EPTSimple Questions Simple Answers - Page 114
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Josh_rakoons
United Kingdom1158 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 26 2012 03:48 Myrmidon wrote: Assuming 3.2 Mbps average bitrate (a bit high for an average maybe), that's 0.4 MB/s. 0.4 MB/s * 60 s/min * 60 min/hour * 40 hours = 57600 MB = 57.6 GB. 1GB = 1024MB so it actually comes out to about 56.25GB. If I'm thinking about this right, that wouldn't account for audio though. And the size of the audio would depend greatly on the type of compression being used (acc, speex, etc.) and the audio quality. | ||
|
Josh_rakoons
United Kingdom1158 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On April 26 2012 03:58 TheToast wrote: 1GB = 1024MB so it actually comes out to about 56.25GB. If I'm thinking about this right, that wouldn't account for audio though. And the size of the audio would depend greatly on the type of compression being used (acc, speex, etc.) and the audio quality. Most compressed audio shouldn't be that huge, and even if it were stereo CD-quality uncompressed 16-bit / 44.1 kHz LPCM (lol), that's just 1411.2 kbps, and not really going to change much. I kinda already included the audio with the vague estimate earlier. 1GiB = 1024 MiB. G and M suffixes are the decimal (power of 10) suffixes. You need the i for the binary suffixes. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 26 2012 04:00 Josh_rakoons wrote: speex, again, sorry for the lack of detail. I'm not sure what the default bit rate Xsplit uses, but I can safely say that using speex you probably won't even break the 60GB mark for the total size. | ||
|
Josh_rakoons
United Kingdom1158 Posts
If you don't mind answering another question, why doesn't the resolution factor in at all with the amount of space taken up? I was under the impression that 1080p video was much much much larger than 720p. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 26 2012 04:04 Myrmidon wrote: 1GiB = 1024 MiB. G and M suffixes are the decimal (power of 10) suffixes. You need the i for the binary suffixes. Yes, Mega and Giga are metric prefixes (suffixes are the things you put at the end of words) to denote 10^3 and 10^9, repectively. While originally the term gibibit would have been accurate, in 2000 IEEE officially adopted the use of the metric prefix as the correct usage denoting a system based on the powers of 2. So you are wrong. Not only that, but every modern OS defines Mega and Giga as 2^20 and 2^30, respectively. Since in this context we are discussing how much disc space his recording would take up on his computer--which can only be measured through the usage of an OS such as Windows--it should be clear that the Gigabyte he is talking about refers to 2^30 bytes. So, you would be wrong again. The only people who still define Gigabyte as 10^9 bytes are the HDD and SDD manufacturers as it make their drives sound larger than they really are. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 26 2012 04:05 Josh_rakoons wrote: Well, that is obviously good to hear that i won't have to use 3TB to record the footage. If you don't mind answering another question, why doesn't the resolution factor in at all with the amount of space taken up? I was under the impression that 1080p video was much much much larger than 720p. It's encoded, so you can go by bitrate. If you're streaming at a bitrate of 3Mb/s after encoding, then 3,000,000 bits, divided by 8 for bytes, per second. Then just multiply out. If you're grabbing raw or nearly raw data, like FRAPS with it's limited encoding, resolution makes an exponentially larger difference. | ||
|
Halure
Canada26 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 26 2012 06:44 Halure wrote: What sort of software am I going to need to test stability for a new build? (CPU, memory, temps, etc) Unless you're overclocking you really shouldn't need to test stability. If you are, I know CPU Burn-in is a popular tool for testing CPU stability, additionally you could realistically use any benchmarking tool like PC mark or 3D mark and push the settings up pretty high. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 26 2012 06:48 TheToast wrote: Unless you're overclocking you really shouldn't need to test stability. If you are, I know CPU Burn-in is a popular tool for testing CPU stability, additionally you could realistically use any benchmarking tool like PC mark or 3D mark and push the settings up pretty high. Nah, futuremark tools require a license to loop, and without looping, it's a bad test for stability and temps. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 26 2012 06:54 JingleHell wrote: Nah, futuremark tools require a license to loop, and without looping, it's a bad test for stability and temps. Ah didn't realize that, well nvm! I'd say CPU-burn in would be the best bet for testing a processor oc for stability. There's a few apps on source forge that may be worth checking out as well. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On April 26 2012 07:02 TheToast wrote: Ah didn't realize that, well nvm! I'd say CPU-burn in would be the best bet for testing a processor oc for stability. There's a few apps on source forge that may be worth checking out as well. I'll just recommend occt for this again, it has a special cpu test designed by them but also linpack which is pretty much generating more heat than any program and is great for stability testing. Also it's easy enough to keep track of your voltages, clocks and temperatures and loads in just one window without having to use another program for sensor readings... Also has a crosstest in order to fully load your PSU. Probably the best if you just want one program to test with extensively without worrying about other things. Another thing that puts unrealistic loads on cpu and gpu is folding@home, if it registers even the slightest instability in the result generated it will terminate it, it's actually very good for testing your max OC on the GPU. Prime 95 probably the most used stability test program, easy to see which cores fail and also tests memory. | ||
|
Halure
Canada26 Posts
