minimum configuration for 1080p

[xenotox]

hi everyone


i currently have a athlon 2400 XP and 1 gb ddr with a ati 9600 pro AGP. Can´t make the mkv and TS files from bluray to work. Which is the minimum configuration for them to work? Will a athlon 3000 work?

Wich is the best OS for 1080p playback? Is there a OS that can maximize computer performance for 1080p?

thanks in advance

[DereX888]

Your machine is slow by current "standards", but you still should be able to make whatever you want (albeit it may take a lot more time than doing the same on i.e. my latest machine I build yesterday).

"OS for playback"? LOL...
The best OS is the one you feel most comfortable using it.
That's all I should say.

Except for some really non-mainstream OSes, all of them should support *playback* of any non-proprietary video formats regardless of their resolution and framerate. The only thing that can stop you from watching HD videos are the specs of your rig, which I'm not sure is capable of HD smooth and proper playback (just too slow IMHO, but I may be wrong).
OS has nothing to do with it, you can find mkv playback support for all 3 main OSes out there (linux, win, mac).
The only "trouble" I can think of is if you have DRMed files, then you could have some possible problems on non-Windoze OS, but again - its just theoretical, since there are no DRM'ed mkv files...

[ocgw]

hi everyone


i currently have a athlon 2400 XP and 1 gb ddr with a ati 9600 pro AGP. Can´t make the mkv and TS files from bluray to work. Which is the minimum configuration for them to work? Will a athlon 3000 work?

Wich is the best OS for 1080p playback? Is there a OS that can maximize computer performance for 1080p?

thanks in advance

I suggest buying a gfx card w/ full hardware acceleration to take the load off your cpu

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102814

ocgw

peace

[jagabo]

Be aware that not all media players support DXVA (required for hardware video decoding).

[DereX888]

Athlon XP 2400 is actually not 2.4GHz.
I forgot it is AMD's stupid way of labeling (their theoretical performance equivalent to Intel's running at higher clock, which is complete bullshit since we are not talking about spreadsheets or office apps but video decoding - and there is no substitutes for chip's real power here).
Your CPU is actually only 1.8 GHz.
I really don't think there is much you can do with it.

It still can be used as great "media center" if you limit its use to standard definition only.

[jagabo]

Generally, it takes a dual core CPU to decode 1080p24 h.264 encoded video file smoothly in software. You'll need a multithreaded h.264 decoder too, of course.

[ocgw]

hi everyone


i currently have a athlon 2400 XP and 1 gb ddr with a ati 9600 pro AGP. Can´t make the mkv and TS files from bluray to work. Which is the minimum configuration for them to work? Will a athlon 3000 work?

Wich is the best OS for 1080p playback? Is there a OS that can maximize computer performance for 1080p?

thanks in advance

I ran a OTA ATSC HDTV card, the ATI HDTV Wonder on my basement PC (720p and 1080i) on a 3000+M (2.2Ghz) w/ a agp 6600GT w/ only partial hardware acceleration and 1GB of memory and it played smoothly

There are no garruntees but I think you may achieve smooth playback of blu ray IF

1. You buy the card I recommended (to play the video in hardware, not software)
2. Buy playback software that supports full hardware acceleration (PDVD, TMT, or WinDVD)
3. make your blu ray files into compliant blu ray struture isos, and mount them to a virtual drive for playback (VCD)

in my most humble of opinions

ps. XP will work fine for 1080P playback, Win 7 x86 also may work well w/ your hardware, but again there are no garruntees

ocgw

peace

[jagabo]

I ran a OTA ATSC HDTV card, the ATI HDTV Wonder on my basement PC (720p and 1080i) on a 3000+M (2.2Ghz) w/ a agp 6600GT w/ only partial hardware acceleration and 1GB of memory and it played smoothly

MPEG 2 decoding is much less CPU intensive than h.264 decoding.

[ocgw]

The way I recommend the OP to play his video should off load all the workload from the cpu to the gfx card

ocgw

peace

[jagabo]

The way I recommend the OP to play his video should off load all the workload from the cpu to the gfx card

I know.

