system requirements for 720p,1080i in h264/xvid etc ?

[Hobojobo]

I am wondering what system (PC) do I need to play hdtv material (720p,1080i/p) in different a/v formats.

mpeg2: 1080i should not be a problem, should it?
xvid: what about xvid/divx and so on?
h264: what CPU/RAM do I need to play a 1080i/p video ?
Is that task possible for mainstream PCs?

Thanks in advance.


I can not test it myself, because of my pc hardware...:o

[obieobieobie]

These specs are from Microsoft's Windows Media HD page (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/ChoosingPC.aspx):

Minimum Configuration
(to play 720p video)

Windows XP
Windows Media Player 9 Series
2.4 GHz processor or equivalent
384 MB of RAM
64 MB video card
DVD drive
1024 x 768 screen resolution
16-bit sound card
Speakers

Optimum Configuration
(to play 1080p video with 5.1 surround sound)

Windows XP
Windows Media Player 9 Series
DirectX 9.0
3.0 GHz processor or equivalent
512 MB of RAM
128 MB video card
DVD drive
1920 x 1440 screen resolution
24-bit 96 kHz multichannel sound card
5.1 surround sound speaker system

[KpeX]

Depends if you use windows or linux. I have a 2.0 GHZ P4 and I can play any of the MS WMV clips or the DivX.com HD clips with no problems whatsoever using mplayer under linux. Under windows I've come across a few HD clips that drop frames & stutter with any player. (Sorry I don't have any hard numbers for you but it's been a while since I tested the clips).

[Sergey A. Sablin]

Originally posted by Hobojobo
I am wondering what system (PC) do I need to play hdtv material (720p,1080i/p) in different a/v formats.

mpeg2: 1080i should not be a problem, should it?
xvid: what about xvid/divx and so on?
h264: what CPU/RAM do I need to play a 1080i/p video ?
Is that task possible for mainstream PCs?


No one mainstream CPU can't decode any 1080 H.264 Main profile with common features like quarter-pel motion compensation, CABAC, deblock.
But 720p are decoded well on 2.5 and higher CPUs. But I think in near future 1080 decoding will be available on AMD64 150/152 or next series CPUs ;)

@obieobieobie
About WM9 1080p samples - when I've tried them a half year ago all the clips weren't 1920 x 1080 (which is true 1080p), but they were 1440 x 1080 (which is 33% lower resolution). May be I'm missing something and this is also called 1080p? :rolleyes:

[akupenguin]

Minimum Configuration (to play 720p video)
2.4 GHz processor or equivalent

Optimum Configuration (to play 1080p video with 5.1 surround sound)
3.0 GHz processor or equivalent

I wouldn't trust those numbers, since 1080p takes 2.25x as much computation as 720p.


CPU-time needed for 720p 24fps on my 1.8 GHz Athlon with Linux/MPlayer:
MPEG2: 18%
MPEG4 SP: 23%
MPEG4 ASP: 29%
WMV9: 45%
H264 baseline: 94%
H264 main: 129%

[*.mp4 guy]

Hmm my numbers are similar, but with recent Xvid compiles I get a lot of stuttering on some (psudo random) clips in ffdshow, btw I use a 2.079 ghz barton core athlon.

[Hobojobo]

Very nice.

In order to play h264 main/baseline video in 720p my HCPC has to be quite powerful, let alone 1080p. :scared:
I put a dual opteron rack in my living room. :D

Now I have a clue regarding the system requirements for hdtv video playback.

Thank you.

[Sharktooth]

H.264 & 1080p?
Someone is going crazy here? maybe a 4500Mhz CPU is enaugh...

[video]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
H.264 & 1080p?
Someone is going crazy here? maybe a 4500Mhz CPU is enaugh...

No I think not. Most modern DX9 cards comes with PS2.0 and hw accelerated texture compression kinda IDCT/JPEG (a playstation 2 can directly texture with jpeg). So, If you know enough, 70-80% of an mpeg4 video decoding can be done on the vga. Unfortunately this means that, mpeg4 codec writers should develop codecs supporting nVIDIA, ATi, Intel, VIA, SiS and so forth. Sadly nero showtime don't even use DXVA for AVC/ASP content. :(

[SeeMoreDigital]

I would wait for a little while longer!

