Well Cache is important. Another reason a Celeron will suck compared to a P4 is the bandwidth between the processor and RAM is crippled. The Celeron front side bus was always chopped in half compared to a pentium. The netburst architecture has always been bandwidth hungry, so you take a netburst chip, hack off 75% of it's cache and crack it's FSB to pieces, and yeah, it ain't gonna do much compared to a P4. I don't know much about HD, but from a gaming POV, a #GHz celeron is like a 1.8-2.0GHz P4. Basically the general rule avoid celerons like the plague for all tasks except email and word processing applies to HTPCs too I would think. In reality, encoding/decoding is computationally intensive, and at the same time you need bandwidth as these actions involve streaming. since Celeron is piss poor at floating point and has no bandwidth to access the RAM, it must suck for HD on HTPCs. However, if anyone is using one successfully I'd like to know. Disclaimer: this email written by someone extremely hostile to intel smellerons.
Gary Manning wrote: > When I started this thread, I was hoping we could get a discussion going > about processor performance beyond just raw cpu speed, especially as it > relates to HDTV material. If cpu speed were the only factor, then a Celeron > 3GHz would be better than a P4 2.8GHz, but I doubt that is true. > > I guess one way to approach this is to analyze what types of processing take > place during tuning, encoding/decoding, and display. Is it just a compute > intensive process? Is a large cache important? How about memory size and > speed? > > Gary > > > _______________________________________________ > mythtv-users mailing list > mythtv-users@mythtv.org > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users > > _______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users