or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Pentium G3420 poweful enough for my htpc requirements?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pentium G3420 poweful enough for my htpc requirements? - Page 2

post #31 of 110
Thread Starter 

i thought Pentium G3420 was an haswell CPU

post #32 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman45 View Post

i thought Pentium G3420 was an haswell CPU

And that matters because
?

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/comparison-chart.html

It says when I compare them that Pentium is not 3D here^

And yes all socket 1150 chips are Haswell at this point. You are correct.
post #33 of 110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post


For FullHD 3D mkv files, you need an Nvidia card or Ivy/Haswell to HW accelerate them, due to high resolution.
post #34 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman45 View Post


He should have stated "Core" Ivy/Haswell
post #35 of 110
Thread Starter 

ok so G3420 has no core haswell? I will probably invest more on core i3 for future proof and power efficiency vs APU

post #36 of 110
Intel calls their performance processors "Core"

Core i3
Core i5
Core i7

Then there is their budget/mainstream line

Celeron
Pentium
post #37 of 110
The intel link I provided clearly covers the entire Intel line and demonstrated the differences. The new Haswell Pentium is actually pretty fast CPU (3.3ghz) and would make a killer cheap CPU for someone who needs an basic PC without 3D playback.

If you need 3D you need i3 or higher Intel or an AMD CPU (which does 3D well)

If you already have a Pentium or want to add 3D later on then you can add a $50 video card (I did this for my parents when they got 3D)
post #38 of 110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

The intel link I provided clearly covers the entire Intel line and demonstrated the differences. The new Haswell Pentium is actually pretty fast CPU (3.3ghz) and would make a killer cheap CPU for someone who needs an basic PC without 3D playback.

If you need 3D you need i3 or higher Intel or an AMD CPU (which does 3D well)

If you already have a Pentium or want to add 3D later on then you can add a $50 video card (I did this for my parents when they got 3D)

 

You mean 3D video right? adding GPU wouldn't add noise and more power consumption?

post #39 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman45 View Post

You mean 3D video right? adding GPU wouldn't add noise and more power consumption?

Power consumption = Yes and No

But's that a funny question because if you can't do it otherwise because it really would not matter. That's like saying if I add a supercharger to my car it go over 130mph (130mph being 3D) and then asking if you do it and go 130MPH will that lower gas mileage ?? It will, but the point was to go 130mph. Your alternative would be not doing it. Same on MadVR, a video card will get you better results because it is more powerful. It will increase power consumption because obviously the card takes some to do it.

On power consumption I think a lot of people don't know about LUCID and that you can run your HTPC and VIDEO card with the GPU card "off" when you don't need it and not need to consume the energy either. Power consumption is not important if you want a video card or not IMO.

LUCID is for powering down or managing your GPU card so when you don't need it - it's not wasting power. It's not really going to improve anything beyond what your GPU card already can do is my understanding. But when I am not doing something GPU intensive you can cruise around on only iGPU and save the power , the noise and heat.

I use LucidLogix Virtu GPU (came with my Radeon card). Basically it regulates if I need a GPU card or not. If high end graphics power is needed for applications like DirectX 11, high-resolution 3D gaming, the system will assign the job to the discrete GPU. If not, the discrete GPU automatically goes into idle mode, while heat drops, fan speed slows down and GPU utilization goes down to zero, resulting in a green, power-efficient, long-lasting system. It came FREE with my Radeon card and works great with my Intel CPU. Just because you have a GPU card doesn't even mean you need to use it (not all the time anyways, mine is off right now on this webpage) You can learn about LUCID VIRTU-MVP HERE CHECK IT OUT






Noise. Not if you get a good one. They even make silent video cards without any fans on them. Good ones with fans are quieter than quiet PC's on video playback. A silent fan is ... well.. Silent biggrin.gif
post #40 of 110
Thread Starter 

ok thx... i don't have a pentium g3420 actually... i am building an htpc from scratch... so i will probably go with the core i3.. the LucidLogix Virtu GPU looks nice. thx

post #41 of 110
FWIW, I got VirtuMVP with my ASUS H77M-Pro mobo.
post #42 of 110
Lucid can't actually shut your GPU off, so it doesn't typically result in any power savings

I tested it on integrated mode with my z77/3570k/gtx660 setup vs uninstalled with display running directly from gtx660 and couldn't see a difference in power consumption at idle

Mine also came free with the z77, but it's not worth the setup in my opinion unless you are trying to use a very high-end "old" GPU. 7xxx and newer Radeon as well as 6xx and newer Nvidia will already idle down to low power during web surfing, idle, etc. Lucid can't take them to any lower power state in my experience
post #43 of 110
The amount of power is so small I never bothered testing it. I think at the end of the day you either require the GPU horspower for gaming or MadVR or whatever or you don't. If you need it then it is what it is. It's pennies on the dollar in electricity compared to so many other things I wouldn't let that be my deciding factor. If you can get by without a GPU card you probably would not buy one simply because of the GPU card costs, never mind the electricity.
post #44 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by nxsfan View Post

I'm not sure I follow your logic. If you want to rip a 2D Bluray why bother with the MKV container? Or how about DD-TrueHD or DTS-MA? Why bother with supporting them in the MKV container? We can always rip the bluray ISO.

