This seems to be very promising ! I was a little bit surprised to see in the specifications that it needs a CPU minimum P4 2 Ghz. That is a pity, because it should be great if it could be used in a thinclient like the HP T5000 series with 1 Ghz and 1 Gb. Did anyone gave it a try ?
thanks,
SP
I know that some of you (especially Klaus :) ) already own this card, as a few arrived to dvbshop. I'm asking you to share some experiences, as I hardly understand german discussions on vdrportal. Currently I'm having two VDR machines, one with DVB-S Premium + CRT TV, and another one with DVB-S2 budget + xine. What I would like to know: with the new S2-6400 card does VDR works as rock solid as worked with FF DVB-S cards? This means for me:
- OSD and remote are working instanly
- even if I'm watching a HD playback, fast forward (and backward) works
as expected
- output device does not crash
- I can leave the whole system to work for weeks and to be operated by
my family, and it always will work as expected (as a VDR + FF DVB-S combo does)
thanks for your answers.
Istvan
Am 20.04.2011 10:54, schrieb serge pecher:
I was a little bit surprised to see in the specifications that it needs a CPU minimum P4 2 Ghz.
Thats probably because you need at least an 2GHz P4 to boot windows and a virus scanner nowadays. The CPU and RAM demands should be not much higher than with an old SD FF card, as long as you only handle the encoded video stream like VDR does. The highest 'demand' is probably having an PCI Express socket already. (Not that PCI bandwidth wouldn't be enough either, but PCIE probably seemed more future proof and simpler.)
Cheers,
Udo
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Udo Richter udo_richter@gmx.de wrote:
I was a little bit surprised to see in the specifications that it needs a CPU minimum P4 2 Ghz.
Thats probably because you need at least an 2GHz P4 to boot windows and a virus scanner nowadays. The CPU and RAM demands should be not much higher than with an old SD FF card, as long as you only handle the encoded video stream like VDR does. The highest 'demand' is probably having an PCI Express socket already. (Not that PCI bandwidth wouldn't be enough either, but PCIE probably seemed more future proof and simpler.)
I seriously doubt virus scanners have anything to do with anything. That seems more trying to take a cheap jab at Windows then anything else.
Anyways, the requirements may be what they are because of what is actually offloaded to the decoder.
On 21 April 2011 07:33, VDR User user.vdr@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Udo Richter udo_richter@gmx.de wrote:
I was a little bit surprised to see in the specifications that it needs a CPU minimum P4 2 Ghz.
Thats probably because you need at least an 2GHz P4 to boot windows and a virus scanner nowadays.
Also, a 2GHz P4 is probably equal to a 1.2GHz pentium M. And then we're only talking single core.
Am 20.04.2011 23:33, schrieb VDR User:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Udo Richter udo_richter@gmx.de wrote:
Thats probably because you need at least an 2GHz P4 to boot windows and a virus scanner nowadays.
I seriously doubt virus scanners have anything to do with anything. That seems more trying to take a cheap jab at Windows then anything else.
My work PC is an Core 1 Duo 1.8GHz running XP. The PC boots to desktop in roughly a minute, but is not usable for another 2 minutes due to high CPU and disk load by McAfee virus scanner. (I use SysInternals Process Explorer to monitor.) Also, every day at 10 I cannot do anything CPU or disk hungry for 1-2 minutes because McAfee does its signature update. You really notice that, even without the sudden increase in fan noise.
Just recently I've upgraded the machine from 1.5Gb to 3Gb RAM with noticeable speed improvements. (Visual Studio 2010 is a huge memory hog!) Back when XP was released, it was working with 128Mb RAM, and was well equipped with 256Mb RAM. The OS is still the same...
Cheers,
Udo
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Udo Richter udo_richter@gmx.de wrote:
Am 20.04.2011 23:33, schrieb VDR User:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Udo Richter udo_richter@gmx.de wrote:
Thats probably because you need at least an 2GHz P4 to boot windows and a virus scanner nowadays.
I seriously doubt virus scanners have anything to do with anything. That seems more trying to take a cheap jab at Windows then anything else.
My work PC is an Core 1 Duo 1.8GHz running XP. The PC boots to desktop in roughly a minute, but is not usable for another 2 minutes due to high CPU and disk load by McAfee virus scanner. (I use SysInternals Process Explorer to monitor.) Also, every day at 10 I cannot do anything CPU or disk hungry for 1-2 minutes because McAfee does its signature update. You really notice that, even without the sudden increase in fan noise.
Just recently I've upgraded the machine from 1.5Gb to 3Gb RAM with noticeable speed improvements. (Visual Studio 2010 is a huge memory hog!) Back when XP was released, it was working with 128Mb RAM, and was well equipped with 256Mb RAM. The OS is still the same...
I can't believe a dvb card vendor sets their minimum requirements based on things such as McAfee loads. It would be absurd to do so.
Btw, I used XP as well for many years. However, my boot times were never more then 30 secs. However, I've never bothered running virus scanners or anything like that unless I ran into an actual problem (<10 times since win95), in which case I ran one and then exited the app - never left one running full-time. My XP boxes all had 1GB or 2GB or ram. XP + 2GB + VS6 worked great. I may have also used VS2005 at one point but not since then. Is VS2010 really that much of a resource hog??
Am 21.04.2011 21:01, schrieb VDR User:
I can't believe a dvb card vendor sets their minimum requirements based on things such as McAfee loads. It would be absurd to do so.
Probably not that specific, but they have to calculate an average OS with average software running on it, and for a Windows 7 + basic software, the hardware needs are not much different.
Btw, I used XP as well for many years. However, my boot times were never more then 30 secs. However, I've never bothered running virus scanners or anything like that unless I ran into an actual problem (<10 times since win95), in which case I ran one and then exited the app - never left one running full-time.
Corporate network, and lots of USB sticks and USB HDDs moving around. Virus scanner is an absolute must have...
My XP boxes all had 1GB or 2GB or ram. XP + 2GB + VS6 worked great. I may have also used VS2005 at one point but not since then. Is VS2010 really that much of a resource hog??
I've seen it hogging 1GB of RAM while compiling an medium sized project, 3-4Mb zipped sources. VS08 also takes its part, but VS10 takes more, especially if intellisense and compiler run in parallel. The new IDE is worth it however.
Cheers,
Udo
-
serge pecher -
Torgeir Veimo -
Udo Richter -
VDR User