[ocgw]

The way I recommend the OP to play his video should off load all the workload from the cpu to the gfx card

I know.

Glad we see it the same way buddy

To the OP: if jagaboo co-signs it you can take it to the bank lol

ocgw

peace

[DereX888]

I've been playing DVD-Videos on a 166MHz laptop with external dvd player and separate hardare MPEG-2 decoding PC Card.
(so of course if you won't use slow CPU but offload all the decoding job to dedicated hardware decoder, you may even play true HD resolution h.264 from BD on a slow clunkers)
It made sense to buy separate dvd player and PC Card because both of them cost me 1/4 of what I would had to spend on a brand new dvd-playback-capable laptop back then.
But this isn't the case today.

OP asks:

i currently have a athlon 2400 XP and 1 gb ddr with a ati 9600 pro AGP. Can´t make the mkv and TS files from bluray to work. Which is the minimum configuration for them to work? Will a athlon 3000 work?

He doesn't ask WHAT TO BUY.
Furthermore, if the card "ocgw recommends" is more than $50 what is the sense to buy it if he probably could buy twice as fast used computer for $100, or - much better option - a brand new much faster machine if he is willing to spend more. Nowadays is a buyer's market, computers are as cheap as never before.
IMO it doesn't make sense. He'll invest money into something what is at least 3 generations outdated machine. What's the point?

[johns0]

Athlon XP 2400 is actually not 2.4GHz.
I forgot it is AMD's stupid way of labeling (their theoretical performance equivalent to Intel's running at higher clock, which is complete bullshit since we are not talking about spreadsheets or office apps but video decoding - and there is no substitutes for chip's real power here).
Your CPU is actually only 1.8 GHz.
I really don't think there is much you can do with it.

It still can be used as great "media center" if you limit its use to standard definition only.

Athlon 2400 is 2ghz and who cares why they used numbers for their cpu,no reason to bash amd and praise intel in this thread.

[ocgw]

I've been playing DVD-Videos on a 166MHz laptop with external dvd player and separate hardare MPEG-2 decoding PC Card.
(so of course if you won't use slow CPU but offload all the decoding job to dedicated hardware decoder, you may even play true HD resolution h.264 from BD on a slow clunkers)
It made sense to buy separate dvd player and PC Card because both of them cost me 1/4 of what I would had to spend on a brand new dvd-playback-capable laptop back then.
But this isn't the case today.

OP asks:

i currently have a athlon 2400 XP and 1 gb ddr with a ati 9600 pro AGP. Can´t make the mkv and TS files from bluray to work. Which is the minimum configuration for them to work? Will a athlon 3000 work?

He doesn't ask WHAT TO BUY.
Furthermore, if the card "ocgw recommends" is more than $50 what is the sense to buy it if he probably could buy twice as fast used computer for $100, or - much better option - a brand new much faster machine if he is willing to spend more. Nowadays is a buyer's market, computers are as cheap as never before.
IMO it doesn't make sense. He'll invest money into something what is at least 3 generations outdated machine. What's the point?

I suggested a purchase that will bring his PC up to "minimum config to play 1080p" imo (he was already comtemplating a hardware (cpu) upgrade), if he thinks that is too much to spend no one is twisting his arm

What part of that do you not understand?

If the OP is not complaining about my advice why are you opening your "pie hole" about it?

ocgw

peace

[DereX888]

Athlon XP 2400 is actually not 2.4GHz.
I forgot it is AMD's stupid way of labeling (their theoretical performance equivalent to Intel's running at higher clock, which is complete bullshit since we are not talking about spreadsheets or office apps but video decoding - and there is no substitutes for chip's real power here).
Your CPU is actually only 1.8 GHz.
I really don't think there is much you can do with it.

It still can be used as great "media center" if you limit its use to standard definition only.

Athlon 2400 is 2ghz and who cares why they used numbers for their cpu,no reason to bash amd and praise intel in this thread.

