[mythtv-users] Revo 1600 looks even better now

[Brian Wood]

On Tuesday 23 February 2010 07:03:18 am Ian Oliver wrote:
> In article
> <51058d551002220735y42d4920fib9739a7d086a33e2 at mail.gmail.com>, Greg
> 
> Oliver wrote:
> > I still cannot find a reason to pay for the extra atom core.
> 
> I went for the dual core on my backend as I want to do a lot of
> simultaneous record/playback. 

Recoding and playing back takes almost no backend CPU, just disk I/O. Playback 
with the ION uses a small amount of CPU on the frontend.

I doubt that any Atom-based backend would be using software encoding, so 
that's not a requirement. This would only apply to SD, since almost any HD 
source is already encoded, or done in hardware with a HD-PVR.

Commflagging and transcoding are the major users of CPU for a backend, but I 
suspect even a dual-core Atom can't compete with the more mainstream CPUs.

My personal benchmark for a backend is: can it do commflagging in real time? 
I've not heard any numbers for Atom backends, I doubt a single-core could do 
it, I don't know about a dual-core Atom.

If you want an HD recording to be flagged and ready to watch as soon as it 
finishes, a single-core Atom is probably insufficient, so if that's your goal the 
dual-core is probably a good move if you're using an Atom for the B/E.

But I see a Revo as a frontend device only, so even the single-core should be 
adequate for any purpose I can think of.

I'd be interested in hearing results from people using a Revo as a backend. 
You'd be limited to USB tuners or an HDHR I'd think. The limiting factor would 
be the laptop-type HDD, but network or E-SATA storage would improve things I 
think.

Here's a question, is it possible to use the ION, or the CrystalHD, to assist 
in transcoding, or are they just useful for playback decoding?