Have you noticed that 3D Blurays aren't double the size of a regular Bluray? Isn't that strange? The beauty of Bluray MVC is that the 2nd perspective is encoded in the form of a delta to the primary view (this rough explanation may be inaccurate).

You can easily follow my logic, if you add to the beauty of MVC, the ugliness of MVC too.

Because there is always a trade-off.

MVC is easier to decode than probably every other 3D format, BUT the files produced with MVC are huge.

So, in my logic when you rip a DVD, BluRay 2D, BluRay 3D to an MKV file, you try to keep the video quality as high as you can, but at the same time you select a suitable compression scheme to reduce the size of that original stream (DVD, BluRay, BluRay 3D) to something significant smaller in order to minimize the footprint on you HDD.

For BluRay 3D, SBS FullHD 3D files or TAB FullHD 3D files are good and balanced solutions of quality/ file size with the cost of higher resolution that every modern Nvidia discrete card or every Ivy/ Haswell video processor can handle.

Or if you have an AMD card, you can count on your CPU to do the processing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nxsfan View Post

A nice bonus is that non-MVC aware players only understand the primary view and it plays like a regular 2D movie (you can still watch your 3D MKV on 2D displays).

There is no information loss relative to an SBS or TAB encoded video, and yet we have a cleaner format that works for 2D and 3D applications without modifications. There is no reason why your player of choice couldn't decode the MVC encoded MKV into the "FullHD" SBS or TAB format you prefer (even if it doesn't do it today).

It's easy enough even for free, open-source players like PotPlayer to do a 3D to 2D conversion of SBS/ TAB clips and display the 3D content, like 2D content to 2D displays.
I use it all the time.
post #45 of 110
MVC is actually more efficient than SBS. In MVC, one image is encoded like normal, and the image for the second eye only encodes the difference to the primary image. Thats much more efficient than encoding both images entirely in Full SBS.
However, on Blu-rays everything is huge, because they use high bitrates. Its not because of MVC, its normal for 2D movies on BD to be 30GB+, and for 3D movies to even be above that because of the additional data.

Pirated content however doesn't use MVC, because the majority of people don't have a player which can play MVC in a MKV or MP4, so instead they encode it to SBS and put that in a MKV, so the people pirating the content can actually view it.
Not to mention that pirated content is generally smaller, because not many people want to download 30GB for a movie, or 40GB for a 3D movie.
post #46 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

And that matters because
?

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/comparison-chart.html

It says when I compare them that Pentium is not 3D here^

And yes all socket 1150 chips are Haswell at this point. You are correct.

You have to be careful with that online tools, because they are not accurate.

For example, for my Pentium G3420 the link posted says:
Graphics Base Frequency 350 MHz
Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency 1.15 GHz

They are BOTH WRONG.

The Graphics Base Frequency is 600Mhz and the Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency is 1.10 GHz

Also for InTru 3D technology it doesn't say NO like for example Pentium G2130 which is the previous generation Pentium at the same clock frequency of 3.2GHz.
For G2130 says NO, for Pentium G3420 says nothing it has a "-". There is probably an explanation for that "-"

Moreover in the Intel Clear Video HD technology says "YES" for Pentium G3420, when the release notes of latest driver say "NO" for Pentiums and Intel Clear Video HD.

So, again, don't trust those "on-line tools". They are very often inaccurate.
Edited by NikosD - 1/31/14 at 12:35am
post #47 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

MVC is actually more efficient than SBS. In MVC, one image is encoded like normal, and the image for the second eye only encodes the difference to the primary image. Thats much more efficient than encoding both images entirely in Full SBS.
However, on Blu-rays everything is huge, because they use high bitrates. Its not because of MVC, its normal for 2D movies on BD to be 30GB+, and for 3D movies to even be above that because of the additional data.