If you are trying to say I was "praising" Intel above, you have to re-learn reading again.
Merely stating facts about one of the world's CPU duopolists' malpractice is just that - stating a fact.
Unless you meant bash in my slackware? LOL

I've been playing DVD-Videos on a 166MHz laptop with external dvd player and separate hardare MPEG-2 decoding PC Card.
(so of course if you won't use slow CPU but offload all the decoding job to dedicated hardware decoder, you may even play true HD resolution h.264 from BD on a slow clunkers)
It made sense to buy separate dvd player and PC Card because both of them cost me 1/4 of what I would had to spend on a brand new dvd-playback-capable laptop back then.
But this isn't the case today.

OP asks:

i currently have a athlon 2400 XP and 1 gb ddr with a ati 9600 pro AGP. Can´t make the mkv and TS files from bluray to work. Which is the minimum configuration for them to work? Will a athlon 3000 work?

He doesn't ask WHAT TO BUY.
Furthermore, if the card "ocgw recommends" is more than $50 what is the sense to buy it if he probably could buy twice as fast used computer for $100, or - much better option - a brand new much faster machine if he is willing to spend more. Nowadays is a buyer's market, computers are as cheap as never before.
IMO it doesn't make sense. He'll invest money into something what is at least 3 generations outdated machine. What's the point?

I suggested a purchase that will bring his PC up to "minimum config to play 1080p" imo (he was already comtemplating a hardware (cpu) upgrade), if he thinks that is too much to spend no one is twisting his arm

What part of that do you not understand?

If the OP is not complaining about my advice why are you opening your "pie hole" about it?

ocgw

peace

Seems you still don't understand OP's questions (I'm not surprised).
Your advice will cause OP expenses, and it wasn't what he asked about, and your response to me is offensive - which, considering I already knew you are great example of homo moronicus - didn't surprised me (again). You and your "peace" is apropiate in a sandbox with 1st graders. Go bark there, if you're lucky you may even scare some kids there

[ocgw]

Athlon XP 2400 is actually not 2.4GHz.
I forgot it is AMD's stupid way of labeling (their theoretical performance equivalent to Intel's running at higher clock, which is complete bullshit since we are not talking about spreadsheets or office apps but video decoding - and there is no substitutes for chip's real power here).
Your CPU is actually only 1.8 GHz.
I really don't think there is much you can do with it.

It still can be used as great "media center" if you limit its use to standard definition only.

Athlon 2400 is 2ghz and who cares why they used numbers for their cpu,no reason to bash amd and praise intel in this thread.

If you are trying to say I was "praising" Intel above, you have to re-learn reading again.
Merely stating facts about one of the world's CPU duopolists' malpractice is just that - stating a fact.
Unless you meant bash in my slackware? LOL

I've been playing DVD-Videos on a 166MHz laptop with external dvd player and separate hardare MPEG-2 decoding PC Card.
(so of course if you won't use slow CPU but offload all the decoding job to dedicated hardware decoder, you may even play true HD resolution h.264 from BD on a slow clunkers)
It made sense to buy separate dvd player and PC Card because both of them cost me 1/4 of what I would had to spend on a brand new dvd-playback-capable laptop back then.
But this isn't the case today.

OP asks:

i currently have a athlon 2400 XP and 1 gb ddr with a ati 9600 pro AGP. Can´t make the mkv and TS files from bluray to work. Which is the minimum configuration for them to work? Will a athlon 3000 work?

He doesn't ask WHAT TO BUY.
Furthermore, if the card "ocgw recommends" is more than $50 what is the sense to buy it if he probably could buy twice as fast used computer for $100, or - much better option - a brand new much faster machine if he is willing to spend more. Nowadays is a buyer's market, computers are as cheap as never before.
IMO it doesn't make sense. He'll invest money into something what is at least 3 generations outdated machine. What's the point?

I suggested a purchase that will bring his PC up to "minimum config to play 1080p" imo (he was already comtemplating a hardware (cpu) upgrade), if he thinks that is too much to spend no one is twisting his arm

What part of that do you not understand?

