I know once you get to i5 gen 6 it starts to let you use hardware instead of software or it has something in it that lets channels run better, can someone refresh my memory there and which cpu is best for multiple streams?
The fastest CPU we've seen in the Apple M1
Are you trying to optimize away-from-home viewing or just use at home?
Transcoding capability only matters for remote access.
I use hardware transcoding with a 4th gen i3 (i3-4330), and it is a perfectly cromulent machine running not only Channels, but many other containerized services.
3 Likes
That is a very open question....one can get a 2U sever with 4 cpus each 64 cores....etc. And spend a fortune.
What is best for you depends on your needs.
I use a Pi4B as server and it is plenty fast enough for Commercial detection and for one remote stream. That is all i need as I am the only user.
1 Like
Channels DVR is not CPU Intensive ... a Celeron PC with an Intel GPU is all you need for 2 remote streams.
3 Likes
I have a 9 year old i7 based mini pc that has been in continuous service since I got it. I did a drive refresh a couple of years ago but it has been doing great. It depends on what you need. Channels is not a resource hog at all. Think through how you intend to use the hardware now and in the future. If I were starting again, Iād look closely at the M1 Mac mini. Powerful, quiet, more ram would be nice, but I donāt miss it with the cpu and solid state drive.
1 Like
I just finished setting up a Beelink Mini PC, AMD Ryzen 5 5560U 6 Core/12 Thread 16GB/500GB SSD ($319) with Windows 10 LTSC (Long Term Stable) and a 2TB SSD for the DVR. With 6 threads dedicated to Commercial Detection it flies at about 2 minutes per hour of program. Peak utilization of any core never exceeds 50%, so this is about all the power you can use, and at much lower cost than an M1.
1 Like
I am using an old Dual Core Pentium 790 SFF. 4gb Ram, 1TB SSD 2 parts, 50gb for OS and rest for recording. Works well at home, but does not allow for HDWE transcoding for away. Uses 1 of 2 cores for comm akip
Will be upgrading to something faster with HDWE transcode ability soon.
1 Like
I would recommend getting something with an Intel CPU that supports quicksync encoding to HEVC (optionally 10 bit) - but again that's just for remote viewing
I'm running Channels on a home built core i5-10600K (not overclocked) which was available at a good price point at the time at MicroCenter
The M1 Mac Mini can do multiple streams of hardware encoding and hardware deinterlacing at 4x speed of HEVC and can even handle that with 4K HDR content.
The quality of the hardware encode is also very high. If youāre looking for the best quality, this is the way to go. Itās also the platform that I use for my main DVR so itās likely going to have good attention on bug fixes.
It should go without saying, but we do try to have a bug free experience everything we can on all of the platforms we support, but being on a platform we are actively using will have daily test coverage.
1 Like
I'd love to have one of those, but priced at ~$700+ is just nuts...
I agree especially for a DVR that requires very little resources it is overkill unless you also use it for something else.... I can see a developer using it but just to run a household DVR it is overkill.
I remember reading up on Quick Sync. It started with the 2nd gen āIā series processors. I have a couple of 4th or 5th gen i5ās around, so going to try and port over to one of those instead. Thanks for the reminder in quick sync!
Yep, all of these comments are accurate, but the OP asked about the best, not the most reasonable.
1 Like
I stand corrected ...
Put parallels or Virtual Box on it and run the DVR as a VM with fewer resources and use the rest for work or playš
I canāt speak to how these apps run on an M1, but I use it on an i9 and can run win7, win10, Ubuntu server all at the same time with no problems. Wonder how many streams it takes to bring an M1 mini to its knees or till your ISP says ātiltā? With gigabit iNet, it may crash before that happens, would be an interesting test though!?!?
1 Like
I would like to build a simple benchmark tool to do just that because I am also curious. I was blown away by how much it could process. And the M1 Max chip is double that performance!
2 Likes
Go for it!!
Well, the Pluto m3u has 352 channels in it. Even though they are lower bandwidth compared to live tv, you can see what it does with that many streams at once. I used to deal with performance testing, so I like to try and break things 
Looks like quicksync encoding to HEVC (optionally 10 bit) is the most āefficientā transcoding processor at a reasonable price point? Looks like that started with Intelās 7th gen āIā series.
IF Channels needed that much power, then for sure worth the cost. But, the only way is see that justified, is if Channels DVR supported multi profiles, ie, could be used for multi users properly.
As it stands, the only way to do this, is to use multiple standalone servers. Thus, splitting the load.
Also/or, if one can use that more power for Plex or whatver, then such a device can be used.
Also, the newer add detection system that runs that uses no cpu, on certain stations, mostly killed any desire for me to have Channels on anything stronger than a Pi4B.