With any luck we should start seeing "stand-alone" players and media streaming devices appear, with the capabilities you require.

As you may be aware, it's already possible to buy high-def/res Mpeg2, 4 and WMV stand-alone players but not ones that can cope with Mpeg4/AVC as well. However, this looks very likely to change soon!

And who knows, stand-alone player chip-set developments might spill over into PC video cards, dedicated hardware decoder cards, USB devices and the like!


Cheers

[video]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
I would wait for a little while longer!

With any luck we should start seeing "stand-alone" players and media streaming devices appear, with the capabilities you require.

As you may be aware, it's already possible to buy high-def/res Mpeg2, 4 and WMV stand-alone players but not ones that can cope with Mpeg4/AVC as well. However, this looks very likely to change soon!

And who knows, stand-alone player chip-set developments might spill over into PC video cards, dedicated hardware decoder cards, USB devices and the like!
Cheers
SeeMoreDigital I run a project to put geexbox on this baby:
http://www.prohardver.hu/pics/newsx/2005-03/shuttle_mce-01_ph2.jpg
http://www.prohardver.hu/pics/newsx/2005-03/shuttle_mce-01_ph1.jpg
Having a Dothan at 2GHz or more with some radeon x850 or like. After that soprting mplayer through the pathscale ekopath or similar compiler, even rewriting ffmpeg in need :)

[JnZ]

Hmmm,

I tried MPEG-2 1920x1080, 45000kbps and still noted frames drop & stutter on my 2200MhZ Athlon.:angry:

I also test Xvid on 720p, with QPel: 94% CPU ussage, no Qpel: About 60%.
Tested 720p x264 with Maximum def. are very choppy. :D

I think, that 1080p with x264 is impossible to play without lags. (Today, but maybe tomorrow can be :) )

Bye.

[SeeMoreDigital]

I think we will find that it will be quite a while until our PC's and video cards become capable of decoding such high-def content!

Sufficed to say, dedicated decoder chip-sets within say, stand-alone players, media streaming devices, set-top boxes etc will fair much better!

For example, here's what somebody at Sigma wrote about the decoding capabilities of their EM8620 chip-set, when it was compared against an "modded XboX": - Sigma's Video Dacs are better, we have 10 bit precision all the way through, so much good stuff happening. You should see the difference in Quality. Also DivX movies look far better on this platform then the earlier ones.

There's a software layer which sits in the chip which is constantly improved by Sigma. Also the API's... There is microcode that can be changed to make the chip more performant and the 8620 chip is versatile in this regard.

The Audio Dac inside the player is very strong and mature.
When we do Windows Media 9 and HD, including DRM, we use 22% CPU power. We can decode 300 frames a second and this is the first CPU in the world that can do that.

The chip is purpose built for this, the xbox is a great machine but not a serious home theatre device.

Cheers

[Isochroma]

I just purchased a:

ATHLON XP 2500+ Mobile Socket A 2.5 GHz @ 1.75Vc (http://cgi.ebay.ca/ATHLON-XP-2500-Mobile-Socket-A-2-5-GHz-1-75Vc_W0QQitemZ6867802807QQcategoryZ44935QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

from eBay. It is a mobile processor that will run at 2500 MHz. 1.75v. Assuming I can get it to run at that speed in my Asus A8V-8X, I'm hoping to be able to decode at least 1280x720 AVC.

Right now my 2500+ @ 1833 MHz. decodes 1280x720 AVC with 98-100% CPU usage using CoreAVC and ffdshow for YUV->RGB colorspace conversion (with AAC audio in MKV).

[MrWizard]

H.264 & 1080p?
Someone is going crazy here? maybe a 4500Mhz CPU is enaugh...
:) I have a few movies in H.264/1080p/24fps/High-profile. Most of them decode on my machine (Pentium 4 3.0 GHz) with the new CoreAVC, which, I think, is just short of miraculous...

