|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
On January 17 2013 15:47 Cyro wrote:
By less resource utilization, are you talking about RAM or something? CPU seems to be almost identical and performance of the game or capture methods is really another factor i think
Hmm, should be CPU usage. I have a friend on our CSL team who used to stream with xsplit, and switched to OBS and got a higher quality stream going. He says less CPU usage (through his own checking) overall. Plus, (although this has nothing to do with resources) it's 100% free for equivalent features.
Basically, he streams at a better setting using OBS. Several kids on our CSL team have started using it and pretty much agreed. Not having used it for myself, I only have second hand evidence, but I'm inclined to trust them. None of them are exactly dumb when it comes to that stuff.
|
United Kingdom20317 Posts
On January 17 2013 15:55 Alryk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 15:47 Cyro wrote:
By less resource utilization, are you talking about RAM or something? CPU seems to be almost identical and performance of the game or capture methods is really another factor i think Hmm, should be CPU usage. I have a friend on our CSL team who used to stream with xsplit, and switched to OBS and got a higher quality stream going. He says less CPU usage (through his own checking) overall. Plus, (although this has nothing to do with resources) it's 100% free for equivalent features. Basically, he streams at a better setting using OBS. Several kids on our CSL team have started using it and pretty much agreed. Not having used it for myself, I only have second hand evidence, but I'm inclined to trust them. None of them are exactly dumb when it comes to that stuff.
I have seen no evidence to support lower CPU usage or more efficient encoding/higher quality even though people keep stating it, infact nothing at all other than better capture performance with the game in some cases (which is not insignificant, but besides the point), they both use a variant of x264. Can anyone actually provide a properly set up benchmark for this to back up claims?
|
On January 17 2013 17:21 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 15:55 Alryk wrote:On January 17 2013 15:47 Cyro wrote:
By less resource utilization, are you talking about RAM or something? CPU seems to be almost identical and performance of the game or capture methods is really another factor i think Hmm, should be CPU usage. I have a friend on our CSL team who used to stream with xsplit, and switched to OBS and got a higher quality stream going. He says less CPU usage (through his own checking) overall. Plus, (although this has nothing to do with resources) it's 100% free for equivalent features. Basically, he streams at a better setting using OBS. Several kids on our CSL team have started using it and pretty much agreed. Not having used it for myself, I only have second hand evidence, but I'm inclined to trust them. None of them are exactly dumb when it comes to that stuff. I have seen no evidence to support lower CPU usage or more efficient encoding/higher quality even though people keep stating it, infact nothing at all other than better capture performance with the game in some cases (which is not insignificant, but besides the point), they both use a variant of x264. Can anyone actually provide a properly set up benchmark for this to back up claims?
I don't know if the performance increase comes from the capture or the encoding, but I stream Mechwarrior Online (a very cpu demanding game) and I maintain 50-60fps in game with OBS while streaming 720p and using Xsplit I only get 25fps.
|
On January 17 2013 17:21 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 15:55 Alryk wrote:On January 17 2013 15:47 Cyro wrote:
By less resource utilization, are you talking about RAM or something? CPU seems to be almost identical and performance of the game or capture methods is really another factor i think Hmm, should be CPU usage. I have a friend on our CSL team who used to stream with xsplit, and switched to OBS and got a higher quality stream going. He says less CPU usage (through his own checking) overall. Plus, (although this has nothing to do with resources) it's 100% free for equivalent features. Basically, he streams at a better setting using OBS. Several kids on our CSL team have started using it and pretty much agreed. Not having used it for myself, I only have second hand evidence, but I'm inclined to trust them. None of them are exactly dumb when it comes to that stuff. I have seen no evidence to support lower CPU usage or more efficient encoding/higher quality even though people keep stating it, infact nothing at all other than better capture performance with the game in some cases (which is not insignificant, but besides the point), they both use a variant of x264. Can anyone actually provide a properly set up benchmark for this to back up claims?
