SageTV (sort of) reviewed at ExtremeTech

[Tej]

I have a lot of respect for the folks at ExtremeTech. They usually do a good job with "geeky" subjects.

But I think they dropped the ball with this latest "review".

Perhaps Frey needs to fedex them a PC with a capture card and the 2.0 beta loaded on it :)

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1376585,00.asp


Discussion here:

http://discuss.extremetech.com/extremetech/start/?msg=43334

[Lester Jacobs]

With all due respect, I think that the folks at Exremetech have hit upon one of the issues I've been harping in this thread. (http://forums.freytechnologies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1834) Namely, support for ATI All-In-Wonder products.

I realize, as some have commented, that support for these cards may introduce some support headaches. Systems based on these cards MAY (but no one has tested this) also tend to be more unstable and eat up more CPU cycles. However, ATI is one of the top two graphics chip makers in the world right now. Ignoring the ATI installed base cuts out a huge part of the potential market for SageTV.

This review highlights the fact that there are people out there with ATI cards who would love to evaluate/buy SageTV but can't due to lack of support for their ATI hardware.

No one can deny the fact that SageTV got a less than stellar review in this case simply because there was no support for the ATI chipset.

I love SageTV and definitely want it to become the premiere PVR app out there. However I fear that by ignoring the ATI All-In-Wonder series SageTV risks being surpassed by the other competitors. Consider that SageTV's two major competitors, Snapstream and Microsoft's MCE both support ATI and you realize the difficult path SageTV has ahead of it.

My $0.02

Lester

[nicktripp]

To support the ATI products would be suicide in my opinion. Software encoders just can't compare to having dedicated hardware, and if the ATI prodcuts were supported, it would make for a crappy end-user experience. Then what would reviews of Sage be like?

I couldn't be more happy with SageTV and it's sad to see the article not give it a fair shake.

[Ralphjb]

SageTV is the best because

1) It is rock solid reliable.

2) Picture quality is excellent.

You try to migrate this over to the ATI AIW shlock and you can throw all that out the window.

Let the AIW people learn the painful lesson I learned - get a dedicated, hardware encoding, Tuner card!

[Beelzebub]

Its just not hardware encoding. SageTV will be the only PVR software that will support full screen OSD, using hardware Decoding. Sage 1.4.10, is already ahead of the game, version 2 will take PC Pvr's to a whole new level. The funniest thing is it will be cheaper in the long run. Think about it.

SageTV Setup

$60 Athlon/Intel 1GHz w/motheboard or higher
$60 512 PC2700 DDR
$80 120GB 7200rpm 8mb Buffer
$35 16x DVD
$80 Geforce FX5200/Ati Radeon 9000
$60 SB Audigy 2
$250 SageTV + PVR-350

Total $625

Snapstream Setup
$489 Intel Xeon 2.6GHz 533 w/motherboard
$74 512 PC3200 DDR
$80 120GB 7200rpm 8mb Buffer
$35 16x DVD
$80 Geforce FX5200/Ati Radeon 9000
$120 PVR 250 (I'm not positive, but I think snapstream requires the Encoder 16 card)
or
$300 ATI AIW card
$60 SB Audigy 2
$99 Snapstream 2

Total $1037 - $1137


The SageTV system will still out perform the Snapstream system. Much Higher Video quality, Run cooler, and have much better Multi-Tasking. Of course drop a another $300, you can have a Athlon 2700, 2nd PVR-250, 2nd 120GB HDD, and a better video card. Thats still cheaper then the Snapstream system.

[JasonJoel]

Bah.. It is much closer than that in price. Be fair!

You most certainly do not need a 2.6GHz P4 to do software encoding. I can do it with my Athlon XP 1500 and my ATI AIW with no dropped frames at ~50% CPU utilization (same settings as I use on my PVR-250 720x480 3GB/hr). Video quality is almost the exact same as the video quality off my PVR-250. People that keep saying 'much higher video quality' should probably go back and look again. With a decent MPEG encoding codec you can get extremely good quality with software encoding.

I do agree that hardware encoding allows you to do more on the server. But for those of us with dedicated servers, that isn't a big advantage.

I love Sage. I use Sage. All I'm saying is is that cost comparison is bunk.

Jason


Originally posted by Beelzebub
Its just not hardware encoding. SageTV will be the only PVR software that will support full screen OSD, using hardware Decoding. Sage 1.4.10, is already ahead of the game, version 2 will take PC Pvr's to a whole new level. The funniest thing is it will be cheaper in the long run. Think about it.

