Radeon All-In-Wonder 9000 Pro for $99

[Brian R.]

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?&ref=cj&pfp=cj&product_code=303912&ref=cj&pfp=cj

Is this a good buy? or is it old technology?

What HW do you need to run this adequately for video capture?

[Gurm]

9000 Pro is roughly on par with the 8500, sometimes slower but sometimes faster (it has DX9 hardware, the 8500 only has DX8.1 hardware).

- Gurm

[Jon P. Inghram]

Eh?!? The 9000 doesn't have DX9 Gurm, it's 8.1 just like the 8500. http://www.ati.com/products/radeon90...pro/index.html

[Chrono_Wanderer]

its a 8.1 8500 with slower speed (on 9000 there is only 1 texturing unit that can do 6 textures per pass, whereas on 8500 there are 2 texturing units that caan do 3 textures per pass.)

they are both 4 pixel pipeline architectures though.

[Brian R.]

How much memory do I need to use this for video? Do I need a serious HD, or will my old SCSI 3 Cheatah be adequate? 1GHz processor enough?

[Marshmallowman]

352x288 should be okay using mjpeg, 720x576 might be pushing the limit of that HDD's.

ultra-3 = 40MB/s is that an oldish cheetah or newish?

Some ultra -3's may be pushing close to 30-40MB's, some might be lucky to get 10MB's

Whats the official/ theoretical sustained throughput of those suckers?

[Brian R.]

It's a ST318203LW

Here's some data on it. Some of it is Greek:
INTERNAL TRANSFER RATE (mbits/sec)________193 to 308
INTERNAL FORMATTED TRANSFER RATE (MB/sec)_29.5 avg
EXTERNAL TRANSFER RATE (mbyte/sec) _______40 Sync
Low Voltage Differential(LVD) _______80 Sync
SPINDLE SPEED (RPM) ______________________10,016
AVERAGE LATENCY (mSEC) ___________________2.99
BUFFER (/optional)________________________1024/4096 KByte
Read Look-Ahead, Adaptive,
Multi-Segmented Cache
INTERFACE ________________________________Ultra2 SCSI
ASA II, SCAM level 2 (1 default)
BYTES PER TRACK __________________________153,284-229,045
SECTORS PER DRIVE ________________________35,566,480
TPI (TRACKS PER INCH) ____________________12,580
BPI (PEAK KBITS PER INCH) ________________252
AVERAGE ACCESS (ms read/write)____________5.4/6.0
Drive level without controller overhead
SINGLE TRACK SEEK (ms read/write) ________0.7/0.9
MAX FULL SEEK (ms read/write) ____________12.2/13.2

I have it connected to a Adaptec AHA-2940 UW controller

Thanks for the input. I have been waiting for an affordable card.

[Marshmallowman]

oer, 10k with average of 30MB/s thats a keeper, could even be good for 720x576 if you you get a codec that's easy on your CPU. I think you should be good for at least SVCD quality.

What are you likely to be capturing?

[Indiana]

I was able to capture full PAL res video with my Duron 800 using the PICVideo MJPEG codec or the HuffYUV codec.

The MJPEG needs about 3-5MB/s sustained HD write speed (any HD should be able to do this), the HuffYUV needs ~10MB/s.
You can calculate the size needed for a movie yourself by the above data.

You could also capture quarter PAL (352 x 288) directly to mpeg2 with this CPU and ATIs Multimedia Center. I doubt that full PAL res direct mpeg2 is possible, though.
But then, maybe the quality of the quarter PAL mpeg2 capture is good enough for you - I've captured a short clip in 352x288, MPEG2, 4MBit/s, using ATIs TV application. You can dl it to see the quality this would get you:

http://web11.3dfusion.net/files/Noname008.mpg

[Brian R.]

Thanks. One more question: Do the newer AIW cards have a significant advantage in video capture capability compared to this one or are they similar in this respect and the only difference is in graphics (3D) display speed/quality?

@MM I had pictured capturing broadcast TV and Hi8 video.

[Marshmallowman]

I used to do some reasonable full PAL 720x576 with a 750 duron(@1000) , but came to the conclusion it was simply a lot less hassle in storage space/reprocessing time and dropped frames to simply capture a quater PAL as Indiana said as the quality realy is not that different for free to air broadcasts.

In fact for a lot of my broadcast TV capturing I still stick to 352x288 even tho I have athlon at 200x11.5 and 160g dedicated SATA capture drive, except now I capture/compress straight to xvid and have even tried experimtenting with compressing audio on the fly as well I just have to sort out the audio sync problems and I'll be sweet.

[Brian R.]

That sounds ambitious MM.

Do you know if the video capture capabilities of this card is pretty much the same as a newer card? I don't care for 3D rendering or game playing with this computer, so that is not an issue.

[Gurm]

AHRM!

The 9000 DOES, in fact, support many of the functions that the higher-end 9x00 cards support, such as (but not limited to) the video playback acceleration thingermabob and the extra pixel shader whatzits.

- Gurm

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Brian R.
Thanks. One more question: Do the newer AIW cards have a significant advantage in video capture capability compared to this one or are they similar in this respect and the only difference is in graphics (3D) display speed/quality?

Well, AFAIK all current ATI Radeon AIW offerings (including the 9000AIW) have the exact same RageTheater chip on them, so capture quality should be the same.

[Jon P. Inghram]

You mean the infamous "FULLSTREAM" feature?

Check the post from CATALYST maker in the middle of this thread: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthre...eadid=33683600

Divx FULLSTREAM acceleration can not work on anything lower than a 9500. Its technically not possible.

FULLSTREAM is support on the 900/9200 however but with Real Networks RealOne player.

Summary:

Fullstream for 9000/9200: Real Networks
Fullstream for 9500+ : Real Networks and DivX

Real themselves claim that the 8500 can do fullstream: http://www.real.com/accessories/?pro...,rcahome,rcacp

The 9000 does have a slightly more optimized pixel shader, but it's still DX8.1.