Amiga.org
Operating System Specific Discussions => Other Operating Systems => Topic started by: Ral-Clan on December 20, 2013, 11:50:47 PM
-
Hi,
I use an older PC (single core 2.8GHz Pentium running Windows XP). It does everything great, and USED to play YouTube videos wonderfully. But about a year ago, as Adobe started to upgrade Flash past version 10, and YouTube made some changes, suddenly, more CPU % was required to play the same 480p videos. Sometimes, I'm forced to use 360p mode on YouTube.
The PC has an old, not great Intel Graphics chip in it, but it has an AGP slot.
I'm wondering if there is an older AGP graphics card I can pick up for cheap that would allow Flash to use the hardware acceleration feature - and therefore the GPU on the card to do video decoding instead of the motherboard GPU.
There are a lot of cheap old AGP graphics cards on eBay - some for $10 or $20 - but I suspect I would need one that decodes .h264? Not sure which old model would fit the bill, if any.
Is my thinking correct? Anyone know of an old model with such capability.
I do NO gaming, so this would only be for YouTube and perhaps Sony Vegas work (if Sony Vegas can even use it).
Thanks
-
Try looking for a 9800XT AGP card. They are very good and support hardware encoding quite well from what I remember. I use one in my Power Mac with MOS and picked it up for a very good price.
-
Hi,
I use an older PC (single core 2.8GHz Pentium running Windows XP). It does everything great, and USED to play YouTube videos wonderfully. But about a year ago, as Adobe started to upgrade Flash past version 10, and YouTube made some changes, suddenly, more CPU % was required to play the same 480p videos. Sometimes, I'm forced to use 360p mode on YouTube.
The PC has an old, not great Intel Graphics chip in it, but it has an AGP slot.
I'm wondering if there is an older AGP graphics card I can pick up for cheap that would allow Flash to use the hardware acceleration feature - and therefore the GPU on the card to do video decoding instead of the motherboard GPU.
There are a lot of cheap old AGP graphics cards on eBay - some for $10 or $20 - but I suspect I would need one that decodes .h264? Not sure which old model would fit the bill, if any.
Is my thinking correct? Anyone know of an old model with such capability.
I do NO gaming, so this would only be for YouTube and perhaps Sony Vegas work (if Sony Vegas can even use it).
Thanks
Ideally you want a card that supports UVD so HD2000 (apart from 2900) series upwards. AGP HD2400 can be bought fairly cheap but I understand that you need to apply certain tweaks to the registry for certain files. HD3450 might make more sense if you can find one decently priced.
-
Ideally you want a card that supports UVD so HD2000 (apart from 2900) series upwards. AGP HD2400 can be bought fairly cheap but I understand that you need to apply certain tweaks to the registry for certain files. HD3450 might make more sense if you can find one decently priced.
I'd second this latter approach.
I have R300 cards all over my work area as I have been using them for MorphOS machines, but I'd going with at least an HD2000.
That gives you Direct X10.1.
At one time, I had an AGP HD3850.
That was a simply wonderful card.
The 4650 is also available as an AGP card.
And your cpu is more than powerful enough.
Until recently I was using a single core Opteron operating at 2.2 GHz and only recently upgraded to a dual core at 3.00 GHz, both were adequate.
-
At one time, I had an AGP HD3850.
That was a simply wonderful card.
Second that! Full length, 256-bit graphics card with dual DVI outputs, it requires a pretty beefy power supply, however. I regret ever getting rid of mine, not that I had any use for it, now.
I believe Newegg still has a selection of some AGP cards.
I think that single-core chip of yours is really going to hurt you. Try checking CPU performance while you're playing videos. Hope at least you've maxed out your memory...
-
Second that! Full length, 256-bit graphics card with dual DVI outputs, it requires a pretty beefy power supply, however. I regret ever getting rid of mine, not that I had any use for it, now.
I believe Newegg still has a selection of some AGP cards.
I think that single-core chip of yours is really going to hurt you. Try checking CPU performance while you're playing videos. Hope at least you've maxed out your memory...
I'm pretty new to AGP graphics cards (even though I understand they are an old standard now).
