Minimum Cient for HD programs

[Tinker]

Does anyone have a recommendation for minimum specs to playback HD recordings? I put together a PC from parts laying around and it does a great job on SD but for HD programs the video is choppy. The audio is fine. It looks like I am balancing on that line. I am just wondering if someone can throw out some specs for a machine that is NOT a high end machine that works will with HD programs. I am wondering how much and which components I need to upgrade.

I don't have all the specs on my machine with me I will add them to this post later. Thanks!

[mikeh49]

It seems to be mostly the video card. I have a ATI 9600Pro that does HD OK (but no better just OK) in VMR9 FSE with a Sempron 2800. VMR9 Custom and EVR are unsat for HD for me. People here on the forum will recommend an Nvidia 8500 or above, AT HD3xxx or above. If you don't have a PCIe motherboard, don't bother. AGP is so last century, you can no longer get a card (or its drivers) that will have high assurance of working. The expedient solution is the Popcorn Hour for USD$179.

[soccerdad]

It really is hardware specific so we need to know what you are basing off of. If you get on board vid or a card that can do hardware accel, then you don't need as big of a processor, but if you have to do it all with software, then you need something pretty good. AMD boards with HDMI and low end dual core chips can be had pretty cheap. From a simplicity standpoint, the PCH would be the easiest. HD clients work great, but do require some TLC to get set up. I did it to learn more and to have PC capabilities at the TV. If you have an OS, a small hard drive and dvd drive, you can build up a nice rig in an old case for about $150 that will last for quite a while. See my build notes here http://forums.nextpvr.com/showthread.php?t=39752. You could get away with a much lower end chip, like a 3500+, but it won't save you that much money. Good luck.

[Deusxmachina]

I'd say there's basically no point in getting a CPU less than an e2140 core2duo (or AMD equivalent) unless it's basically free. CPU trumps video card in playback, you can't depend on hardware acceleration, but you do need a halfway decent card to do good deinterlacing and things sometimes if that's what you want. And some argue you need a decent card simply to have enough bandwidth on the car..

Anything 8600GT or better will work. A 7600GT will work too, just doesn't have Blu-Ray acceleration. Mine currently has an 8500GT in it and I don't have any complaints other than the fan broke the second day I had it.

[smajor]

I've found that the best video cards, if you have PCIe 16x or above, are ones that are 256bit. Anything less I've found to stutter or be "clippy."

I'm an nVidia fan, so my testing is with those. Most of the 7800, 7900, 8800, 8900, 9800 GT series of those cards have at least 256bit; some of the lower end ones might too. I'm using a 7900GT at 720p with an HD-PVR on a 32" LCD - smooth as silk.

[mikeh49]

Smajor, good point on the 256 bit aspect. A few years ago (in the caveman days of SD), csy noted that the 64 bit Nvidia cards didn't have the needed throughput, and recommended 128 bit. This hasn't been mentioned recently, so I'm glad you brought it up. I agree that 256 bit is the way to go.

[pBS]

i'd agree on the 256 bit point, but only on non hardware assisted chips...
almost all of the Intel chips are 256bit and do a great job without accel, but they also don't offer much on the chips except hardware deinterlacing...
even my ati x1550 agp is smooth as silk with 8.11 drivers on mpeg2...even on a agp 4x motherboard with pc133 ram and it uses hypermemory! [ati card shares main mem]
[x1000+ cards have hardware mpeg2 and wmv decode builtin,and several agp cards can still be found] tho no bluray...[h.264]

so it seems memory bandwidth is only a problem on non hardware decoders as both 3450 and 1550 are 64 bit memory...

and 256 megs is fine, as 1920x1080x32 bit color only needs 66 megs to display...so you can have 2 monitors easy with 256..
the rest doesn't seem to be used at all...[gives no extra capabilities in video playback]

[gazoo]

I'm in the "better CPU" camp. You definitely need a newer GPU (integrated or standalone), but it doesn't have to break the bank. Also, getting hardware acceleration I've learned is very hit or miss so if you are relying on a GPU to do that, then don't - stick with a good dual core CPU.

Search my older posts regarding HA or DXVA and I think I have some numbers for different processors and what's worked or not worked for me regarding HA.

my 2 cents..

[Tinker]

Good input guys. Thanks. I was "tinkering" last night and I realized that my ffdshow on the client was a pretty old version. I updated it and the video stuttering problem is better. Now the audio is not so good. I am using ffdshow for both the video and audio decoder for playback.

This is a little off the subject but it also explains why I am going this route. I got a PCH for Christmas this year but I am having major problems with it. It will sometimes browse the network and sometimes won't. Sometimes the scripts work and sometimes they don't. It freezes up every few minutes. If I touch it, it freezes up. I think I got a bad unit. I am working this with the PCH guys to get a replacement. They are wanting me to try some things before getting me a new unit. I am trying to decide which way to go, PCH or PC client. I noticed that with the PCH I cannot rewind. I prefer the skip forward on the client over the fast foreward on the PCH. I love comskip too. I think I will get the PCH running and keep it but I think the client option is a much better interface.

This test client is helping me to do a side by side comparison. Any tips on ffdshow configuration?

Anybody tried one of these Dell Hybrids as a client? It seems a nice package for around $550.00.

[mvallevand]

Skip forward and back on the PCH work with the arrow keys in the middle in thirty second increments, based on the number of times you hit them.

Martin