Of course the streaming difference can't be that great when both using x264, but isn't it more the same way as CMD FMLE is incredibly much faster than GUI FMLE? Have you used Xsplit recently? It has become incredibly bloated and slow.
|
United Kingdom20317 Posts
On January 17 2013 17:50 Az0r_au wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 17:21 Cyro wrote:On January 17 2013 15:55 Alryk wrote:On January 17 2013 15:47 Cyro wrote:
By less resource utilization, are you talking about RAM or something? CPU seems to be almost identical and performance of the game or capture methods is really another factor i think Hmm, should be CPU usage. I have a friend on our CSL team who used to stream with xsplit, and switched to OBS and got a higher quality stream going. He says less CPU usage (through his own checking) overall. Plus, (although this has nothing to do with resources) it's 100% free for equivalent features. Basically, he streams at a better setting using OBS. Several kids on our CSL team have started using it and pretty much agreed. Not having used it for myself, I only have second hand evidence, but I'm inclined to trust them. None of them are exactly dumb when it comes to that stuff. I have seen no evidence to support lower CPU usage or more efficient encoding/higher quality even though people keep stating it, infact nothing at all other than better capture performance with the game in some cases (which is not insignificant, but besides the point), they both use a variant of x264. Can anyone actually provide a properly set up benchmark for this to back up claims? I don't know if the performance increase comes from the capture or the encoding, but I stream Mechwarrior Online (a very cpu demanding game) and I maintain 50-60fps in game with OBS while streaming 720p and using Xsplit I only get 25fps.
But that has nothing to do with CPU utilization as read in task manager and nothing to do with encode settings, only capture/game performance, no? I just dont want people making false statements (even by accident as most do) about a complicated area with lots of confusion around it
|
On January 17 2013 19:30 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 17:50 Az0r_au wrote:On January 17 2013 17:21 Cyro wrote:On January 17 2013 15:55 Alryk wrote:On January 17 2013 15:47 Cyro wrote:
By less resource utilization, are you talking about RAM or something? CPU seems to be almost identical and performance of the game or capture methods is really another factor i think Hmm, should be CPU usage. I have a friend on our CSL team who used to stream with xsplit, and switched to OBS and got a higher quality stream going. He says less CPU usage (through his own checking) overall. Plus, (although this has nothing to do with resources) it's 100% free for equivalent features. Basically, he streams at a better setting using OBS. Several kids on our CSL team have started using it and pretty much agreed. Not having used it for myself, I only have second hand evidence, but I'm inclined to trust them. None of them are exactly dumb when it comes to that stuff. I have seen no evidence to support lower CPU usage or more efficient encoding/higher quality even though people keep stating it, infact nothing at all other than better capture performance with the game in some cases (which is not insignificant, but besides the point), they both use a variant of x264. Can anyone actually provide a properly set up benchmark for this to back up claims? I don't know if the performance increase comes from the capture or the encoding, but I stream Mechwarrior Online (a very cpu demanding game) and I maintain 50-60fps in game with OBS while streaming 720p and using Xsplit I only get 25fps. But that has nothing to do with CPU utilization as read in task manager and nothing to do with encode settings, only capture/game performance, no? I just dont want people making false statements (even by accident as most do) about a complicated area with lots of confusion around it
I sort of butted in to your discussion halfway thru so sorry if this wasn't what you were discussing. The way I see it in a game that is CPU limited (SC2, Mechwarrior Online) less cpu usage by the broadcast software (weather its the capture or the encoding) directly translates into higher framerates, ergo OBS uses less resources because I get better fps in game.