First of all, since this computer is probably worth not much more than $100-150, I really don't want to spend more than that on an AGP card. I was hoping I could pick up an obsolete one that was still good enough for YouTube acceleration for cheap.
I have R300 cards all over my work area as I have been using them for MorphOS machines, but I'd going with at least an HD2000.
That gives you Direct X10.1.
This is a Windows XP computer, so I'm not even sure I can run anything past DirectX 9 on it.
As for the CPU performance during YouTube: when playing YouTube videos at 480p resolution, I get about 77% to 95% CPU usage. Might hit 100% now and then, but the video doesn't stutter, so the CPU can handle 480p. Really, I'm actually fine with 480p. HD streaming video would just be icing on the cake. I thought that if the old AGP cards were now cheap enough on the used market, it might be a quick and easy upgrade. It's not a critical upgrade, though...
I'd prefer not to get a card that requires its own power and has a noisy fan, if possible, as I use this computer for music recording and don't really want another fan whirring away.
UVD is a new term to me .... I guess it's time to Google....
-
Best cheap DX9 card?
An AGP X800XT would be good.
ATI Radeon X800XT All In Wonder AGP $35 plus $10.29 shipping
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ATI-Radeon-X800-XT-AIW-all-in-wonder-102aj3830120-256-MB-GDDR3-AGP-AMD-/301040897081?pt=PCC_Video_TV_Cards&hash=item46176f8c39
AN Nvidia 7800GS would also work.
-
I still use a P4@2.53 GHz with 2 GB of RAM and a Nvidia 6800 GT AGP Video card and still runs Youtube movies without a problem.
-
I still use a P4@2.53 GHz with 2 GB of RAM and a Nvidia 6800 GT AGP Video card and still runs Youtube movies without a problem.
Nvidia 7600GTs can be had without a secondary power connector for AGP systems.
As to cards without a cooling fan, you won't find very many powerful cards set up like that.
And a video card's cooling fan is not particularly loud.
-
This is a Windows XP computer, so I'm not even sure I can run anything past DirectX 9 on it.
DirectX 10 and 11 cards operate fine under DirectX 9 on XP. I've been using a 4670 with XP for years now.
It's better to get something newer than 9800 or X800 etc since they don't have the UVD hardware acceleration and will largely rely on the CPU so you'd probably be left in the same position with those cards.
I'd definitely recommend getting something like a 3450 or maybe 4650 depending on price. Generally you do pay a premium for AGP versions look hard enough and you should be able to et something reasonably priced.
-
Indeed HD3850 is the best agp card out there.
But I don't think this is a matter or gfx card.
I have noticed that single core machines cannot play yt videos well anymore.
Try to disable hardware acceleration in flash.
-
Indeed HD3850 is the best agp card out there.
But I don't think this is a matter or gfx card.
I have noticed that single core machines cannot play yt videos well anymore.
Try to disable hardware acceleration in flash.
Yes, what pocessed me that convinced me to sell my 3850 is beyond me.
Actually, I was using a single core Opteron until recently and thathandled video fine.
Not to take too many pot shots at thr P4, but that processor never really performed all that well.
-
A Radeon 4670 is a good AGP card, IIRC the 3850 is PCI-E only. You should install the maximum RAM your motherboard can handle and replace your hard drive with an SSD too to get the best performance out of the machine. Though for the amount that will all cost you could probably buy a new PC with better performance.
-
You don't need to change your video card to watch youtube videos.
Follow this guide
http://smf.rantradio.com/index.php?topic=2162.0
Works wonders im watching HD video on an athlon 1800+ :D ,was imposible before to watch even the lowest settings using flash player.
Give it a shot know i do the same on my high end notebook and is much better than flash you dont see the ads know.
-
I have noticed that single core machines cannot play yt videos well anymore.Try to disable hardware acceleration in flash.
Yes! This is what makes me angry. Prior to the time Youtube went Hi-def, ALL 480p videos played absulutely great on my computer - using around 60% CPU.
