Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison • Hacker News Board

Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison

#51

Post by justinclift » Thu, Sep 19, 2024, 1:55 AM UTC

shiroiushi wrote: post #49

justinclift wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They look pretty easily available to me, or are you going to exclude Ebay now as well? https://www.ebay.com/itm/305342386279 (note: I don't know the seller)

Yes, I'd exclude anything on the secondhand market, especially things you have to buy from overseas sellers where there's no possibility of support or returns. This is not like a normal new part where you can purchase it firsthand and expect it to perform as advertised or else get a refund. Furthermore, the (Intel) chipsets on motherboards sold to consumers don't normally support ECC either, so it seems you'd have to…

> if you can't just buy it at Best Buy/NewEgg/Amazon (not from 3rd-party overseas sellers), then it's not applicable to this discussion at all.

Maybe the problems you were having with sourcing the cpus you wanted have something to do with the arbitrary limitations you were working under?

Meanwhile, other people (as per sibling comment) were able to buy these same chips without issue. ;)

Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison

#52

Post by johnklos » Thu, Sep 19, 2024, 3:29 AM UTC

JamesSwift wrote: post #47

johnklos wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transcoding using hardware acceleration is one of those things that some people insist upon, like wanting "gaming" everything and overclocking everything, but most people don't need. First, the quality of output of hardware accelerated transcoding is in most instances noticeably worse than CPU transcoding, as in most people can discern the difference watching two videos side-by-side. Second, CPU transcoding is more t…

> People who want 4K h.265 can buy a fancier CPU. Or they can just get an N95

...and have worse quality, which makes the idea of caring about using real-time transcoding to give the best quality pretty silly.

Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison

#53

Post by JamesSwift » Thu, Sep 19, 2024, 2:48 PM UTC

johnklos wrote: post #52

JamesSwift wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who want 4K h.265 can buy a fancier CPU. Or they can just get an N95

...and have worse quality, which makes the idea of caring about using real-time transcoding to give the best quality pretty silly.

You are comparing a cpu that (... checks google ...) retails for $368 _by itself_ against one that comes in entire-system-minipcs at $149. Yes, the CPU perf is obviously better. In general HTPCs are setup as: 1) direct play or remux for all the primary usecases 2) optional transcoding

The cpu doesnt generally matter for #1. For #2 you are already making tradeoffs so its a bit of a non-argument that "you are losing quality". Its not the primary usecase (either its other users, or streaming on the go).

Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison

#54

Post by riobard » Thu, Sep 19, 2024, 7:42 PM UTC

shiroiushi wrote: post #26

the_snooze wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run Jellyfin on an 8-year-old Intel NUC. Works great. Don't need to worry about transcoding on the fly because I make sure all video files are in H264 going in, which can be direct-streamed to pretty much all clients. https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/clients/codec-support/#vid...

>Don't need to worry about transcoding on the fly because I make sure all video files are in H264 going in, which can be direct-streamed to pretty much all clients. That doesn't work if you use subtitles. With many formats, the subtitles have to be transcoded on-the-fly into the video, even if the source and destination resolution and codec are the same. Also, the Intel NUC might be fine just running Jellyfin (withou…

Subtitles aren’t transcoded into any video. They’re remuxed into the media container. Totally different.

Re: Intel Processor N95 vs. N97 vs. N100 vs. Core I3-N305 Benchmarks Comparison

#55

Post by riobard » Thu, Sep 19, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

johnklos wrote: post #45

shiroiushi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with those inexpensive Ryzens is that they don't have iGPUs with Intel QuickSync so they can't transcode video with high efficiency. This makes them unsuitable for use for media servers, which is what a lot of people are doing with these chips these days: building home NAS/media servers that combine both functions into a single, small, low-power unit. You put a bunch of HDDs in it so you can store tens of…

Transcoding using hardware acceleration is one of those things that some people insist upon, like wanting "gaming" everything and overclocking everything, but most people don't need. First, the quality of output of hardware accelerated transcoding is in most instances noticeably worse than CPU transcoding, as in most people can discern the difference watching two videos side-by-side. Second, CPU transcoding is more t…

I too don’t understand the need for transcoding if the goal is to get best quality. Any transcoding will reduce quality, and given the capability of modern players, the best quality is just the original media file.