SageTV Setup

$60 Athlon/Intel 1GHz w/motheboard or higher
$60 512 PC2700 DDR
$80 120GB 7200rpm 8mb Buffer
$35 16x DVD
$80 Geforce FX5200/Ati Radeon 9000
$60 SB Audigy 2
$250 SageTV + PVR-350

Total $625

Snapstream Setup
$489 Intel Xeon 2.6GHz 533 w/motherboard
$74 512 PC3200 DDR
$80 120GB 7200rpm 8mb Buffer
$35 16x DVD
$80 Geforce FX5200/Ati Radeon 9000
$120 PVR 250 (I'm not positive, but I think snapstream requires the Encoder 16 card)
or
$300 ATI AIW card
$60 SB Audigy 2
$99 Snapstream 2

Total $1037 - $1137


The SageTV system will still out perform the Snapstream system. Much Higher Video quality, Run cooler, and have much better Multi-Tasking. Of course drop a another $300, you can have a Athlon 2700, 2nd PVR-250, 2nd 120GB HDD, and a better video card. Thats still cheaper then the Snapstream system.

[flores3429]

They gave showsifter an '8' even though it has a non-integrated EPG? Wow.

[mlbdude]

ShowShifter was the first app I tried. It really discouraged me and I almost abandoned the HTPC thing entirely. I honestly believe it is the worst app on their list. I don't know how they say in business.

[flores3429]

I don't think you need a server class CPU to run SnapStream. Be reasonable.

How can ExtreamTech give showsifter an '8' even though it has a non-integrated EPG? No htpc enthusiast would find that acceptable.

[falchulk]

Sanpstream cannot compare in picture quaility!!! I have a athlon 2700 with an ati 8500dv that I originally ran as a showshifter box. I then tried to move to snapstream with just the ati card. It was a slideshow in live tv. I eventually went to sage an bout a pvr250 for a m10000 (I now moved that to a shuttle pc). They keep sending me email saying that my other system with the 8500dv should work great! Guess what even on 3.3 the picture quality sucks and it stutters all the time. Read the snapstream boards. You will find many unhappy ati users. As a matter of fact you will find 20 times the the amount of disgruntled users over there then here.

[JasonJoel]

Yup you do see more complaining on the Snapstream boards (then again they very likely have a lot more customers too...).

What I was referring to though was the recording quality (not playback). I have GREAT PQ with my AIW recording to MPEG at the same settings I use for my PVR250 (720x480 3GB/hr).

Just for the record, I always had issues with Snapstream's playback too. Recorded well for me, played back horribly.

Also, I agree with most people's opinion of Showshifter. Extensible, but I had nothing but problems with it (and no EPG...).

Jason

Originally posted by falchulk
Sanpstream cannot compare in picture quaility!!! I have a athlon 2700 with an ati 8500dv that I originally ran as a showshifter box. I then tried to move to snapstream with just the ati card. It was a slideshow in live tv. I eventually went to sage an bout a pvr250 for a m10000 (I now moved that to a shuttle pc). They keep sending me email saying that my other system with the 8500dv should work great! Guess what even on 3.3 the picture quality sucks and it stutters all the time. Read the snapstream boards. You will find many unhappy ati users. As a matter of fact you will find 20 times the the amount of disgruntled users over there then here.

[Colin]

falchulk,
Wait a sec.. You're saying that Snapstream w/ ATI isn't as good as SageTV with PVR-250? Man.. these quality comparisons crack me up..

[falchulk]

I am 100% saying that. I also have emails from snapstream support staff acknowleding that. If I must I can go to snapstream.com and dig up dozens of complaints on this.


On the same box I ran/run showshifter. It looks great. Snapstream looks like crap. Search on "live tv quality" on snapstream.com.

BTW, just recording in snapstream it's tolerable but still uses like 60% cpu. The ati software uses 12% when recording only. By comparison I used a very weak m10000 with a 250 and got 5% utilization. Thats helpful when you want to use the PC for other things then just record!

[falchulk]

.

[mlbdude]

ShowShifter probably looks better because it is not alwasy buffering a recording. Like the ATI MMC it is just using the TV Tuner. I admit, that my ATI looks better just using the tuner, but as soon as you start to use PVR functions it goes down hill.

[Colin]

Have you tried out your PVR250 with Snapstream and compared the quality? My point was that you said that Snapstream had worse picture quality, but you were using two different capture cards..

[Colin]

On second thought, I didn't realize from your post that you were comparing Snapstream on the ATI with Showshifter on the ATI.. Never used Showshifter as it doesn't seem to support the 250/350 very well..

[falchulk]

showshifter does not support the 250/350 at all. With the 250, my system would record with snapstream perfectly but the playback was crap. That was before they supported the ati codec though. Since then, I am on my 3rd PC while the first is now my main PC for regular use. I still use showshifter on that PC since I bought it and I can record straight to divx. I would not use that in my living room that way I use sage.

[falchulk]

by the way, showshifter looks better during time shift as well. It has to do with the way it handles overlay and snapstreams lack of overlay support.

[Lester Jacobs]

I think the issue of CPU usage is being blown out of proportion here. I think the core point revolves around exactly what you want to do with your computer while it is recording stuff. I see two types of users as far as this is concerned:

1) Users with a general use computer. These users are very concerned about CPU usage while video recording is taking place. They want, as much as possible, to continue to use the computer normally (games, DVD watching, Internet browsing, office applications, etc) while video is being recorded. Understandably then, these users want video recording to take as little CPU as possible. Therefore a software encoder may not be a good choice for these users if they anticipate running intensive apps while recording video.