On April 26 2012 07:24 Shauni wrote: I'll just recommend occt for this again, it has a special cpu test designed by them but also linpack which is pretty much generating more heat than any program and is great for stability testing. Also it's easy enough to keep track of your voltages, clocks and temperatures and loads in just one window without having to use another program for sensor readings... Also has a crosstest in order to fully load your PSU. Probably the best if you just want one program to test with extensively without worrying about other things. Another thing that puts unrealistic loads on cpu and gpu is folding@home, if it registers even the slightest instability in the result generated it will terminate it, it's actually very good for testing your max OC on the GPU. Prime 95 probably the most used stability test program, easy to see which cores fail and also tests memory. I am overclocking... I probably should have mentioned that earlier, lol. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On April 26 2012 04:15 TheToast wrote: Yes, Mega and Giga are metric prefixes (suffixes are the things you put at the end of words) to denote 10^3 and 10^9, repectively. While originally the term gibibit would have been accurate, in 2000 IEEE officially adopted the use of the metric prefix as the correct usage denoting a system based on the powers of 2. So you are wrong. Not only that, but every modern OS defines Mega and Giga as 2^20 and 2^30, respectively. Since in this context we are discussing how much disc space his recording would take up on his computer--which can only be measured through the usage of an OS such as Windows--it should be clear that the Gigabyte he is talking about refers to 2^30 bytes. So, you would be wrong again. The only people who still define Gigabyte as 10^9 bytes are the HDD and SDD manufacturers as it make their drives sound larger than they really are. I'm late in responding here and I'm sure that nobody cares, but you're right for this context that the 2^n representation should be used, since that is what a user would look at (and obviously a suffix is not a prefix, doh). Most modern operating systems use 2^n. I don't use it, but OS X since Snow Leopard uses 10^m, so it's not quite every modern OS going the other route. Usually the decimal representations are still used with regards to networking though. If the stream is 3.2 Mbps on average, that is 3200000 bits per second, which would translate to 0.38147 MiB (MB for this context) sent to storage per second. Do you have a reference for IEEE in 2000 going with SI prefixes meaning 2^n? Seems like this is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1541 | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On April 26 2012 02:23 infinity21 wrote: According to here, the price is actually ~$800 so I think it's just some weird discount. I haven't bought a new laptop in 4~5 years so I'm pretty out of touch with what's standard. @Womwomwom: By <1", I meant more like 0.9-1.1" since 0.7 is getting into ultrabook territory and those things are way too expensive for the performance. My price range is something like $700-1000 CAD but I came across this one and it seems to be a pretty good deal. Other laptops I was considering include Lenovo U400, Dell XPS 14z, Sony Vaio S, and Lenovo T420 if that helps. Sorry for the late reply. Lenovo U400 is balls. Its aesthetically good but everything else, from battery life to screen, is pretty average at best. Dell XPS 14z is a very thin Dell Inspiron. Sony Vaio S is fairly pricey and has a terrible screen. There's apparently a Sony E14P coming out soon, which might be decent. The Lenovo T420 is the best overall laptop because unlike the others, its a business class laptop. Its fairly bulky but the build quality is beyond anything you will find in Best Buy, except perhaps a Macbook Pro. The screen still sucks, though, but what can you do? Note: I put internal specs last. I put build quality, keyboard quality, and screen quality above all else when buying a laptop. | ||
|
Sovano
United States1503 Posts
My second question is does voltage matter for every hardware piece? I do not know if some pieces of hardware are dependent on the amount of voltage they can get or not.. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 26 2012 21:10 Sovano wrote: Is an HDD compatible to any computer? One of my computers had a boot disk failure and I rooted the problem to the HDD. I have other HDDs lying around in my house and was wondering if I could use any or does it have to be a certain type. My second question is does voltage matter for every hardware piece? I do not know if some pieces of hardware are dependent on the amount of voltage they can get or not.. HDD's are compatible if they have the right interface. (Can you plug the cables in without a hammer?) And yes, as it turn out, we call computers electronic because they take electricity. Now different components require a more significant amount of amperage, and run off different voltages from the PSU, but yes, electricity is kind of important. Now this isn't quite lined up with what you asked literally, but it's lined up with what it sounded like you meant. Because it would sound even more painfully smartass if I answered the question you inadvertantly asked. | ||
|
Sovano
United States1503 Posts
On April 26 2012 21:40 JingleHell wrote: HDD's are compatible if they have the right interface. (Can you plug the cables in without a hammer?) And yes, as it turn out, we call computers electronic because they take electricity. Now different components require a more significant amount of amperage, and run off different voltages from the PSU, but yes, electricity is kind of important. Now this isn't quite lined up with what you asked literally, but it's lined up with what it sounded like you meant. Because it would sound even more painfully smartass if I answered the question you inadvertantly asked. Thank you. The reasons for my questions is that I had tried an HDD that I had got yesterday from a broken computer, and used it as a replacement for my broken HDD in my current computer. I could plug in everything perfectly and when I turned it on the computer worked normal. Although it made a few strange noises for the first few minutes, so I was sketchy of whether HDDs are universally compatible, which led me to asking the question here on TL. Though basing my next statement on your answer, then it seems that my HDD is compatible after all which is a relief. The question I had posed about the amount of voltage (or amperes, don't know which) comes from a previous experience. The broken computer's HDD I had used was broken because of a power supply issue. This was several years back when I had relatively little amounts of knowledge about computers, and thought that my new graphics card I had installed a few months prior to the computer's breakdown had a direct correlation to the power supply breaking down. I'm still not really sure to be quite honest. | ||
| ||