Pirated content however doesn't use MVC, because the majority of people don't have a player which can play MVC in a MKV or MP4, so instead they encode it to SBS and put that in a MKV, so the people pirating the content can actually view it.
Not to mention that pirated content is generally smaller, because not many people want to download 30GB for a movie, or 40GB for a 3D movie.

So you mean that you can rip a BluRay 3D to an MKV using MVC and produce smaller files than SBS encoding ?

Which is more compressible, MVC or SBS ?
post #48 of 110
Its all just a matter of bit-rate. Blu-rays use extremely high bit-rates, and in many cases you can re-compress it to half of its size (or even less) without any perceived quality loss.
So you can encode it to half of its size in SBS and it might still look good. You could also encode it to a smaller version in MVC, but good MVC encoders are not widely spread, so thats not something many people do.

In general, MVC compresses better, but outside of actual Blu-rays, its just not used much.
post #49 of 110
So, if the players are only a few for MVC MKV and the encoders are even less for making MVC MKV with efficiency, what is the subject of discussion ?

Even if MVC MKV could be in theory smaller than SBS, it's definitely not easier to produce it and maybe the reason that there is no interest in MVC encoding, is the difficulty or the inefficiency of MVC encoding by the developers.

I'm not an expert in encoding, I just see in the real world that it seems that only BluRay producers use this encoding for the original optical discs.

There must be a reason for that.
post #50 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

Its all just a matter of bit-rate. Blu-rays use extremely high bit-rates, and in many cases you can re-compress it to half of its size (or even less) without any perceived quality loss.
So you can encode it to half of its size in SBS and it might still look good. You could also encode it to a smaller version in MVC, but good MVC encoders are not widely spread, so thats not something many people do.

In general, MVC compresses better, but outside of actual Blu-rays, its just not used much.

So this is basically like on the ISO or actual disc itself right ? And you need a 3D capable BR player to play the disc or a 3D capable software player (like powerDVD13) to play ISO. And you need 3D capable hardware like recent AMD CPU, core i3 or higher, or 3D capable GPU card to output the proper signal over HDMI to 3D capable display. Yes ?

Just want to make sure I understand what I think I know.
post #51 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post

MVC is easier to decode than probably every other 3D format, BUT the files produced with MVC are huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post

So, if the players are only a few for MVC MKV and the encoders are even less for making MVC MKV with efficiency, what is the subject of discussion ?

Hi NikosD. I hope you find this interesting and are receptive to new information.

For your benefit I looked into my collection to find out what this boils down to:

Tron: Legacy 2D MKV: 26GB
Tron: Legacy 3D MVC MKV: 37GB.

I happen to have MKV "rips" of Tron Legacy in both 2D and 3D (which I legally own). These aren't re-encodes as the actual video stream has simply been remuxed into the MKV container, i.e. there is no difference between the video on the bluray and in the MKV file (same for the audio).

In this case adding the MVC delta made the file 42% larger. While this is a considerable increase in file-size, it should hopefully be obvious to you that FullHD SBS and TAB files are nearly 100% larger (in this case closer to 50GB) unless we start re-encoding and lowering the bitrate.

Extending the logic, you can reduce the bitrate such that the 2D version is reduced to 18GB (from 26GB) before your FullHD SBS is the same size as the original high quality MVC MKV remux (and all you've done is lose quality for the same file-size). You have to considerably reduce the bitrate before you see any significant file-size improvements over the untouched MVC encoded MKV (and at this point there has been a considerable loss in quality, not to mention the potential for cross-frame encoding artifacts).

Mfusick - an MVC encoded MKV is not really like an ISO. It's still a regular MKV with regular video/audio tracks with an extra track the stores 3D information in a special way. To me it's a lot like DTS-HD, which stores a lossy Core Audio track and then the HD track is actually an encoded diff between the lossy Core and the lossless studio master. What the player does with the DTS-HD track is similar to the MVC 3D track. Does it bitstream the encoded audio? Does it decode to PCM and bitstream that? Does it decode the HD and render the audio locally, or maybe it only understands the DTS core and so only plays that? This is loosely analogous to a player deciding to "bitstream" the frame-packed 3D over HDMI1.4a to an appropriate display, or perhaps the player could decode the MVC track into an SBS, TAB, frame sequential or checkerboard format. Or more the player doesn't understand the MVC track and just plays the 2D video.

EDIT: I guess I over interpreted what Mfusick was saying (I'll leave the above as it might be interesting). Yes the 3D information encoding method is the same as the 3D bluray disk, so it requires special decoding (hence the requirement to use powerdvd, stereoscopic player, coremvc, etc.). This isn't really any different to requiring special decoders for H264, VC1, DTS, DD, etc, aside from the obvious that most mainstream decoders aren't there yet.

