rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) at TVengineer, maybe wait and get the Core 2 system? The Atom 1.6 is basically the same speed as the Celeron 900. Core 2 is faster. More expensive though Edited October 13, 2009 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I would Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TVEngineer77 0 Posted October 13, 2009 at TVengineer, maybe wait and get the Core 2 system? The Atom 1.6 is basically the same speed as the Celeron 900. Core 2 is faster. Rory, this is a dual core 1.6 Atom 330 processor. I think its the fastest Atom processor released at this time (?). I could up it to an actual core 2 duo pentium, but with wireguys' success running that many cameras on the Atom I know I will be just fine. @ TWG - no I hadn't planned on having them build and test it since I bought the HDD's from another source. I will just do it myself when it arrives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 I would get the Atom 330 pretty sure thats whats in the Eee PCs. Side by side the Celeron 900s (which were in the first set of Eee PCs) are about the same speed if not faster according to tests at the time when they were released. Ive personally used both also and found them about the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 Rory, this is a dual core 1.6 Atom 330 processor. I think its the fastest Atom processor released at this time (?). I could up it to an actual core 2 duo pentium, but with wireguys' success running that many cameras on the Atom I know I will be just fine. See my reply to wireguys. Its much slower than a core2 Duo, pretty much a 1.6 is the same speed as the 900 celeron but uses less power and is cooler. That replaced the 900 celerons in the netbooks due to less power (more battery time) and cooler (less heat) but speeds were about the same as the celeron. If you can afford the core 2 go that route instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 I would get the Atom 330 pretty sure thats whats in the Eee PCs. Side by side the Celeron 900s (which were in the first set of Eee PCs) are about the same speed if not faster according to tests at the time when they were released. Ive personally used both also and found them about the same. read this..... http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=664 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) more then enough for what we are doing. Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 The 330 is more then enough for what we are doing. What happens when you want to view the video? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Have you been reading my posts? Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) ^^^^^^^ Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Atom 330 with 9 cameras recording no client running Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 The 330 is more then enough for what we are doing. What happens when you want to view the video? Have you been reading my posts? We are not using this box for the client software I am running the client software on another machine. But then that means they need 2 computers? What would be the sales point in that? What if they want to view the video at the location? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TVEngineer77 0 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) see, in the application I have, the NVR is local to where the cameras and PoE switches are, which is in a locked NEMA enclosure by our community's gates. Any time I need to get data off the NVR, I remote into it via the software. That way the video processing is not being run off the server, but rather the client software. I know what you're trying to say here Rory and I agree with you, but in this application where local video playback is not required, the Atom 330 performs just fine. Edited October 13, 2009 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) How many DVRs do you know that can record 20-30 IP cameras Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 Well every customer I have has a laptop or desktop already. We install the client software on that. Cheaper this way and the customer can't mess with this machine at all. Yeah but retail stores (in other parts of the world) hardly have PCs to monitor the video from, if they do it would normally be full of viruses and slow. Also most retail stores want the video on a TV or monitor for customers, and yes they cant mess with it thats the way its supposed to be. Only the admin is supposed to have access to the PC itself, as with DVRs no user should have access outside of the actual server software, thats why its locked down using the server software so they only see live video, and even then it should be limited to local viewing, etc. depending on user privileges, local playback, and backup (much faster backup locally than over the internet). Bottom line is 2 PCs to do the work of 1 is kind of expensive. But i see what TVengineer is saying for his application, just dont see where it would be useful for anything else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 How many $500 DVRs do you know that can record 20-30 IP cameras at Megapixel resolution? Actually, a standard MATX desktop size, I can build a Dual Core System for under $200. As for price comparisons last I remember you said that IP software was $600 for a 4 channel license? Not to mention the cost of the cameras. All Im saying is why not spend the extra $200 for the core 2 CPU so a client could view the cameras locally like all other CCTV systems? Or at the least give them the option? Especially since they are already spending a fortune on the IP software and cameras. Im just looking for a way I can push it .. thats all Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) And how much it is per analog channel for megapixel pixel video? Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 Your customers are different then mine...... Mine want Megapixel video and this is the cheapest way to give it to them. And how much it is per analog channel for megapixel pixel video? So, no options?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 Your customers are different then mine...... Mine want Megapixel video and this is the cheapest way to give it to them. And how much it is per analog channel for megapixel pixel video? So, no options?? options for what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) If they want a one box solution I can built it with the ION board. Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 How many $500 DVRs do you know that can record 20-30 IP cameras at Megapixel resolution? Actually, a standard MATX desktop size, I can build a Dual Core System for under $200. As for price comparisons last I remember you said that IP software was $600 for a 4 channel license? Not to mention the cost of the cameras. All Im saying is why not spend the extra $200 for the core 2 CPU so a client could view the cameras locally like all other CCTV systems? Or at the least give them the option? Especially since they are already spending a fortune on the IP software and cameras. Im just looking for a way I can push it .. thats all You need to get out of the analog world.... the picture is much better over here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 You need to get out of the analog world.... the picture is much better over here Im in the digital world, dont know anything about an "analog" world you speak of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 Why should I wast a customers money on another monitor, keyboard, and mouse when they have a perfectly good machine that can run the client software already? Sounds like you live in the perfect world .. where dat is?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) You need to get out of the analog world.... the picture is much better over here Im in the digital world, dont know anything about an "analog" world you speak of. LOL also keep in mind this box only uses power. Edited August 25, 2010 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted October 13, 2009 LOL also keep in mind this box only uses 39 watts of power. But the other PCs with the client software make up for it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