Then they switched to allow HD videos. My machine can't handle 1080p videos and is choppy at 720p videos. Fine - I can accept that and throttle them down to the 480p setting. BUT - now even playing those HD videos in 480p mode takes 75-100% of CPU.
If you can find an older video on YouTube that wasn't uploaded in HD then it will still use the older player and consumes lower CPU cycles.
It all seems to be based on a change to the YouTube player. The older videos have a thicker looking progress bar at the bottom (lower res) and these play well. The newer videos (all HD videos) have a thinner progress bar at the bottom and use more CPU even when throttled down to the lower 480p resolution.
So it's frustrating that CPU usage should go up for exactly the same resolution (480p). Seems like a step backward. My machine can just about keep up with 480p now, whereas before it could handle 480p Flash video with CPU to spare. Mostly it plays fine, but now I hear the CPU fan whirring up to high gear, and occasionally there is stutter or the sound is delayed from the video. Seems like Flash is getting less efficient with every version released. Why should a newer version of Flash perform WORSE than an older version?
PS: I have disabled hardware acceleration in Flash. It doesn't change anything in regard to CPU consumption on my machine.
-
Use a youtube browser extension to download a video and watch it with a good native player.
-
Nope Nik, you're wrong there.
I had a 3850 AGP card (it exists - there are a few on eBay right now), the performance is a little smoother than the 4670 or 4650.
-
You don't need to change your video card to watch youtube videos.
Follow this guide
http://smf.rantradio.com/index.php?topic=2162.0
Works wonders im watching HD video on an athlon 1800+ :D ,was imposible before to watch even the lowest settings using flash player.
Give it a shot know i do the same on my high end notebook and is much better than flash you dont see the ads know.
Ah! That thread explains things. The HD YouTube videos stream "raw" mp4 to your computer, whereas the older videos stream FLV. It seems that Flash Player is better at processing FLV and MP4 is more CPU intensive. That would explain the jump in CPU usage for any video that plays with YouTube's HD player (even when throttled down the 480p).
PS: I tried that guide you suggested (using VLC player) and so fair it WORKS GREAT on SOME videos! I'm currently watching a streaming 720p video without stutter on a 1.8GHz Window XP laptop. I never would have thought it possible.
But other videos won't play through VLC - these are the videos with commercials inserted at the front, etc. VLC says "Your Input can't be opened". I still have to play with this a bit to see what it can and can't play.
[EDIT: I think the error might have been something on my end - as it seems to have gone away]
-
Nope Nik, you're wrong there.
I had a 3850 AGP card (it exists - there are a few on eBay right now), the performance is a little smoother than the 4670 or 4650.
Cool, I did a quick check of eBay.ca and there were only PCI-E cards for sale so I assumed there were no agp ones.
@ral-clan
Enable HTML5 mode for YouTube to disable Flash and see if that helps.
http://youtube.com/html5
-
I was not aware that they were not using FLV on some videos.
That is actually an improvement.
MorphOS can handle MP4 format.
And frankly, I'm sick of Flash.
-
But other videos won't play through VLC - these are the videos with commercials inserted at the front, etc. VLC says "Your Input can't be opened".
Use a browser extension to simply download the video.
-
@nicholas
I actually did try enabling HTML5 for YouTube, and the performance is actually worse.
@soviet
HOLY CRAP! Thanks so much soviet for this tip to stream YouTube videos straight into VideoLAN (VLC) player!
I can't BELIEVE it! I am now able to view YouTube videos at crisp 1280x720 resolution with no stutter, no audio delay, full-screen and streaming live. ALL THIS AT 40% CPU usage with NO CHANGE TO MY HARDWARE (only using the onboard old motherboard Intel GPU).
Wow. I can't thank you enough for this tip. I was only looking for good 480p performance, and now I can get 720p with an over 50% drop in CPU usage!
What the hell is wrong with Flash Player to take so much more CPU as to make 720 and even 480p so difficult to play?
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Everyone with an old PC should try this tip.
PS: I haven't done the Greasemonkey thing yet, I've just been cutting and pasting the YouTube URL into the VideoLAN's "Open Media Stream" fuction.
WOW!
