Posts: 205
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
spozen
Senior Member
Posts: 205
I certainly don't get better performance with Speedstep, but that might be because i only have a E7300, (clocks to default clock speed when i enable SpeedStep).
And i can't seem to get rid of the dropping of 15 frames i tried clocking it to 3.1GHz(from 3.06) and that didn't change anything so i guess it's a network issue right?
Posts: 346
Joined: Jul 2006
Reputation:
2
2009-01-25, 10:57
(This post was last modified: 2009-01-25, 11:26 by pilluli.)
Hi,
I wanted to report my findings in this problem. I'm using ffplay compiled within the xbmc svn (no patches) so I guess I'm using the *same* ffmpeg that xbmc uses. I'm using ffplay as reference as I can not run xbmc in all my tests (when chrooted for instance, read below). My hardware is a mobo asus p5n7a-vm and e8400 at 3GHz (stock speed).
Hardy partition:
- Both xbmc and ffplay plays smooth killasample
Intrepid partition:
- Xbmc and stand alone ffplay drops frames
- running ffplay in the compile chroot (running it from intrepid) seems to *drop* frames
So, first of all we must take into account that I have no way (that I know of) to know the objective number of dropped frames in ffplay so it is more a subjective impression. To be exact, I can not use all hardy libs in the intrepid test, ffplay still links with intrepid libraries: libbz2.so.1.0 libpthread.so.0 libm.so.6 libdl.so.2 so it may well be one of them.
I'm going to try to reproduce the tests without gnome or any gnome deamons but I guess I need a way to know the dropped frames in standalone ffplay, anybody knows? How is xbmc doing it?
later and sorry for the long and not really so helping post :-(
EDIT: I have manage to run ffplay in intrepid using all hardy libraries but libc (obviously) and it *seems* to be better but as said I do need a way to report dropped frames in ffplay to be sure though!!!
Posts: 4,997
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
12
Dropped frames is a piss poor metric, you need to watch the core utilization and ensure that it remains balanced through the entire sample.
Posts: 51
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
i can confirm that there still is a performance drop with upto alsa-1.0.19 and daily snapshots - and the most recent alsa-libs. Also i notice that lib is to do with pulse audio. i do not have pulse installed - no gdm/gnome either, xbmc compiled with --disable-pulse option, performance is still bad.
Posts: 1
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
Is the CPU frequency scaling working for you guys?
I've found that I can only get acceptable XBMC performance in Hardy by setting my frequency governor to 'performance' using cpufreq-utils (3GHZ Dual-core AM2), however I wasn't able to do this on my fully patched up Intrepid installation (same hardware) because the kernel isn't properly detecting my AMD AM2's Powernow features.
It's a long shot, but I wondered if it could be related to this thread (I'm suffering with the same problem. A patched SVN xbmc plays perfectly on Intrepid, but as others have noted is unstable, so not exactly high on the WAF.)
Posts: 1,414
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
35
I really gave up for now. I tested every possible scenarios with differnt libs, compiles.
We need to have someone who knows the working of the cabac patch for xbmc to check why it is not working.
I think you should try Ubuntu Jaunty as it could have better support for your hardware, but for now it is not stable yet.