VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Location: Centennial CO USA Near Denver Colorado
    Search Comp PM
    Quite a while ago I asked the question on these forums about my processor being dual core Intel processor E5200 running at 2500 Hz and was that fast enough to play the recordings I was recording from my video tuner in my desktop computer. I was a short it was and the problems I was having had nothing to do with the processor not keeping up.

    But now I wish to buy an inexpensive used laptop computer on eBay and maybe even go slower than the processor I have in my desktop. So if the most challenging thing I do with my computer is run videos recorded on my now only desktop how slow can I go in a laptop computer to run the video files I capture from my TV tuner on a used laptop. Does the number of cores affect how media players run or is adjust the speed of the processor. So once again how slow can I go computer processor wise to run the toughest videos there are two run.
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2000
    Location: Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    Give more details from the video files. Use for example mediainfoxp to get all details any video.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Location: Centennial CO USA Near Denver Colorado
    Search Comp PM
    Here are 2 exampples.
    example 1

    General
    Complete name : E:\RecordedTV library-ms march 2013\Great American Songbook_KRMADT_2013_12_04_20_28_00.wtv
    Format : MPEG Video
    Format version : Version 2
    File size : 8.42 GiB
    Overall bit rate mode : Variable
    Law rating : TV-G

    Video
    Format : MPEG Video
    Format version : Version 2
    Format profile : Main@High
    Format settings, BVOP : Yes
    Format settings, Matrix : Custom
    Format settings, GOP : M=3, N=15
    Bit rate mode : Variable
    Maximum bit rate : 19.4 Mbps
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate : 29.970 fps
    Standard : Component
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : Interlaced
    Scan order : Top Field First
    Compression mode : Lossy
    Time code of first frame : 22:09:21;08
    Color primaries : BT.709
    Transfer characteristics : BT.709
    Matrix coefficients : BT.709

    Text #1
    ID : CC1
    Format : EIA-608
    Muxing mode : A/53 / DTVCC Transport
    Bit rate mode : Constant
    Stream size : 0.00 Byte (0%)

    Text #2
    ID : 1
    Format : EIA-708
    Muxing mode : A/53 / DTVCC Transport
    Bit rate mode : Constant
    Stream size : 0.00 Byte (0%)

    Text #3
    ID : 2
    Format : EIA-708
    Muxing mode : A/53 / DTVCC Transport
    Bit rate mode : Constant
    Stream size : 0.00 Byte (0%)
    example 2
    General
    Unique ID : 171638323177649616999949573673292933021 (0x812056AFE16EBCD9BBBB2D1FC5EC279D)
    Complete name : C:\Users\marc\Desktop\music overflow & TV raw\BBC Hooray for Hollywood Proms 2011 - Prom 59 [HDTV 720p].mkv
    Format : Matroska
    Format version : Version 2
    File size : 3.23 GiB
    Duration : 1h 58mn
    Overall bit rate : 3 886 Kbps
    Encoded date : UTC 2011-09-04 06:57:29
    Writing application : mkvmerge v4.0.0 ('The Stars were mine') built on Jun 6 2010 16:18:42
    Writing library : libebml v1.0.0 + libmatroska v1.0.0

    Video
    ID : 1
    Format : AVC
    Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile : High@L4.1
    Format settings, CABAC : Yes
    Format settings, ReFrames : 4 frames
    Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
    Duration : 1h 58mn
    Bit rate : 3 500 Kbps
    Width : 1 280 pixels
    Height : 720 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate mode : Constant
    Frame rate : 25.000 fps
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : Progressive
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.152
    Stream size : 2.84 GiB (88%)
    Writing library : x264 core 116 r2019 9cc407d
    Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=5 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x113 / me=umh / subme=8 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=0 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=6 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=1 / b_adapt=2 / b_bias=0 / direct=3 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=50 / rc=2pass / mbtree=1 / bitrate=3500 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / vbv_maxrate=40000 / vbv_bufsize=30000 / nal_hrd=none / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
    Language : English
    Default : No
    Forced : No

    Audio
    ID : 2
    Format : AC-3
    Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
    Mode extension : CM (complete main)
    Format settings, Endianness : Big
    Codec ID : A_AC3
    Duration : 1h 58mn
    Bit rate mode : Constant
    Bit rate : 384 Kbps
    Channel(s) : 6 channels
    Channel positions : Front: L C R, Side: L R, LFE
    Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
    Bit depth : 16 bits
    Compression mode : Lossy
    Delay relative to video : 30ms
    Stream size : 327 MiB (10%)
    Language : English
    Default : Yes
    Forced : No
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member fritzi93's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2003
    Location: U.S.
    Search Comp PM
    I can tell you what won't work: an Intel ATOM processor. At least not at 1.66 GHz, like the one in my netbook. Mine would play your second 720p video, but definitely not the first.

    [EDIT] It seems the Atoms max out at 2.13 GHz. I feel sure that wouldn't cut it.

    Oh, the Atom in my netbook is an N570, to answer Rob's point in post #5.
    Last edited by fritzi93; 25th Jul 2014 at 07:17.
    Pull! Bang! Darn!
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2011
    Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Yes, the number of cores matters unless the media program you're using doesn't support multi core, in which case you should uninstall it because it's crap.

    The video card matters a lot too, though of course in a laptop you can't change that. Post #4 doesn't mention which atom cpu, but a lot of those have crap gpu's that intel outsourced. I have a 1Gb atom 2600 netbook and the video does indeed stink. Luckily I don't use it to play media.

    I don't actually believe it's possible to say that x clock speed is enough to predict video performance by itself anyway. There are too many variables.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member SingSing's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2001
    Location: U.S.A.
    Search Comp PM
    These video is about a typical movie burn on single sided DVD. What computer you need has to do with what program you used. UMplayer will do a good job, with just a dual core or core 2 processor, like dell e5400, e6400....

    If you want enhancement and run them with PowerDVD, then you need a i3, or i5, or i7, with a dell e6410, and up. I did not find on-board nVidia graphics processor help too much, they just heat up.

    Have a good flick.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member fritzi93's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2003
    Location: U.S.
    Search Comp PM
    Yeah, hard to say. But if you can take the GPU out of the equation and put all the load on the CPU, perhaps it can be a little clearer.

    My first dual-core (desktop) was an Intel at 2.0 GHz. It so happens I had some trouble at the time making DXVA stick. I recall that 1080p AVC videos at ~8-10 Mb/s would stutter. When the CPU was overclocked to 2.3 GHz, it could just keep up.
    Pull! Bang! Darn!
    Quote Quote  
  8. There's no simple answer to this question because there are so many variables. What generation CPU? What GPU? Bus bandwidth from CPU to GPU? Can you use DXVA (GPU decompression)? Software or hardware deinterlacing? What codecs and settings were used to compress the video? What frame rate is the video? (24 fps is much easier than 60 fps, all else being equal.)

    To be safe I'd look for an Ivy Bridge i3 based laptop, at least. But you'll probably think that's too expensive.
    Quote Quote