|
United Kingdom20317 Posts
On January 17 2013 19:38 Az0r_au wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 19:30 Cyro wrote:On January 17 2013 17:50 Az0r_au wrote:On January 17 2013 17:21 Cyro wrote:On January 17 2013 15:55 Alryk wrote:On January 17 2013 15:47 Cyro wrote:
By less resource utilization, are you talking about RAM or something? CPU seems to be almost identical and performance of the game or capture methods is really another factor i think Hmm, should be CPU usage. I have a friend on our CSL team who used to stream with xsplit, and switched to OBS and got a higher quality stream going. He says less CPU usage (through his own checking) overall. Plus, (although this has nothing to do with resources) it's 100% free for equivalent features. Basically, he streams at a better setting using OBS. Several kids on our CSL team have started using it and pretty much agreed. Not having used it for myself, I only have second hand evidence, but I'm inclined to trust them. None of them are exactly dumb when it comes to that stuff. I have seen no evidence to support lower CPU usage or more efficient encoding/higher quality even though people keep stating it, infact nothing at all other than better capture performance with the game in some cases (which is not insignificant, but besides the point), they both use a variant of x264. Can anyone actually provide a properly set up benchmark for this to back up claims? I don't know if the performance increase comes from the capture or the encoding, but I stream Mechwarrior Online (a very cpu demanding game) and I maintain 50-60fps in game with OBS while streaming 720p and using Xsplit I only get 25fps. But that has nothing to do with CPU utilization as read in task manager and nothing to do with encode settings, only capture/game performance, no? I just dont want people making false statements (even by accident as most do) about a complicated area with lots of confusion around it I sort of butted in to your discussion halfway thru so sorry if this wasn't what you were discussing. The way I see it in a game that is CPU limited (SC2, Mechwarrior Online) less cpu usage by the broadcast software (weather its the capture or the encoding) directly translates into higher framerates, ergo OBS uses less resources because I get better fps in game. Sorry if this
But encoding doesnt take that much CPU usage, almost all of the performance hits on the game are from screen/game capture methods. Sc2 is CPU bottlenecked, but incredibly CPU light at the same time, see below pic
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i2cwO.png)
less cpu usage by the broadcast software (weather its the capture or the encoding) directly translates into higher framerates
This is true in some cases, but there are very few games that will heavily load a quad core and even they seem to lose more performance in the capture stage than encoding and CPU usage. OBS and Xsplit have almost identical CPU usage for the same resolution/fps/preset/scene encoding task AFAIK too. Their differences are mostly elsewhere
|
On January 17 2013 19:50 Cyro wrote:
This is true in some cases, but there are very few games that will heavily load a quad core and even they seem to lose more performance in the capture stage than encoding and CPU usage. OBS and Xsplit have almost identical CPU usage for the same resolution/fps/preset/scene encoding task AFAIK too. Their differences are mostly elsewhere
If you're running without a capture card does it really matter if it's the capture or the encoding that uses less resources as all of it's going to be on the CPU anyway?
|
United Kingdom20317 Posts
^Encode performance is usually measured in CPU load % and how much the CPU can handle, capture uses different resources that can bring your game to a crawl without leaving a dent in task manager. I dont really understand a lot of stuff well enough to explain
|
On January 17 2013 20:26 Az0r_au wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 19:50 Cyro wrote:
This is true in some cases, but there are very few games that will heavily load a quad core and even they seem to lose more performance in the capture stage than encoding and CPU usage. OBS and Xsplit have almost identical CPU usage for the same resolution/fps/preset/scene encoding task AFAIK too. Their differences are mostly elsewhere
If you're running without a capture card does it really matter if it's the capture or the encoding that uses less resources as all of it's going to be on the CPU anyway?
YES. It does. If the encoding is slowing the game, drop to a faster preset. If the screen capture is causing you issues, drop to a lower capture framerate, or suck it up, but you can raise the preset until you reach the point where you start to get a performance hit from the encoding, then take it back a level.
Edit: I misread the question slightly, I interpreted it as "... if the capture or encoding is slowing the game down." Which I interpreted as which one is having the biggest effect on game performance.
|
Ah thanks for explaining that to me.
|
Hmm ok. Maybe you can think of it in an inverse way, as in the same 720p30fps stream would use less CPU on obs, while you can simultaneously run 720p60fps at the same workload as a lower quality stream on xsplit?
Like I said, I've never used it personally (still stuck on a DC for my desktop) but my friends have definitely been able to put out higher quality streams using it. We could also mention it being free etc. But that's a different matter and not really relevant 
Note: as a result of not using obs, I have zero streaming experience. You mentioned that encoding uses few resources, so maybe 720-30 &720-60 are negligibly the same for CPU? I'm not sure how the frame capturing scales with resolution/quality.
|
Task manager is not really an appropriate tool for measuring CPU consumption at that level of detail. The graph simply doesnt have the resolution for that kind of scientific diagnosis.
There are better tools out there that let you plot out a period of activity, that you can then analyze. But anything giving you information in realtime just doesnt have the ability to show you the full data.
And the way task manager handles hyperthreading is somewhat criminal, anyone looking at that and not knowing any better is gonna think they have 8 true cores.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United Kingdom20317 Posts
Hmm ok. Maybe you can think of it in an inverse way, as in the same 720p30fps stream would use less CPU on obs, while you can simultaneously run 720p60fps at the same workload as a lower quality stream on xsplit?
This is not true, there is nothing to make OBS's output higher quality or pull down CPU usage by a notable amount AFAIK.
