[mythtv-users] Re: pcHDTV and HDTV

[Brandon Beattie]

I'd agree 64 bit is overkill.  Why spend the extra money when you don't
need to?  If I had that type of money I would build a dual P4 or AMD
and then spend the rest on hard drives to do software raid.  8 250GB
drives would be much nicer to have than a 64 bit system.  The only
problem facing us in HDTV's in the future will be disk space.  Current
processors are more than enough, and the _only_ reason you would need 2
CPU's is if you had 4 cards in a system, recording 20 shows a day and
wanting to transcode them to other formats (mpeg4 maybe to save disk
space).  Otherwise a single CPU and 8 250GB drives would be enough if
you don't ever transcode.  And anything over 3Ghz isn't needed for a
HTPC.  (Don't quote me on this in a year. ;)

A 64 bit system will give you more bandwidth, but you don't need it.
Current systems can easily support 4 40Mb (ATSC streams are 20Mb to
40Mb, common is 25Mb currently).  So if you have 160Mb/s your only
holdup will be writing to disk, not you BUS -- and thus why I'd get
software raid on 8 drives.. Space and writing ability.

You could even use a 486 with a software raid for recording 4 HD streams
at once.  (Possibly, havn't checked it's max pci bandwidth).  And even
though you can use a 1.2Ghz and hardware decoding I am against it
because you lose OSD and to e honest, I'm less than impressed with the
video quality of the mpeg2 decoder on nvidia cards.  Upscaling an image
looks terrible, very pixelized.  Using software decoding you can improve
the quality some atleast.  So 2.4Ghz is a good CPU for a frontend only
system.

Why finance a skyscaper when all you need is a home?  -- Don't waste
your money on things you don't need.

--Brandon

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:44:09PM -0400, Jason Schloer wrote:
> I may be wrong on this, but for capture you shouldn't need too powerful
> a machine. Since ATSC signals are already MPEG2 compressed to at most
> 19.2 mbps there's not a lot to do other than write the stream to disk.
> So throughput will be the bigger issue for multiple hdtv cards. Where
> you will need more horsepower is on the machines displaying the stream.
> And once Myth is optimized for xvmc, even a 1.2 Ghz machine should be
> enough. Anyway, I gues my point is that dual cpu Athlon-64  may be a bit
> of overkill, especially if the "normal" cards you're considering are
> hardware encoders. I'd love to hear other peoples take on this though,
> especially Brandon.
> 
> 
> Jason Schloer
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org
> [mailto:mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org] On Behalf Of Brian Foddy
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:19 PM
> To: Discussion about mythtv
> Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] Re: pcHDTV and HDTV
> 
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Jarod C. Wilson wrote:
> > Unfortunate digital to analog conversion necessary, but hey. (If only 
> > I'd waited a bit longer to get my HDTV, I woulda had one w/DVI in...
> :)
> 
> I hear you.  I got a 43" Hitachi in Feb, no DVI inputs.  My parents
> just a couple weeks ago picked up a 51" Sony with DVI for almost
> the same price.  But hey, I've had 7 months of enjoyment :)
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback on my question of component inputs.
> Seems like it won't be a major stumbling block (I didn't think it
> would).
> Now just need to collect some money, and get the hardware.
> 
> Personally, I waiting to see what the Athlon-64 and newer Xeons
> look like before I make this jump.  I could realistically see
> a dual cpu machine with 1-2 HD cards, perhaps another 1-2 normal
> cards.  Since my current setup can already record 3 shows on one
> machine, I doubt I'll want anything less.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users