Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pinos Is For Linux Video What PulseAudio Is For Audio

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post

    Something seems off here. On Arch Linux with the default PulseAudio config it uses less than 1% of the CPU when playing audio.
    1% of what CPU though? If you've got a quad-core system with twice the per-core performance of mine, they'd be roughly equivalent.

    Also, the most performant config I could come up with that didn't result in horrendous audio distortion is relying on tsched=0.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

      1% of what CPU though? If you've got a quad-core system with twice the per-core performance of mine, they'd be roughly equivalent.

      Also, the most performant config I could come up with that didn't result in horrendous audio distortion is relying on tsched=0.
      Even when I was using a core i3 from the same time period as your CPU, I wasn't seeing 10% of it used when playing audio. Something's not right in your config man.

      Comment


      • #73
        Never wrote here before, but as a "casual" and hobbyist Linux user I see two kind of people that gives me the chill:
        1) those who refuse to accept everything made after 1995;
        2) those who complain about being forced to use something and then uses *buntu distros, like complaining about systemd while using fedora.
        For the first ones, I know in the ol' good times you could work anything out with a rubber band and a paper clip, but things change and modern solutions are not pure evil.
        For the latter, arch, gentoo, funtoo, Slackware, lunar and loads of distros out there let you chose, don't tell me you have time to configure the way your sound card manage latency and buffer and you don't have time to spend on installing a different distro.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by anarki View Post

          I'm happy someone already pointed this out. Ridiculous. Like only one app could use the sound card before Pulse. Whaaat?
          Yes, it was true for all soundcards without proper hardware mixers. Surprisingly they aren't rare, nearly all usb-audio (in e.g. usb headphones), very many integrated sound chips, etc don't have mixers. As long as I used SB Live in my desktop, I also didn't notice any problems with ALSA, but when I got usb headphones, my world turned around and I saw the purpose of PulseAudio.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by duby229 View Post

            Benchmarks don't lie.
            I didn't say that benchmarks lie. I did say that you lie to sell more hardware.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by duby229 View Post

              I benchmark the hardware in their machine vs what I'm trying to sell them. And Yeah, including SSDs. They're pretty easy to sell because of how well they benchmark. Mostly RAM and SSDs. Sometimes video cards too. Rarely CPUs unless I'm trying to sell a new computer.
              Oh, come on, keep that bullshit to yourself. You admitted in one of your previous post that you sell dedicated GPUs to your customers on the base that you told them that integrated Intel GPUs are not sufficient to run a Windows desktop. That is not only plain wrong and a lie, this is fraudulent behavior. With this fraudulent behavior you have lost all credibility, so why should we believe anything you say?

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post

                Oh, come on, keep that bullshit to yourself. You admitted in one of your previous post that you sell dedicated GPUs to your customers on the base that you told them that integrated Intel GPUs are not sufficient to run a Windows desktop. That is not only plain wrong and a lie, this is fraudulent behavior. With this fraudulent behavior you have lost all credibility, so why should we believe anything you say?
                When someone brings their machine to me so I can fix it, that's what I do. In every case I can I sell a GPU to replace Intel's. That's the right thing to do for my customers. Recently I have gotten my hands on some of the new 6200 eDRAM and those are fine. I haven't had any problems with those. Desktop tearing is still horrible (not video tearing, desktop tearing) but performance is much better. Like I siad benchmarks don't lie. When a benchmark shows a customer that their integrated GPU is literally 20 times slower it's pretty easy to sell.

                edit: My job is to make sure that their computers are usable when they get them back. I do whats right by my customers. That's better than what Intel can say.
                Last edited by duby229; 02 July 2015, 10:12 AM.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post

                  When someone brings their machine to me so I can fix it, that's what I do. In every case I can I sell a GPU to replace Intel's. That's the right thing to do for my customers. Recently I have gotten my hands on some of the new 6200 eDRAM and those are fine. I haven't had any problems with those. Desktop tearing is still horrible (not video tearing, desktop tearing) but performance is much better. Like I siad benchmarks don't lie. When a benchmark shows a customer that their integrated GPU is literally 20 times slower it's pretty easy to sell.

                  edit: My job is to make sure that their computers are usable when they get them back. I do whats right by my customers. That's better than what Intel can say.
                  So you are still insisting that Intel GPUs are not sufficient to run a Windows desktop?

                  And you have the audacity to call other people liar.

                  Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post

                    So you are still insisting that Intel GPUs are not sufficient to run a Windows desktop?

                    And you have the audacity to call other people liar.

                    Pathetic. Simply pathetic.
                    This coming from you.

                    Let me try to be perfectly clear, Intel as a company has provided top end CPU's based on their x86 architecture for decades. They've saturated most markets and it's because they provide damn good processors. But seriously look at the history of Intel's GPU's in that same time period.

                    Let's not forget about GMA graphics.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA

                    It's true the story changed when Intel released it's first series of APU's with HD graphics.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_..._Iris_Graphics

                    But the real truth is that behind all that Intel is at least in part directly responsible for the decline PC gaming. GMA couldn't do it at all and HD can only do it on minimum setting in most games. Everybody knows they have to target an unrealistically low bar because of Intel. I think with Iris with eDRAM Intel finally realized that people want to game in their spare time. I don't understand why it took them so many decades to realize that. It finally raises the minimum bar to something realistic.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by duby229 View Post

                      This coming from you.

                      Let me try to be perfectly clear, Intel as a company has provided top end CPU's based on their x86 architecture for decades. They've saturated most markets and it's because they provide damn good processors. But seriously look at the history of Intel's GPU's in that same time period.

                      Let's not forget about GMA graphics.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA

                      It's true the story changed when Intel released it's first series of APU's with HD graphics.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_..._Iris_Graphics

                      But the real truth is that behind all that Intel is at least in part directly responsible for the decline PC gaming. GMA couldn't do it at all and HD can only do it on minimum setting in most games. Everybody knows they have to target an unrealistically low bar because of Intel. I think with Iris with eDRAM Intel finally realized that people want to game in their spare time. I don't understand why it took them so many decades to realize that. It finally raises the minimum bar to something realistic.

                      You didn't address the question you quoted at all. Why switch the topic to PC gaming?

                      I'll go on to state some facts, which are so obvious, it's ridiculous and embarrassing to have to state them
                      - Intel integrated GPUs are obviously sufficient to run an office desktop.
                      - They are sufficient to use the web browser, office software and games that do not put stress on the GPU (like card games, chess, etc. Moorhuhm, retro games, etc.)
                      - benchmarks can be designed to prove any given point. I can write a benchmark that simulates typing 10 letters, checking e-mail, watching some videos and a round playing tetris. The only difference this benchmark will show is increased power consumption in a system with discrete graphics.
                      - telling (I'm not implying you're doing this) people indiscriminately that they'd benefit from discrete graphics should be considered a fraudulent ripoff, an offense to the environment (what a waste of electrical power) and is generally a strong indicator that the person making the statement is full of ****.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X