-
What the hell is wrong with Flash Player to take so much more CPU as to make 720 and even 480p so difficult to play?
What's wrong with it is that Flash sucks. You just can't beat properly written native players. I use an extension for youtube simply because I really hate those flash players with a passion (and as a nice bonus you won't get any commercials and advertisements that way).
-
On that we agree!
"Flash sucks!"
-
My main PC is a system similar to yours and AFAIK no AGP card will help you because flash is CPU intensive and not GPU.
Try to upgrade your CPU to the fastest your motherboard can handle.
You can also add a plugin like VideoDownloadHelper to the Firefox.
With it you can copy the video stream link of the YT video and redirect it to a video player like VLC and watch it without any problem and speed loss.
-
Flash uses GPU accelerated video decoding on supported cards.
-
I actually did try enabling HTML5 for YouTube, and the performance is actually worse.
That's a shame.
HTML5 video works a treat on my PowerBook G4 which only has a 1.67GHz CPU, admittedly the Radeon 9700 video card is better than your Intel IGP but under MorphOS there is no GPU accelerated decoding to help play the video so theoretically your 2.8GHz Pentium should play the same videos.
-
WOW!
I just installed the GreaseMonkey Script to play YouTube videos through the VLC Player plugin in Firefox. (as Soviet had suggested).
I can barely describe the level of improvement.
YouTube videos now play seamlessly inside the YouTube page and at full screen in 720p HD at around 40% CPU (an over 50% drop in CPU usage over Flash's 480p playpack performance).
Plus you get a lot more control over playback aspects of the video than YouTube normally would give you.
REALLY. I'm blown away by the change. My PC is like a whole new machine now.
-
That's a shame.
HTML5 video works a treat on my PowerBook G4 which only has a 1.67GHz CPU, admittedly the Radeon 9700 video card is better than your Intel IGP but under MorphOS there is no GPU accelerated decoding to help play the video so theoretically your 2.8GHz Pentium should play the same videos.
With this new VLC/Greasemonkey/Firefox extension arrangement installed, HTML5 does indeed have about 5-10% better performance than mp4 on YouTube.
The Greasemonkey thing allows one to select between various preferred codecs when watching YouTube (MP4 or WebM - the latter of which is HTML5, I believe).
-
In glad you've got it sorted.
Have you tried AROS on that PC btw? It'll fly compared to Windows, but web browsing leaves a lot to be desired; though once Odyssey is opensourced and ported that should make AROS a great choice for old machines.
-
I believe I tried the AROS "live disc" once but it wouldn't boot all the way on this machine. Will have to give it a try again.
Just loving this new Greasemonkey/VLC combo with YouTube. Not only is 720p playing at 40-50% CPU, but if I crank it down to 360p WebM video, I am only using 9-11% of my CPU (there is no 480p option with this method)!
Just fantastic!
-
All this tells us one thing: Flash and HTML 5 suck big turds! Hurray for utterly brain dead standards.
-
All this tells us one thing: Flash and HTML 5 suck big turds! Hurray for utterly brain dead standards.
At least HTML 5 is an open (turd? did you actually use that word?)...standard.
And when its done right, its much more efficient than Flash.
I have a 1.42 GHz iBook that flies when showing HTML 5 encoded material.
Why are we still allowing Adobe to extort us?
Didn't we learn when they tried to bend Apple users over a barrel with postscript.
They are worse than Microsoft.
At least with Microsoft I have alternatives.
(btw - on alternatives, I could almost get used to Linux, Android use must have softened my resistance).
-
All this tells us one thing: Flash and HTML 5 suck big turds! Hurray for utterly brain dead standards.
Nope, it tells is that CPU driven video playback on a 2.8GHz Windows machine is worse than MorphOS running on a CPU half it's speed.
-
Nope, it tells is that CPU driven video playback on a 2.8GHz Windows machine is worse than MorphOS running on a CPU half it's speed.
It tells me that the html5 code that Fab is using kicks ass.
But then, have you noticed how much better MorphOS is at play video than OSX?
Pretty weird considering we don't have the benefit of gpu acceleration (just really good developers).
