Why are computers faster than bd players?

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by oppopioneer

Is there a reason why bd players aren't as fast as desktop computers and laptops and why haven't they been able to make bd players as fast as today's laptops since a laptop is even smaller than a bd player?

I was curious has to why none of the bd players take advantage of the ATI Radeon and Nvidia video cards, and Intel and AMD processors?

It would be cool if bd players were as powerful as the best gaming laptops.

http://www.killernotebooks.com/

there is a blu-ray player that's as fast if not faster than some computers and is as if not more powerful than some gaming laptops, it's called the PS3

mind you i really only use my ps3 for gaming but truth be told it's incredibly powerful as both a gaming system and a blu-ray player. this cannot be denied!

your statement would be true of most standalone players. but they are only made with intention of playing movies, for the most part. so they really don't require the power you speak of. they could all do with the speed boost though so that's a good point.

[yeuemmaimai]

Originally Posted by solarrdadd

there is a blu-ray player that's as fast if not faster than some computers and is as if not more powerful than some gaming laptops, it's called the PS3

Negative Ghost Rider, PS3 is downright slow compared to Core 2 Duo Desktop and my i5 laptop.

The reason why all standalone players are slower has to do with how they are made...ie they are purpose made with 1x drives a dedicated decoder and just enough CPU plus a little extra to be able to decode the disk and run content without skipping frames.

PS3 was a great player when it first came out and still hold it's own but to say it's faster than today's gaming laptops is just plain nuts..... I mean after all if gaming laptops were to run games at sub 720p (most of them are) resolution, they would smoke a ps3 or 360 for that matter......

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by yeuemmaimai

Negative Ghost Rider, PS3 is downright slow compared to Core 2 Duo Desktop and my i5 laptop.

The reason why all standalone players are slower has to do with how they are made...ie they are purpose made with 1x drives a dedicated decoder and just enough CPU plus a little extra to be able to decode the disk and run content without skipping frames.

PS3 was a great player when it first came out and still hold it's own but to say it's faster than today's gaming laptops is just plain nuts..... I mean after all if gaming laptops were to run games at sub 720p (most of them are) resolution, they would smoke a ps3 or 360 for that matter......

Notice in that quote of mine that you took i said "some" for both laptops & desktops, i didn't say all. My statement is true for "some", yes, many desktops & laptops of today are faster than the ps3 with their modern processors and graphics cards but dollar for dollar, just to play blu-ray movies on, what are most folks gonna buy, an expensive laptop/desktop or a ps3? that question would also be true for gaming. most people would buy a ps3 over a laptop or desktop. no that in no way means laptop or desktop based gaming is dead because it's not, but i bet you can't buy a laptop or desktop for blu-ray movies & HD gaming for the price of a ps3 slim @ $299.99

i mean no disrespect to pc gaming, hey, i have a pc with 2 nvidia graphics cards in there SLI and 8 gb of system ram dual core and it plays games very well and does other things very well too because it's a powerful gaming computer and was designed to do those things at those speeds the deal is that a bd player only needs to play movies well and the pc doesn't play movies faster, it may load them faster but, once thats done they play them at the same speeds, with the same 1080p etc. so the only thing a pc may do is load them faster and i will agree with that completely but other than that, i would use a ps3 or an oppo for blu ray movies it's not worth the money unless you are getting a HTPC then you really wouldn't be getting a ps3 (for the most part)

i'll give you some on this and of course, take some away!

[Yog-Sothoth]

I just built a home theater PC, and ended up spending twice as much money as I had originally planned. The original plan included no optical drive, certainly no 5 1/4" LCD display, and Linux for the OS. The finally product includes a dual-layer BD burner, a SilverStone MFP51 display, and Windows 7 Home Premium (for Blu-ray playback and Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA). Blu-rays (and DVDs of course) are very snappy, and CPU usage is <3% while playing a BD. I'll actually be removing my PS3 and DVD player from my entertainment center and using the HTPC for those functions.

For those looking for a video card for HTPC purposes, the ATI Radeon HD 5450 is the best bang for the buck... it has HDMI for both video and bitstreamed Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA (audio chipset is on the card).

[-Sandro-]

why exactly do you mean by "slower"?

[richieb1971]

Performance = cost, heat, power consumption and waste in this case.

Once the movie starts your performance means absolutely nothing.

[-Sandro-]

that's why i aked