[bond]

i would say the initial answer cant be answered at all as it depends on many things:
- what cpu, ram, etc... the user has
- what h.264 features have been used
- what decoder the user has

if you have a baseline profile avc stream and decode with coreavc you will by far need less cpu than when playing a high profile stream with the nero decoder

[SeeMoreDigital]

Nice to know that software AVC decoding has improved greatly in just a year :)

[JnZ]

Another question is, who makes 1080p high profile encodes today :D

Maybe few crazy's. Last time I try encode 720p with x264 on maximum profile, and it runs about 2,5fps both passes, on my Opteron144@2800Mhz.

Encoding with XviD on 1080p runs about 1fps, so I can imagine, how it will be with AVC . :)

This could be solved with quad-core CPU's, maybe :D

[nm]

Or you could just drop some more-cpu-intensive options and use a slightly higher bitrate.

[MrWizard]

Another question is, who makes 1080p high profile encodes today :D

Maybe few crazy's. Last time I try encode 720p with x264 on maximum profile, and it runs about 2,5fps both passes, on my Opteron144@2800Mhz.

Encoding with XviD on 1080p runs about 1fps, so I can imagine, how it will be with AVC . :)

This could be solved with quad-core CPU's, maybe :D
I guess I'm a crazy :)

First pass went at around 4 FPS, which isn't bad. The second pass usually hovers around 0.6 FPS. Needless to say, encoding a full-length movie takes days...

[Deinorius]

@Encoding 1080p AVC
Quadcore Opterons will use next to 2 normal Cores 2 Co-Processors, which are extremly fast in mathematics, 25 GFlops/s against about 5 GFlops with each Core. (If the rumor is right, but AMD licensed it.)
If any codec would be optimized for these CPUs, it could fasten up encoding extremly.

It's just a theory, but why not? ;) Well... you will need to have much money to buy such a sweety monster. :D

[foxyshadis]

Most likely AMD will release a new set of SIMD instructions for their coprocessors, and (hopefully) modify gcc to support them. Hah, with physics cards, numeric coprocessors, off-hard drive nand flash buffers, and multiple cores becoming more common, it's like we're rising to meet another peak in the cycle of reincarnation (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/c/cycleofreincarnation.html). =p

[plonk420]

axp 2400+ 266fsb:

H264 HP 720p encode of a clip from The Cell (when she first enter's killer's mind):
FFDShow: don't even think of it (in excess of 100%)
CoreAVC 0.0.0.4: 50-70%, spiking to 90%

Silent Hill 720p QT H264 (1280x544)
FFDShow: 50-70%, spiking to 90% and often dropping frames, sometimes freezing for .5 seconds in at least 3-5 spots
CoreAVC 0.0.0.4: 35-45% spiking to 60%

Silent Hill 1080p QT H264 (1920x816)
CoreAVC 0.0.0.4: 60-90% likely spiking above 90% but framerate just seemed to get wonky until i gave mpc Above Normal priority. only the very first part drops a few frames.

getting excited .. will likely buy it now or when GPU accelleration joins the list of features. likely sooner, tho (but will wait a couple painful weeks to ensure it won't be an impulse purchase!) ... i don't want to be tied to nVidia-only H264 decoding in case i experiment on the other side of the fence, ATI

[Daodan]

Taking QT clips as reference is not such a good thing. They require much less power than high profile h.264 encodes (at least when they are played through directshow, not in the crappy QTplayer).

[siddharthagandhi]

i tried encoding an MPEG-4 AVC 1080p encode (for fun) on a brief one minute clip it took half an hour and hogged up my sys resources

[Shinjite]

So far I tested a couple of AVC 720p videos in my comp
Mine is the old Intel 2.4B processor but has been overclocked to 3.24Ghz

1280x720p videos with (dunno what profile they using) with 24fps, ffdshow easily goes over 60%, and CoreAVC (beta version) max till 50% only

About encoding, dropped till 0.7fps with my overclcoked settings at High Profile.....1 hour and 45 minutes movie took 2++ days to encode finish