Your friends probably did what everybody else did, loaded OBS, saw they had higher framerates ingame and assumed that was tied to requiring a less powerful CPU to encode at the same settings and quality. The advantage for most people is in capture and game performance, not in being able to encode at the same resolution, fps, preset, quality at the same bitrate etc with less hardware, because that's not really possible
You could almost certainly open Xsplit in this case with whatever capture method they used (xsplit 1.1 screen region probably) and pull off the same stream output, the problem is just that a lot of people get awful game performance when doing this, and better performance with OBS. If the game didnt drop below the stream FPS, the differences would probably be invisible to the viewer. I just think its important to keep CPU load from encoding and other resources from screen/game capturing etc seperately in discussion (instead of lumping them together), because there's a lot more complex stuff than most people seem to realize
|
On January 18 2013 00:45 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Hmm ok. Maybe you can think of it in an inverse way, as in the same 720p30fps stream would use less CPU on obs, while you can simultaneously run 720p60fps at the same workload as a lower quality stream on xsplit? This is not true, there is nothing to make OBS's output higher quality or pull down CPU usage by a notable amount AFAIK. Your friends probably did what everybody else did, loaded OBS, saw they had higher framerates ingame and assumed that was tied to requiring a less powerful CPU to encode at the same settings and quality. The advantage for most people is in capture and game performance, not in being able to encode at the same resolution, fps, preset, quality at the same bitrate etc with less hardware, because that's not really possible You could almost certainly open Xsplit in this case with whatever capture method they used (xsplit 1.1 screen region probably) and pull off the same stream output, the problem is just that a lot of people get awful game performance when doing this, and better performance with OBS. If the game didnt drop below the stream FPS, the differences would probably be invisible to the viewer. I just think its important to keep CPU load from encoding and other resources from screen/game capturing etc seperately in discussion (instead of lumping them together), because there's a lot more complex stuff than most people seem to realize
Ah good to know. What exactly makes OBS better at screen capture/game performance then? Or why is this the case?
|
Hi,
I need to replace my graphic card (the one I have is 6 years old and crashes my computer once every three weeks due to overheating) and I'm thinking about just building a new one from scratch. Not entirely sure if I'm going to do it, but I want to start getting info to make an informed decision.
+ Show Spoiler +What is your budget?I'd like it to be 600, but it's a very lose budget. If someone tells me to spend 850 and explains why it's worth it, I could be convinced. What is your resolution?1920X1200 What are you using it for?Boring internet/school things. I play games on it, but I don't buy new games often at all, so if it can run shogun2 total war, that's more than good enough. triple monitor would be cool, but I assume that it is significantly more expensive and not worth it. Pretty much I want something that is pretty good now, and will stay good for years. What is your upgrade cycle?as long as is reasonable When do you plan on building it?I'm in no rush. If there is a good reason to wait 4 months, that's fine. Do you plan on overclocking?no Do you need an Operating System?most likely, let's assume yes for now Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?No Where are you buying your parts from?Live in continental United States. microcenter and frys are both within driving distance. I also have a bunch of parts that are either in the comp I'm using now, or were salvaged from other comps in the past. I don't know how much of it is relevant. + Show Spoiler +
As a more general question: how hard is it to actually build the thing? I'm not the best at the technical stuff, certainly no stranger to simple things like replacing ram/graphics cards. Is it something I can figure out myself, or do I really need someone who has done it before to make sure I don't fry my new shiny GPU day 1?
|
On January 18 2013 06:13 hacklebeast wrote:Hi, I need to replace my graphic card (the one I have is 6 years old and crashes my computer once every three weeks due to overheating) and I'm thinking about just building a new one from scratch. Not entirely sure if I'm going to do it, but I want to start getting info to make an informed decision. + Show Spoiler +What is your budget?I'd like it to be 600, but it's a very lose budget. If someone tells me to spend 850 and explains why it's worth it, I could be convinced. What is your resolution?1920X1200 What are you using it for?Boring internet/school things. I play games on it, but I don't buy new games often at all, so if it can run shogun2 total war, that's more than good enough. triple monitor would be cool, but I assume that it is significantly more expensive and not worth it. Pretty much I want something that is pretty good now, and will stay good for years. What is your upgrade cycle?as long as is reasonable When do you plan on building it?I'm in no rush. If there is a good reason to wait 4 months, that's fine. Do you plan on overclocking?no Do you need an Operating System?most likely, let's assume yes for now Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?No Where are you buying your parts from?Live in continental United States. microcenter and frys are both within driving distance. I also have a bunch of parts that are either in the comp I'm using now, or were salvaged from other comps in the past. I don't know how much of it is relevant. + Show Spoiler + As a more general question: how hard is it to actually build the thing? I'm not the best at the technical stuff, certainly no stranger to simple things like replacing ram/graphics cards. Is it something I can figure out myself, or do I really need someone who has done it before to make sure I don't fry my new shiny GPU day 1?
