What is the minimum processing power i would need

[Dragon9137]

Radeon 7500 AIW
Sound Blaster Live 5.1 Platinum Infra-Red

Ok, so what I want to do is use the Radeon 7500 basically as a Tivo, an in-between for the cable signal and the TV, and to automatically port the DVD to my TV. I plan on doing almost everything with the remote control and prolly will not have a monitor hooked up to it, except when I need to configure something.
SB Live Platinum's functions are obvious... to play music, and loudly.
So what I am wondering here is... How fast of a processor do I need? and if anyone has any suggestions on which operating system would be best to use for this... I'm all ears on that too.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Crashman]

You'll need about 1000MHz and a separate hard drive. Using the main hard drive may result in choppy video.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[MeTaLrOcKeR]

I agree with Crashman's analogy.........get an ECS K7S5A motheboard (Cheap and FAST) and an AMD Athlon XP 1600+ or 1700+ retail and 512MB of DDR Ram......as far as OS goes.......i'd go with WinXP Pro....... =)

-MeTaL RoCkEr

My <font color=red>Z28</font color=red> can take your <font color=blue>P4</font color=blue> off the line!

 

[Quetzacoatl]

".......i'd go with WinXP Pro....... =)"
Oh dear god, not the XP again...Get windows 2000 professional.

Other than that. ECS K7S5A good motherboard. AMD AXP 1600-1800+ only run bout $100-150. DDR RAM, definately PC-266 CL2.


"When there's a will, there's a way."

 

[Oni]

If your just going to use the computer as a TiVo I highly suggest just buy a TiVo as it will be cheaper, and perform better.
If you want best performance I suggest getting the fastest hard drives you can, or even considering raid. Video capture needs LOTS of speed and LOTS of hard drive space and RAID-0 is a cost effective way to get both.
An Epox 8K7A+ would allow you to get IDE raid and a relatively inexpensive motherboard while still giving you very good CPU/MEM performance. Not as much as KT266a, or even the SiS based boards, but it costs considerably less. If I were you I'd get the Epox 8K3A+ for about $115 and team it with some nice fast hard drives, probably ATA-133 maxtors. One thing to think about though is that you do not want to capture video to the hard drive your operating system is installed on. Best thing to do is have one hard drive for the OS and another hard drive, or RAID array for video capture. I personally use my RAID array for video games, and video/audio capture and have excelent results.

If my response is brief and vague its because the info you provided is too!

 

[FatBurger]

Oh dear god, not the XP again...Get windows 2000 professional.

XP Pro is better than 2000, have you actually used it for any length of time?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

 

[Quetzacoatl]

I have both, I prefer the good old 2000 Pro. I uninstalled XP after hearing numerous stories of horror about it. I just like 2k, i've had more experience with it, and well, I just like it a lot! Heh, my friend says his windows xp home is "better" than my 2k. I can't help but wonder if he knows what the differences are between the two OS.

"When there's a will, there's a way."

 

[AMD_Man]

Heh, my friend says his windows xp home is "better" than my 2k. I can't help but wonder if he knows what the differences are between the two OS.

In terms of file management, yes. Windows XP introduces some file management improvements that allow you to better manage media files and the like.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[bront]

Would RAID or SCSI be a good option for him? Faster HD access so no slowdown?

An XP 1600+ would be fine, though a 1700+ isn't that much more. 256 MB of ram should be good enough for you. You might want to look into the Nforce boards. The Asus A7N266-C has pretty good sound (might have all the audio outputs you need for this system), and the dual chanel memory will help you as Video needs high memory bandwidth. The -C doesn't have the integrated video either, so you save on that.

Trollin' trollin' trollin', keep them doggies postin', my fingers are swollen, Rawhide!

 

[Crashman]

Actually, many programs for video editing suggest using a SCSI drive, but simply putting a fast second hard drive on IDE 2 should be enough.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[bront]

How about Raid 0? I never recomend that for the boot drive, but he needs large ammounts of size, so 2 high speed drives in Raid 0 would be even better than a single SCSI, albeit more expensive


Trollin' trollin' trollin', keep them doggies postin', my fingers are swollen, Rawhide!

 

[Crashman]

AVI uses somthing like 1MB/sec for recording. While you do need room to spare, most IDE drives are running between 33 and 45 MB/s continuous, and only drop as low as ~20MB/s towards the end in a worst case. The biggest problem is that anything that interupts the transfer will case a stall in the frames, so having a separate drive on a separate channel should do.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[FatBurger]

I uninstalled XP after hearing numerous stories of horror about it.

There are two reasons that I've found that people aren't using WinXP.

1. "I've heard bad things about it." Try it for yourself, find out.

2. "I didn't like <insert easily solved problem here>." Most problems/dislikes are legitimate, but readily solved/changed.

There are a couple of people that I've talked to that couldn't get a certain game to work or something similar, but it's very, very rare that someone has a real reason why WinXP is worse than Win2k.

Anyhow, just my 2¢

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

 

[buddry]

Why not use raid 0 for the OS?