2) Users with a dedicated media server. These users have set up their computer for use mainly recording, storage and playback of digital media and do not, for the most part, run general purpose applications on their media server. They use a separate computer for that. These users are not as concerned about CPU usage. They can quite easily run a software encoder since even 50% CPU utilisation will not prevent them from running other media apps such as DVD playback, music Jukeboxes, etc.

For instance I have a dedicated media server. It is a P4 2.0Ghz machine. with two Hauppauge PVR 250s and an ATI All-In-Wonder 8500 video card. I currently do not make use of the ATI card as an encoder since SageTV does not support it.

With SageTV simultaneously recording on both PVRs I'm at around 5% utilisation. SageTV does not support the ATI card but I can extrapolate what the CPU usage would be. Using ATI standard software, MMC, which supports timeshifting (simultaneous encoding and decoding of 640x480 MPEG-2 video at full quality) I get CPU usage readings of about 50-60%. We can assume that pure software encoding consumes the majority of this(50%). This is using ATI's older software encoder and not the new optimised All In Wonder Encode where we could expect to see better results.

Thus, by extrapolation, if SageTV is simultaneously encoding from both of my PVR-250's and my ATI AIW card, CPU usage should be around 60%.

At this point then I could watch a prerecorded show from my SageTV library, fire up my music jukebox application or watch a DVD. All of those operations consume maximum 15% CPU on my system. Therefore simultaneously recording three channels while performing one other media activity leaves me at 75% CPU utililisation. This is more than enough headroom for any occasional CPU spikes that might occur.

So in my system I can make good use of a software encoder without any constraints on my activities despite the higher performance requirements.

In conclusion then, I'd say that CPU usage being higher with a software encoder is a non-issue if you are category 2 user as I outlines above. I'm sure there's more than a few category 2 users on this board.

Cheers
Lester

[mlbdude]

For software encoders CPU usage above 70% (especially when it is being pushed their by other apps) will start to cause dropped frames and possible sync issues. The hardware encoders in the machine should continue OK though I would assume. I got rid of my AIW when I put in the 250's.

I had dropped frames all the time in my recordings, especially when i launched apps which typically drives up a CPU even for a few seconds.

[JasonJoel]

Yeah, I agree 100% with that.

I guess the software encoding only gets really useful for those of us that have a dedicated PVR machine.

I never launch anything on my PVR server machine, it is there to record with my 2 PVR250's. It also has an AIW video card (for no particular reason than I had one laying around). So for MY uses, I could probably use that AIW for software encodign with good results.

However, I agree 100% that if you use the machine for other uses, you are always better off with hardware encoding.

Jason


Originally posted by mlbdude
For software encoders CPU usage above 70% (especially when it is being pushed their by other apps) will start to cause dropped frames and possible sync issues. The hardware encoders in the machine should continue OK though I would assume. I got rid of my AIW when I put in the 250's.

I had dropped frames all the time in my recordings, especially when i launched apps which typically drives up a CPU even for a few seconds.

[falchulk]

Dedicated PVR's connected to a tv are losing favor. Why not spend a little more money and have a PC that you can play games (recent stuff like halo), surf the web, home automation, answering machine, speak to your family long distance for free, and watch movies and TV? I dreamed of having this ability years ago. I have it now. If you hit a lot of the boards, you will see that this is the way a lot of people are going now. Thats why CPU utilization matters.

FYI, with software encoders, there is an increase in artifacts and pixelation the higher your utilization goes. The cpu utilization most people look at is an average. There are many spikes along the way.

[mlbdude]

My "dedicated" HTPC still has me using it for MP3 and DivX. Heck even jumping out of Sage and opening up Explorer just removed the dedicated part.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Beelzebub
SageTV Setup

$60 Athlon/Intel 1GHz w/motheboard or higher
$60 512 PC2700 DDR
$80 120GB 7200rpm 8mb Buffer
$35 16x DVD
$80 Geforce FX5200/Ati Radeon 9000
$60 SB Audigy 2
$250 SageTV + PVR-350

Total $625

Ehhh... that's waaaay overspecced for a dedicated Sage TV PVR...

For example, you can prob. cut the price for motherboard/CPU in half by going with a 500Mhz machine -- that's plenty already. (I use one -- no problems, really, even with it recording 2 channels on 2 cards and playing back two streams...)

That, in turn, drops memory to a PC100 512 MB, which is around $40, and you can go with pretty much any video card with a TV out.

The audigy 2 probably isn't necessary either -- most "generic" sound cards costing $5-$10 has 5.1 "built-in," and it's unnecessary if you already had a decent sound system.

So, you can actually shave another $100-$200 off of the estimated price -- or, for those who are forever upgrading, just use your old, "unusable" systems with some minor upgrades, and you'd have a decent PVR in addition to your ordinary PC.