[mythtv-users] Is it worth upgrading AMD sempron 3000+ to sempron 3400+
Michael T. Dean
mtdean at thirdcontact.com
Tue Aug 29 21:16:13 UTC 2006
On 08/29/2006 10:56 AM, Steven Adeff wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Kevin Hulse <jedi at mishnet.org> wrote:
>> My Athlon64 3500 runs at about 3:1. It takes 3 times as long
>> as the runlength of a video in order to convert it from mpeg2 (DVD)
>> to H.264.
> I'd like to know why your transcoding from DVD to H.264? In order to
> get similar quality at a significantly smaller bitrate your never
> going to be able to play the H.264 file with out a DSP.
Unless he down-res's any high-resolution video to something his
processor can handle.
Still, though, I agree with your sentiment, Steve: there's not a lot of
file size benefit to H.264 (a.k.a. MPEG-4 AVC a.k.a. MPEG-4 Part 10)
compared to MPEG-4 Part 2 when you're also down-res'ing. If you
down-res HDTV to SDTV resolutions (or you start out with SDTV
resolutions), MPEG-4 Part 2 can easily provide good quality at 1GiB/hr.
And, in the 1GiB/hr range, using 3-hours of processing time/1-hour
recording for space savings is a lot of unnecessary computing compared
to just buying a new 300GB HDD for $80 or so. Since MPEG-4 Part 2 takes
just a bit more than half the bitrate of MPEG-2 and since H.264 was
designed to use half the bitrate of MPEG-2, you're really not getting
much space savings per SDTV-sized file.
And, when you factor in the relative immaturity of H.264, it seems the
best reason to use that CODEC (when you're not forced to by European
high-def standards ;), is just to play with the technology. Now, for
OTA HDTV, it does have the benefit of saving bandwidth in the
already-too-limited available spectrum (where the spectrum is more
valuable than the processing time), so, IMHO, it makes far more sense
there than on a Myth box.
More information about the mythtv-users