aaslundg wrote:My system has a passmark score of only 2100 (Intel i3 4020). System works OK, except as mentioned before when going downhill above 50 km/h.
Intel has cores with hyperthreading and those generally handle multithreaded software better then AMD and our software is heavily multithreaded.
In any case the context of what is the least powerful PC that can still run the software has no future. As we add new features the computing demands would grow and older systems might not be able to cope/use those new features.
Just to tease I have couple of videos made in 4K and watching it on big 4K monitor. It is stunning and the presence effect is unbelievable. I am running it on more then 5 yeard old PC (core i7 with 4 cores at 2.6mHz and mid range $200 but modern graphics card). Graphics acceleration in settings/performance is set to full (unfortunately does not work for all systems) and the average CPU consumption is about 1%. Being old system like this can be purchased used for about $300-$400 but it sure packs a lot of punch.
To share my own experience, I tested 2 computers with my configuration (Lynx + Vride + videos stored on an external USB 3 hard drive).
These 2 machines have very similar processors (Intel Core i5) with identical level of performance, both have the same amount of memory (8 GB) and a 250 GB SSD internal drive.
What makes the difference is the GPU : the Zotac EN760 has a discrete Geforce graphic card, the Intel NUC has an Intel HD 5000 integrated graphic chipset.
Everything works flawlessly and smoothly on the Zotac. The Intel NUC, on the contrary, is unable to play the videos without stuttering even if the videos are moved to the internal SSD.
Here are the two configurations with their Passmark CPU Benchmarks and Passmark Videocard Benchmarks :
Bradox78 wrote:To share my own experience, I tested 2 computers with my configuration (Lynx + Vride + videos stored on an external USB 3 hard drive).
These 2 machines have very similar processors (Intel Core i5) with identical level of performance, both have the same amount of memory (8 GB) and a 250 GB SSD internal drive.
What makes the difference is the GPU : the Zotac EN760 has a discrete Geforce graphic card, the Intel NUC has an Intel HD 5000 integrated graphic chipset.
Everything works flawlessly and smoothly on the Zotac. The Intel NUC, on the contrary, is unable to play the videos without stuttering even if the videos are moved to the internal SSD.
Here are the two configurations with their Passmark CPU Benchmarks and Passmark Videocard Benchmarks :
Thanks for sharing your info. I guess there are more things involve here (dunno what exactly) since it runs just fine (no stuttering) on my daughter's Surface Pro 3 with Core I3 and integrated graphics from Intel (we have a whole bunch of other customers running it successfully on computers with th integrated graphics). So it is a mystery. But of course any USED low-mid range gaming desktop that can be had for $300-$400 will run the thing with flying colors and have room left.
Not being a patient man i already went and upgraded my computer!
Faster processor (indeed an Intel), more RAM, better video card.
I just did le col d'Izoard yesterday with zero problem, not one single hiccup!
Gorgeous!
I am satisfied and looking forward to exploring many climbs!
Thanks again for the great support!
Not being a patient man i already went and upgraded my computer!
Faster processor (indeed an Intel), more RAM, better video card.
I just did le col d'Izoard yesterday with zero problem, not one single hiccup!
Gorgeous!
I am satisfied and looking forward to exploring many climbs!
Thanks again for the great support!
admin wrote:Thanks for sharing your info. I guess there are more things involve here (dunno what exactly) since it runs just fine (no stuttering) on my daughter's Surface Pro 3 with Core I3 and integrated graphics from Intel.
Just to add some information, the preliminary tests I carried out on both computers (Zotac EN760 and Intel NUC) were with a clean install of Windows 7 and all drivers up to date.
On the other hand, I ran yesterday Vride in test mode at my office (so without connected trainer and sensors and with a demo video) on a "not so young" HP Compaq 6005 pro PC fitted with 4 GB RAM, an AMD II X2 B24 processor (Passmark = 1836), an ATI Radeon HD 4200 GPU (Passmark = 117 !), 250 GB internal HDD and a "not clean at all" Windows 7 : no stuttering ...
Lynx VR Trainer v1 - PowerTap G3 Alloy Rear Wheel - Garmin GSC-10 speed/cadence sensor and heart rate monitor - Dynastream ANTUSB-m stick - Asus Vivo PC X (Intel Core i5-7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1060, 8 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD, 1 TB HDD, Win10 64 bits).
I know you probably won't be able to answer these yet but I still have to ask:
1. Any idea when 4k videos will be released?
2. Will existing videos be re-released in 4k?
3. If existing videos are released in 4k will they available free or discounted for those that have already purchased the 1080p versions?
As soon as 4k videos are released that will be enough to make me run out and buy a big 4k TV:)
1) The tech to film videos in 4K is available.
2) That does not mean that main consumer will pay the overhead associated with the distribution/storage/playback
3) Material filmed at 4K and then down-sampled to HD looks way better then material originally filmed in HD.
So the moral of the story is that is is likely that the source material will be made in 4K. When/how it will propagate to customers in 4K format is hard thing to answer. Option #3 is probably more likely to appear first.
In any way I am not the person who makes such decisions. I am a nerd being here to help people to solve tech issues.
No these are mastered at either 2K or HD they can be released with a lossless level of compression at about the same size as regular "compressed" 4K & they should look as good as the original & really much the same as compressed 4K. Your effectively swapping compression artifacts in the finished 4K video for artifacts caused by your 4K TV display upressing a very high quality HD file...I think its will be a close call as to which feels better to ride on such a display.
3. If existing videos are released in 4k will they available free or discounted for those that have already purchased the 1080p versions?
This topic has not been talked about yet, the issue is the doing this triples the cost to deliver the ride to you (1 x HD download then 1 x a UHD download thats twice the size = 3 x the total download bandwidth which with the slim margin & small user base is probably a bit tough to swallow....I suspect there will be a small extra cost to deliver UHD 4K to a small user base of 4K display owning customers.
This topic has not been talked about yet, the issue is the doing this triples the cost to deliver the ride to you (1 x HD download then 1 x a UHD download thats twice the size = 3 x the total download bandwidth which with the slim margin & small user base is probably a bit tough to swallow....I suspect there will be a small extra cost to deliver UHD 4K to a small user base of 4K display owning customers.
Thanks for the detailed replies. I think it would be very reasonable if not expected for an increased cost for 4k video. Much like the price difference between Blu-ray and DVD. I personally would be willing to pay the premium for the higher quality content since I love high resolution graphics/video. In the mean time I just purchased another 20 videos to tie me over (and complete my climbs collection)
