View Full Version : Top-end HD playback (3GHz) ?
PantsOnFire
2009-02-24, 11:48
Hey all,
Just a quick question.
I've known for a while that 3GHz is the mark you want to aim for for full HD playback. Coming nearer to actually building a machine, I'm wondering..
is this assuming you're playing H264 MKV videos? (Or does this take into account actual blu-ray discs) - because I assume these might take even more muscle to play, right?
(Wanting to be sure so I build a machine that's blu-ray future-proof)
cheers
there is no bluray support in xbmc, nor HDDVD. The only way to do it is to use the external player builds.
With 3GHz you should have enough power to handle full bitrate BluRay encodes.
When (in my opinion it's a "when" and not an "if") BluRay support will become available, a 3.0 GHz Intel DualCore should have enough power to decode it.
3 GHz allow for killa sample decode, which has bitrate in excess of the highest bitrate available for BluRay encodes (40Mbps).
My HTPC has a 3GHz E8400 and I watch DECRYPTED Blu-ray and HD-DVD content all the time in XBMC. I'm not talking about re-encodes, I mean the unaltered .m2ts stream from the disk. Even on high bit rate Blu-rays, like The Dutchess which maxes out 37Mb/s, playback is fine.
I mean the unaltered .m2ts stream from the disk.Cool. That saves me some research. XBMC now supports those natively? I missed that. You use AnyDVD HD I'd imagine. Right?
Cool. That saves me some research. XBMC now supports those natively? I missed that. You use AnyDVD HD I'd imagine. Right?
You are correct sir!
I don't know how this 3GHz myth still exists. I have a C2D 2.66 (E8200) and it can handle killaample.mkv just fine without dropped frames. I've tested my FSB at 400 and it ran rock solid at 3.2GHz but it didn't make any difference to the performance. Before the multi-core optimizations to XBMC a 3 GHz was definitely needed. I don't believe that is the case anymore.
I don't know how this 3GHz myth still exists.It's more of a "if you go there you are 100% sure" thing. :grin:
But yeah, XBMC has done huge strides ahead in many aspects. Decoding performance is definitely one of those (thanks to FFMPEG).
PantsOnFire
2009-02-25, 04:12
You are correct sir!
haha, that reminded me of Michael Scott in the USA Office! :)
Cheers for all the answers guys, yeah I was aware that it dosen't support blu-days and hd-dvd yet, more of a theoretical question really. (altho i didnt really make that clear! :p )
great to hear solid info about max bitrates.
althekiller
2009-02-25, 05:34
It's more of a "if you go there you are 100% sure" thing. :grin:
That was true until the gsoc h264 optimizations went into ffmpeg. I can play killa with a 2.5GHz c2d nowadays. I don't think anyone has figured out a new "floor" for stupidly encoded 1080p h264 yet.
PantsOnFire
2009-02-26, 02:41
hmm.. I might go for a 2.7 Intel then.. :nerd:
My quad core 2.4 at work can play it at work just fine. ;) the killa sample that is.
That was true until the gsoc h264 optimizations went into ffmpeg. I can play killa with a 2.5GHz c2d nowadays. I don't think anyone has figured out a new "floor" for stupidly encoded 1080p h264 yet.
XBMC users still continue to pay a premium for for e8400 so if there really is a new floor it needs found and reported on ASAP.
Is that stating the obvious?... not really since people are still quoting 3Ghz as the official/unoffical CPU speed all over the place.
XBMC users precious money is being wasted here... we should work out what this floor is.
I am using a E5200, which is playing back the killa sample just fine.
The E5200 is a 2.5Ghz Dual Core with 2MB L2 Cache, and a budget one, as it is at around 80USD.