If you've replaced the graphics card and memory before then you've already experienced a quarter of what building a computer is like. The rest of it isn't all that much harder. There's a wealth of resources available at your disposable to help you - videos on youtube detailing the whole process, the instruction manuals that come with the product themselves, and there's individuals on the forums that will gladly help you.
Since you currently have a HP prebuilt which is roughly four years old, it's probably best to start from scratch. The HP case is probably a nightmare to work in due to not having routing holes, other cable management features, sharp edges, and being packed. The power supply is weak and very likely to be of garbage quality so that will need to be replaced if you intend on putting a decent graphics card in there.
Building yourself means you select the components yourself so you can invest in whichever way you like. You can purchase a basic $50, $100, etc case. A case will last forever basically until a new form factor replaces ATX completely (which isn't anytime soon) so you can keep it for multiple builds or purchase a new one and now and then for the various improvements / features / style changes / etc (and sell your old case). Quality power supplies will also last through several builds, all the good units carry five year warranties, higher-end ones come with seven and ten. Drives of course can be carried forward until they die or become utterly pointless.
I think you can imagine how this is much better than buying a prebuilt every few years. You end up with a much better computer and saving money in the long run.
If you just want to play a game on the main monitor (1080p) and have the other two monitors for browsing, instant messaging, and so on then that's simple as all modern cards suitable for gaming at reasonably high settings can support more three or more monitors. Current Intel motherboards can also support monitors. The extra monitors for basic stuff isn't taxing for the graphics at all so there's no performance issues to worry about. Acquiring the three monitors is typically more expensive than the graphics card itself.
If you want to do Eyefinity (gaming across three monitors, resolution of 5760x1080) then that would be expensive since you need to do CrossfireX or SLI with the more higher-end cards to get a decent gaming experience at that sort of resolution.
The sound card can be definitely be used. The DDR3 memory can be re-used if really necessary due to budget constraints but that shouldn't be a problem with a $600-$850 budget. The rest of the memory (laptop, DDR2, DDR1) won't be usable though. You can salvage the HDD, DVD-drive, and DDR3 memory from your existing HP if you decide to build new.
|
If I'm getting a new case and power supply, what makes one "quality"? I assume the difference is cases is mostly cosmetic, but the price in power supplys varies way too much for there not to be a significant difference.
|
Hi guys. I really have no clue when it comes to pricing or parts. I opened a thread about upgrading my CPU and motherboard not too long ago, but unexpected expenses came up and I was unable to buy what was suggested. I now have enough money for a completely new build. I live right by a microcenter, but if it's better to buy online that's fine too.
What is your budget?
$1100
What is your resolution?
1920 x 1080
What are you using it for?
Mostly SC2 some CSGO and hopefully Planetside 2 (My current PC can't handle its awesomeness.)
What is your upgrade cycle?
2-4 years
When do you plan on building it?
Sometime this month.
Do you plan on overclocking?
No
Do you need an Operating System?
Yes, but that's included in my budget.
Do you plan to add a second GPU for SLI or Crossfire?
No
Where are you buying your parts from?
Microcenter
Edit: Spelling
Edit #2: I forgot to mention that I'm going to keep my current hard drive for storage and would like an SSD for OS and some games.
|
On January 18 2013 07:08 hacklebeast wrote:
If I'm getting a new case and power supply, what makes one "quality"? I assume the difference is cases is mostly cosmetic, but the price in power supplys varies way too much for there not to be a significant difference.
Cases include different quality of materials, thickness of the metal (which affects noise iirc), quality of the metal, ease of building, size, etc. Some cases have better airflow than others which could help make for better overclocking.
Power supply quality is generally determined by how much amperage it delivers on the 12V rail. Look at the 12V rail on newegg, and higher is better. Usually a decent quality 450W can power any single GPU configuration. (Value would be Antec Neo Eco, Corsair CX430, high quality being Rosewill Capstone for the US, and not sure about EU. There are a couple choices).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