Hopefully this is clear.
Edited by nxsfan - 1/31/14 at 10:50am
post #52 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by nxsfan View Post


Hi NikosD. I hope you find this interesting and are receptive to new information.

Always.



Quote:
Originally Posted by nxsfan View Post


In this case adding the MVC delta made the file 42% larger. While this is a considerable increase in file-size, it should hopefully be obvious to you that FullHD SBS and TAB files are nearly 100% larger (in this case closer to 50GB) unless we start re-encoding and lowering the bitrate.

Sorry, but I really can't follow your logic.
It's in a direct collision with reality!

Because your inability or unwillingness to re-encode the MVC MKV doesn't allow you to see the obvious!

Most FullHD 3D SBS files out there are about 8GB to 10GB with very good quality.

Your MVC MKV file is 37GB !!!

I really can't say more.

Thanks for the info.
post #53 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post

Because your inability or unwillingness to re-encode the MVC MKV doesn't allow you to see the obvious!

Most FullHD 3D SBS files out there are about 8GB to 10GB with very good quality.

Your MVC MKV file is 37GB !!!

I really can't say more.

There is a good reason for these 8-10GB FullHD 3D rips, and there is a good reason why a 3D bluray with a more efficient encoding is still 37GB. For example you might not have the hardware to enjoy lossless HD audio so we can throw that out (you just saved 3GB right there). You might be watching these movies on a display where the reduction in quality is not obvious, or you might simply not care about the loss in quality in which case by all means encode at whatever bitrate you can stomach (why do we still care about FullHD then?). I have tested one FullHD SBS (avatar@8GB) and the difference was noticeable.

But you made a great point that I can't argue with. There is a great reason to prefer 10GB FullHD SBS files over ~40GB MVC MKV files... if you are downloading your movies from the internet.
post #54 of 110
True.

But also if you want to rip your BluRay 3D to a hard disk.
No difference.
post #55 of 110
The point NikosD is missing is that you could also create a 10GB MVC encode, and it would have a potentially better quality than the SBS because its more efficient.
Just noone does that, because most people couldn't play such files. That doesn't make the codec any less efficient though.

Making files smaller is always easy, just take the quality down with it. smile.gif

I can encode a movie in 5GB MPEG-2, does that make MPEG-2 a better codec?
post #56 of 110
I think we are lost in this discussion.

Nevcairiel, I really can't follow your logic, too.

We don't compare codecs here.

We compare practices - which means real world.

The subject of discussion is the necessity of someone to be able to decode FullHD 3D SBS files which have an above 1080p resolution - 3840 x 1080 - and an unquestionably good quality.

The question of quality is something subjective, but the real world practice has solved it - for whatever reason - favoring SBS over MVC encodings.

So, if you are interested in HTPC and 3D movies, your system must be able to play those FullHD 3D SBS 3840 x 1080 files.

I think it's simple.
post #57 of 110
Thread Starter 

thx for all the info guys... right now computer parts price don't look that great(especially ram)... any recommendations on the period in which i should buy my parts?

post #58 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman45 View Post

thx for all the info guys... right now computer parts price don't look that great(especially ram)... any recommendations on the period in which i should buy my parts?

Now. Now is always the best time. You can't wait for dropping prices on new gear, you'll wait forever because when it drops somthimg news will be out. You'll just end up waiting for that in a terrible self generating cycle.

Buy now.

Actually newegg had the Haswell i3 for $124 free shipping this weekend. That's the cheapest I have ever seen it since it hit the market.
post #59 of 110
Thread Starter 

yeah i know what you mean! Was in that cycle when buying my first tablet lol ... waiting for price to drop.. but everytime there's a new one out etc.. lol Unfortunately I don't live in US so no newegg for me.... but was reading ram is at its highest atm and will eventually drop.

post #60 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosD View Post

I think we are lost in this discussion.

Nevcairiel, I really can't follow your logic, too.

We don't compare codecs here.

We compare practices - which means real world.

The subject of discussion is the necessity of someone to be able to decode FullHD 3D SBS files which have an above 1080p resolution - 3840 x 1080 - and an unquestionably good quality.

The question of quality is something subjective, but the real world practice has solved it - for whatever reason - favoring SBS over MVC encodings.

So, if you are interested in HTPC and 3D movies, your system must be able to play those FullHD 3D SBS 3840 x 1080 files.

I think it's simple.

so a htpc must play illegal rip  from the inet? and you really think 30-50 gb to 8- 10 reencode are lossless to your eyes? plz...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Pentium G3420 poweful enough for my htpc requirements?