Anyone do streaming?

[VirtualLarry]

Play console games, and stream them on the internet? I want to talk to you.
(Twitch.tv, own3d.tv, etc.)

I need to know what kind of rig is necessary for streaming. A friend wants to build a new computer to do streaming.

Wondering whether to go with an AMD or Intel solution, either an X6 @ 3.5Ghz, or a 2500K (or IB equivalent) @ 4.5Ghz.

Wondering if streaming benefits from more cores, or faster cores.

Friend also wants to stream emulators.

 

[MrWizzard]

I do, not very often, but I built a rig just for it.

With mine you can stream pretty much any system and any game out there. It's a dedicated machine with a capture card.

2500K STOCK is plenty if it's a dedicated machine. Mine never gets past 50% usage and I have streamed 1080P. If he can afford it, dedicated is better than 1 machine that does the playing and the streaming, you have a lot more options but will pay for it.

LMK if you got any quesitons.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, this machine would have to handle both playing the emulator, and running the streaming. He wouldn't want two machines.

I've heard someone advocate even installing a DVI/VGA capture card for emulators, saying to output the monitor output, and loop it back into the capture card to stream.

I have a hard time believing that would be faster than just using some sort of screencam software that grabs the frame-buffer 30/60 times every second.

My biggest question is, is "more cores" better, or "fewer, but faster cores"?

I know that emulators really want the fastest cores possible, but with the additional screencam software, and the actual stream encoding, I would think that multiple cores would help with that.

 

[MrWizzard]

I would say go with more cores rather than faster fewer cores. More programs you run would be able to take advantage of the more cores.

Then mess with the affinity if needed try to deal out the cores as needed.

With multiple programs running more cores seem better than less cores but more speed, to a point….

The guys I talk to online who have that type of setup are usually running the I7s with the 6 cores.

 

[sygyzy]

I don't understand what this mean? Do you mean a setup like OnLive where your console is running off a server at home and you can play the games from a hotel room or something? Or do you mean streaming your live game play for an audience?

 

[ApexBoost]

Hes talking about streaming live gameplay to an audience.

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

It depends a lot on the quality of the streaming (which in turn probably depends a lot on the connection). I've done a decent amount of streaming PC games through Livestream (which is also what twitch.tv actually uses behind the scenes) using the rig in my sig.

I can't reliably stream much above their "normal" profile due to my connection, and that uses around 15% of my CPU time. Skyrim runs just fine at the same time. Trying just now, and HD+Medium+Mobile pushes it up to the mid 40s, and as far as I can tell is spread across all cores pretty evenly.

I'd probably go with the i5, myself. The faster cores will be good for emulators, and it has more than enough overall power to handle the streaming, too. In fact, at 4.5Ghz vs 3.5Ghz, it'll probably beat the X6 on all fronts anyways.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I can't reliably stream much above their "normal" profile due to my connection, and that uses around 15% of my CPU time. Skyrim runs just fine at the same time. Trying just now, and HD+Medium+Mobile pushes it up to the mid 40s, and as far as I can tell is spread across all cores pretty evenly.

I'd probably go with the i5, myself. The faster cores will be good for emulators, and it has more than enough overall power to handle the streaming, too. In fact, at 4.5Ghz vs 3.5Ghz, it'll probably beat the X6 on all fronts anyways.

So even though you stream using an X6, you would recommend the Intel? And you are connection-speed limited in the first place anyways? Hmm. (What speed is your connection?)

Wouldn't the more available cores on an X6 be worthwhile, to reduce latency, rather than maxing out four cores on an Intel?

 

[rayfieldclement]

This MIGHT be the wrong board for such a question. You might want to go to GENERAL HARDWARE

 

[VirtualLarry]

This MIGHT be the wrong board for such a question. You might want to go to GENERAL HARDWARE

I asked there, and no-one there responded that actually did some streaming. This thread has been more productive by far.

 

[BD2003]

I have to imagine intels quicksync would make a world of difference with the right software.

 

[purbeast0]

i don't stream myself but i play on streams that are being broadcasted to audiences.

you could probably search here...

http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.php?forums/tech-talk.6/

and find what you need. i know streaming is big in the fighting game community and that is the tech forum where people are extremely helpful in there.

i actually just saw this link from a thread on the first page there, check it out.

http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.php?threads/streaming-and-recording-guide-research.88181/

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

So even though you stream using an X6, you would recommend the Intel? And you are connection-speed limited in the first place anyways? Hmm. (What speed is your connection?)

Wouldn't the more available cores on an X6 be worthwhile, to reduce latency, rather than maxing out four cores on an Intel?

I'd very much recommend the Intel - latency is a non-issue, between the fact that threading has no appreciable effect, games unlikely to saturate 4 cores, and the buffering server-side. At the same time, an X6 and SB i5 are about equally fast for trans/encoding video at the same clocks (ie, 4 SB cores ~= 6 Phenom II), and the i5 will clock higher. Not to mention it's going to be faster at pretty much everything else, too.

FWIW, my upstream connection at home is about 700kbps (and while it's enough, I'd strongly recommend at least 1Mbps, and ideally 3Mbps or more)