If the OP is not complaining about my advice why are you opening your "pie hole" about it?

ocgw

peace

Seems you still don't understand OP's questions (I'm not surprised).
Your advice will cause OP expenses, and it wasn't what he asked about, and your response to me is offensive - which, considering I already knew you are great example of homo moronicus - didn't surprised me (again). You and your "peace" is apropiate in a sandbox with 1st graders. Go bark there, if you're lucky you may even scare some kids there

hehehe....how old are you again?

ocgw

peace

[DereX888]

hehehe....how old are you again?

ocgw

peace

certainly smarter than you are, thank you for asking

[johns0]

Athlon XP 2400 is actually not 2.4GHz.
I forgot it is AMD's stupid way of labeling (their theoretical performance equivalent to Intel's running at higher clock, which is complete bullshit since we are not talking about spreadsheets or office apps but video decoding - and there is no substitutes for chip's real power here).
Your CPU is actually only 1.8 GHz.
I really don't think there is much you can do with it.

It still can be used as great "media center" if you limit its use to standard definition only.

Athlon 2400 is 2ghz and who cares why they used numbers for their cpu,no reason to bash amd and praise intel in this thread.

If you are trying to say I was "praising" Intel above, you have to re-learn reading again.
Merely stating facts about one of the world's CPU duopolists' malpractice is just that - stating a fact.
Unless you meant bash in my slackware? LOL

You are the one stating wrong specs and stating your opinion as fact.

[ocgw]

hehehe....how old are you again?

ocgw

peace

certainly smarter than you are, thank you for asking

My question was simple, I am wondering if you are old enough to stay out and play after the street lights come on???

ocgw

peace

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. PLEASE discuss this somewhere else.
/ Moderator Baldrick

[DereX888]

My question was simple, I am wondering if you are old enough to stay out and play after the street lights come on???

ocgw

peace

Sorry dude, I'm not gay (not that there is anything wrong with it ) I don't date guys.
You have to look for your pedophile dates on some other board than videohelp!

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. No more pedophile crap comments.
/ Moderator Baldrick

[DereX888]

Athlon XP 2400 is actually not 2.4GHz.
I forgot it is AMD's stupid way of labeling (their theoretical performance equivalent to Intel's running at higher clock, which is complete bullshit since we are not talking about spreadsheets or office apps but video decoding - and there is no substitutes for chip's real power here).
Your CPU is actually only 1.8 GHz.
I really don't think there is much you can do with it.

It still can be used as great "media center" if you limit its use to standard definition only.

Athlon 2400 is 2ghz and who cares why they used numbers for their cpu,no reason to bash amd and praise intel in this thread.

If you are trying to say I was "praising" Intel above, you have to re-learn reading again.
Merely stating facts about one of the world's CPU duopolists' malpractice is just that - stating a fact.
Unless you meant bash in my slackware? LOL

You are the one stating wrong specs and stating your opinion as fact.

Yes, I made mistake. I said Athlon XP 2400 is 1.8GHz, while it is in fact 2.0GHz. Does it change anything? Hardly.
AMD jacked up the CPU's numbering in order to fool customers into thinking they are buying something faster than what's in the box. It is a marketing malpractice, and it put them on the same anti-consumer side with Intel.

[Soopafresh]

Wow, what a thread

1080p requires a good amount of computing power.

I've had a machine with the Athlon XP 2400 processor in it. It could play 720p, but choked completely on 1080p. The Athlon 3000 is not much faster than the 2400.

I can play 1080p on my Windows XP machine, which has a Intel Duo Core 8400 processor in it.

XP or Windows 7 use around the same CPU power to play 1080p.

You can get an Nvidia video card to offload some of the processing that 1080p requires, but your machine has an AGP slot and this type of video card is becoming hard to find. It wouldn't be worth the money to try this because it makes more sense to buy a faster computer.

Bottom Line: If you want to play 1080p, you need a new(er) machine. Fortunately, a fast enough computer won't be very expensive.

[ocgw]

Wow, what a thread

1080p requires a good amount of computing power.

I've had a machine with the Athlon XP 2400 processor in it. It could play 720p, but choked completely on 1080p. The Athlon 3000 is not much faster than the 2400.

