 model, its significantly faster in video performance)
Me personally, i have a GTS 450, mostly because the lower cards weren't out at the time i got it, but also to have a bit of headroom.

The 500 series of cards sadly doesn't have a good HTPC card (the 520 is too slow, the 550 is already way too fast, anything in between are rebadged OEM 4xx cards)
Lets hope for the 600 series, with the brand new decoder chip. :)

Prices: The 430 is around ~60, 440 can be had for ~$80, and the 450 comes at around ~$110, all prices without rebate.

To make sure everything works fine, i would go with a 440 GDDR5, $80 is a good price for what it delivers.
Logged
~ nevcairiel
~ Author of LAV Filters

JustinChase

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Getting older every day
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2011, 12:05:10 pm »

Excellent, thanks.

Since I don't yet have an nVidia card and can't use LAV CUVID, I'm not positive what the CPU demands are when using LAV CUVID.

do I need a fast(er) CPU, or is 'everything' offloaded to the GPU, and a simple dual core 4 yr old CPU will be fine still?
Logged
pretend this is something funny

jmone

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 14277
  • I won! I won!
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2011, 05:16:02 pm »

Logged
JRiver CEO Elect

JustinChase

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Getting older every day
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2011, 06:23:42 pm »

Justin,
More discussion and sample files in these threads:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=65679.0
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=64782.0

Ha, thanks!

i just saw those links in the AVS thread and finished both of them, then saw this here ;)

I'm now of the opinion that I'll need an nVidia card, because I have a crappy processor anyway, but if I could do software decoding, the 66xx or 68xx ATI cards sound like good options (aside from no LAVCUVID).

It looks like there are a couple of nice spec'd 550Ti cards for $120 or so, and it sounds like the general consensus is that any of series will handle LAV and madVR just fine.  Are there any weird specs/qualifications/anything I need to make sure it has if i should want to run 3D one day on my Mitsubishi DLP?

Logged
pretend this is something funny

BryanC

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
Re: What is considered a faster PC?
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2011, 02:25:05 pm »

My GT240 plays everything I throw at it...full blu-ray rips. It's paired with a 4400+.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up