 

[mbetea]

XP Pro is better than 2000, have you actually used it for any length of time?

with a service pack (which isn't due out for xp til sept) or i heard they're going to release an XP SE. maybe then it'll be better than win2000. right now win2000 is solid. there are issues with raid/hdd performance under xp, security issues. bloated system files. imo and others, bad memory management. takes way too many tweaks to get it running good. it might be a step up from winME (never used ME so i don't know). unless of course you get a warm fuzzy feeling from xp's UI then go for it. me, i never had any fisher price toys when i was a kid, so i don't want to start now.

I run duals because i multitask between notepad, outlook express and winamp :lol:

 

[mbetea]

Actually, many programs for video editing suggest using a SCSI drive, but simply putting a fast second hard drive on IDE 2 should be enough.

some of these app's requirements are hilarious. for premiere for eg. if you go by what adobe "recommends" you'd have about 4-5 drives, with only one drive for caps. for dv it's 3.1 or 3.2mb/s. i remember when i first got my camera had no hdd other than an old maxtor ata33 5400rpm. just made one seperate partition and never lost a frame.

I run duals because i multitask between notepad, outlook express and winamp :lol:

 

[Quetzacoatl]

THANK YOU!!! Yes, I wouldn't mind seeing an XP Se

"When there's a will, there's a way."

 

[Dragon9137]

Now wait a sec here... this is all I am going to be doing with the system... I am absolutely doing nothing with it other than the sending and recording video from tv capture, and sending out digital audio. No interenet, no word processing... nothing. I still need an Athlon XP for this? I was hoping to take my Duron 950, or at worst buy a T-Bird 1000 for it. Is it really going to tax the CPU that much? I mean I thought that the video and sound processor respectively did a good portion of their jobs without much intervention from the cpu.

 

[Pettytheft]

Yes, the XP would be overkill, but since the XP's are only around $20 more and they are considerably faster, why not? But try out your Duron 950 first. If it's too slow then upgrade.

Anything goes when it comes to hoes cuz trollin aint easy.

 

[kief]

You can make XP work as well or better then 2k, but it requires too much effort for my taste. I do use it one one machine cuz I like the way users work, but for my main machine I dont feel the need to waste my time when 2k does everything I need fast and stable without too much extra crap =)

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

>>me, i never had any fisher price toys when i was a kid, so i don't want to start now.
lol...good one! =)

<b><font color=blue>VIA chipsets, SiS chipsets -- all the same, all made in TAIWAN!!!

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

>>There are two reasons that I've found that people aren't using WinXP
You're forgetting a few more:
3) Some of us can't afford it, so we stick to mostly free or very cheap Open Source OSs and applications.
4) Some likes the power and reliablity of Open Source OSs and applications, not only for servers, but for everyday workstations as well.

And even though WinXP isn't worse than Win2k, it isn't light years ahead of it either. I've found out that XP also tries to do waaay to much for the user, which is good for newbies i guess, but most of us here are enthusiasts, right? That's one of the things I dislike about XP and like about Open Source. IMHO, WinXP is better than Win2k "out of the box", but with all the updates and service packs available for 2k right now, I'd have to agree with the others and say 2k it is slightly better. Therefore, there is no real reason for people running 2k to upgrade to XP...unless, of course, they just want to feel the "XPerience". Oh, and yes, I have used bot Win2k and WinXP for a good length of time now. =)


<b><font color=blue>VIA chipsets, SiS chipsets -- all the same, all made in TAIWAN!!!

 

[sjonnie]

3) Some of us can't afford it, so we stick to mostly free or very cheap Open Source OSs and applications.
4) Some likes the power and reliablity of Open Source OSs and applications, not only for servers, but for everyday workstations as well

Oh, I was under the impression WinXP was an Open Source OS I installed my Open Source XP as soon as I could burn it, initially as a dual boot with 2K and 98SE. I think after about 1 month I removed the 2K and 98SE and now just use XP. XP has no drawbacks over 2K from my experience and several benefits.

 

[Crashman]

I used to miss frame with my TV-wonder, mainly because I had too much other disk activity.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[SEB]

There are two reasons that I've found that people aren't using WinXP.

1. "I've heard bad things about it." Try it for yourself, find out.

2. "I didn't like <insert easily solved problem here>." Most problems/dislikes are legitimate, but readily solved/changed.

There are a couple of people that I've talked to that couldn't get a certain game to work or something similar, but it's very, very rare that someone has a real reason why WinXP is worse than Win2k.

Anyhow, just my 2¢

I must agree with fatburger on this one. I thought that Win XP was nightmare on elm stree affair. But I have found that its quite a good system, once you edit the registy and turn of those anoying services that do nothing.

I found that when i download my stock market data, it gets distributed about 2 times faster. We are talking about about 4500 files that need to be edited.

So pls people dont judge Win XP till you try it. And also when you get it running like you like it want it. Ghost youre hard drive so you dont need to re install or change all of the bullshit. Thats only if you edit the registry and the services like I do. But anyways XP is good, anyways before you install it ghost youre current system to another drive, if you have one, if not take the leap of faith and hope that youre istalation will be as stable as mine (touch wood).


<font color=blue><b>BAD ASS BOYS OVERCLOCK BAD ASS TOYS</b></font color=blue>