I can play 1080p on my Windows XP machine, which has a Intel Duo Core 8400 processor in it.

XP or Windows 7 use around the same CPU power to play 1080p.

You can get an Nvidia video card to offload some of the processing that 1080p requires, but your machine has an AGP slot and this type of video card is becoming hard to find. It wouldn't be worth the money to try this because it makes more sense to buy a faster computer.

Bottom Line: If you want to play 1080p, you need a new(er) machine. Fortunately, a fast enough computer won't be very expensive.

Believe it or not but ATI is keeping agp alive w/ 3000 series and 4000 series gfx cards, you can get them @ newegg, 15 to choose from

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...20549&name=ATI

ocgw

peace

[Soopafresh]

Believe it or not but ATI is keeping agp alive w/ 3000 series and even 4000 series gfx cards, you can get them @ newegg, about 30 to choose from

ocgw

peace

Yeah, I know. I was making a sweeping generalization. Of course they're out there. The problem is the risk of recommending a faster video card to the OP and it doesn't fix his 1080p playback problem.

[ocgw]

Believe it or not but ATI is keeping agp alive w/ 3000 series and even 4000 series gfx cards, you can get them @ newegg, about 30 to choose from

ocgw

peace

Yeah, I know. I was making a sweeping generalization. Of course they're out there. The problem is the risk of recommending a faster video card to the OP and it doesn't fix his 1080p playback problem.

I get butter smooth blu ray playback on my 3rd PC that has a 2600XT gfx card albeit w/ a Athlon X2 3800+ cpu (939 pin), actually my daughters PC I upgraded w/ an old mobo I wasn't using

not that risky in my opinion

ocgw

peace

[disturbed1]

Wow, what a thread

1080p requires a good amount of computing power.

I've had a machine with the Athlon XP 2400 processor in it. It could play 720p, but choked completely on 1080p. The Athlon 3000 is not much faster than the 2400.

I can play 1080p on my Windows XP machine, which has a Intel Duo Core 8400 processor in it.

XP or Windows 7 use around the same CPU power to play 1080p.

You can get an Nvidia video card to offload some of the processing that 1080p requires, but your machine has an AGP slot and this type of video card is becoming hard to find. It wouldn't be worth the money to try this because it makes more sense to buy a faster computer.

Bottom Line: If you want to play 1080p, you need a new(er) machine. Fortunately, a fast enough computer won't be very expensive.

Believe it or not but ATI is keeping agp alive w/ 3000 series and 4000 series gfx cards, you can get them @ newegg, 15 to choose from

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...20549&name=ATI

ocgw

peace

I agree with ocgw

The best bet for the OP, besides getting a new PC, would be to purchase one of the ATI cards capable of FULL offloading to the GPU. ATI is the only one still making cards for AGP slots. Nvidia does have their 8400 and 9400 line for the PCI bus. However, there are some issues with the buss limitation that hampers 1080P h264 decoding with these PCI cards. 720P is no sweat

My 2.0 GHz Celeron dual core plays 1080P h264 with less than 20% cpu usage. Most of that 20% is most likely DTS decoding. Using a PCIe x16 Nvidia 9400GT. This is with Linux and VDPAU - more or less equal to what Windows does with their GPU acceleration using AMD AVIVO and Nvidia's Pure Video. If my Celeron and an Nvidia 9400 can do it, the OP's 2400+ and a more powerful AMD AGP card should be able to do it as well.

FWIW, a few years back when AVIVO came out, my Sempron 3000+ and an ATI x1650 AGP could play back 720P h264 using less than 50% CPU and the required Cyberlink video decoding library. Without AVIVO 720P used 90-100% CPU with frame drops now and then. AVIVO and the power of the cards have come a long way since then.

[volswagn]

I recently bought an AMD Phenom 9950 Quad-Core for just over a hundred bucks, along with an MSI motherboard with built-in HDMI and ATI Radeon HD3300. 4GB of memory. Used my old hard drive and case. All told I think I spent $250 on it and it plays 1080p files with no stuttering at all on Windows 7. No problems playing any file at all actually so far. Best upgrade ever.