-
My gratitude to you people for pointing me at the greasemonkey/vlc plugin. I've got an up-to-date computer, but I hate wasted cpu cycles :D
Plus the download functionality enabled me to save my favorites.
-
to get hardware acceleration for youtube flash videos you need at least a geforce 8 series or at least a Radeon HD 4000+ card
however it is very difficult to find a geforce 8 AGP, they are all PCI-E
also for old computers is better and faster to use flash player 10 instead 11
flash player 11 is slower on old computers
my backup computer is a pentium 4 cedar ii at 3.0ghz and a geforce 6600GT, it can play youtube videos up to 720 very well using flash player 10, in 1080 not works fine skip lot of frames cpu is at 100%
ie note this config uses CPU only because the geforce 6 series not support hardware accel in flash player
-
I got the 3850 on a old 3GHz socket 478 agp computer but before I got my hands on it I uses the PCI version of the geforce 8400gs and even on the PCI buss it did a decent job on old computers for a low price and many (most) version are passive.
So to get away cheap try getting the 8400GS.
-
Alternately, there are Radeon HD4650 AGP video cards that would provide acceleration and would work with this machine.
-
Hey! I found an old computer in the garbage with the following AGP card in it:
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=BFGR57256LE-OC
(specs at the bottom of the page).
Would this be any improvement over the motherboard Intel chip graphics (intel 865G chipset)? I can't find out much about this chipset, except that it was released around the same time as the AGP graphics card linked to above, and had something to do with Intel's "Extreme Graphics 2", whatever that is.
I think I found some specs on it here:
http://ark.intel.com/products/27707/Intel-82865G-Graphics-and-Memory-Controller
It's hard to do a comparison....not really knowing what some of these things mean.
-
Hey! I found an old computer in the garbage with the following AGP card in it:
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=BFGR57256LE-OC
(specs at the bottom of the page).
Would this be any improvement over the motherboard Intel chip graphics (intel 865G chipset)? I can't find out much about this chipset, except that it was released around the same time as the AGP graphics card linked to above, and had something to do with Intel's "Extreme Graphics 2", whatever that is.
I think I found some specs on it here:
http://ark.intel.com/products/27707/Intel-82865G-Graphics-and-Memory-Controller
It's hard to do a comparison....not really knowing what some of these things mean.
The FX5700 is a lot faster then the integrated intel 865G but has no support for hardware acceleration on flash videos. But still a faster card and might be useful for other things :)
I have the 865G chipset on one of my 478 boards with a P4 3GHz also and it's rubbish.
-
The FX5700 is a lot faster then the integrated intel 865G but has no support for hardware acceleration on flash videos. But still a faster card and might be useful for other things :)
I have the 865G chipset on one of my 478 boards with a P4 3GHz also and it's rubbish.
So, what I'm gathering about AGP video cards is that they're only really an improvement if you do a lot of modern 3d engine gaming.
I don't do any of this type of gaming AT ALL. The only gaming I might do on this PC is emulate Amiga and C64 games with UAE and VICE to play games for those platforms. With emulation, I'm learning that the graphics card would help at all over the integrated chipset (even the integrated chipset is not really being pushed), right?
What I really use my computer for is video editing (Sony Vegas), music recording and 3d modelling/rendering software (older software). Also desktop publishing / 2d graphics - this includes a LOT of running WinUAE to use Amiga graphics software.
Would installing this AGP card I found in the garbage really improve anything in regard to these productivity applications? The system works well now so I don't want to fix what aint broken unless I knew I was going to get a speed bump in using video editing software or something (for instance, rendering of video in Sony Vegas). If the only advantage from an AGP card would be to gaming then I won't even bother.
Thanks in advance for any input you guys may have. Learning a lot here.
-
No, you will see an improvement with a 5700.
Remember, what they are talking about is video decoding acceleration.
All 2D and 3D drawing functions will be better with that card than with i865 integrated graphics, so its not just game acceleration.
I don't have the advantage of hardware acceleration under MorphOS (the OS doesn't support it) and I still favor more powerful video cards (and I don't play games either).