I have an older Win10 box with USB 2.0 ports and no HDMI out. I have video on it that I'd like to send to a monitor with an HDMI port using VLC orIf this is a rare occasion, you might look into a Chromecast adapter for you standard TV. You could
some similar software. I see that there are USB to HDMI dongles available that I could plug into the computer and then attach to the monitor with a standard HDMI cable. Would such a setup work for what I want to do? Is
USB 2.0 liable to give me performance issues while playing the video?
Or, is there any other solution anyone can suggest?
I have an older Win10 box with USB 2.0 ports and no HDMI out. I have video >on it that I'd like to send to a monitor with an HDMI port using VLC or
some similar software. I see that there are USB to HDMI dongles available >that I could plug into the computer and then attach to the monitor with a >standard HDMI cable. Would such a setup work for what I want to do? Is
USB 2.0 liable to give me performance issues while playing the video?
On 4/16/24 08:41 AM, Alan Holbrook wrote:
I have an older Win10 box with USB 2.0 ports and no HDMI out. I have video on it that I'd like to send to a monitor with an HDMI port using VLC or some similar software. I see that there are USB to HDMI dongles available that I could plug into the computer and then attach to the monitor with a standard HDMI cable. Would such a setup work for what I want to do? Is USB 2.0 liable to give me performance issues while playing the video?
Or, is there any other solution anyone can suggest?
If this is a rare occasion, you might look into a Chromecast adapter
for you standard TV. You could could then cast the video to your TV
via the Chromecast. But then that means buying the Chromsecast
adapter for $29 US.
You could do without the 4K model and just get the plain ole simple Chromecast.
https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entertainment/dp/B0B9HS6DLZ
Big Al <alan@invalid.com> wrote:Actually some TVs will not let you cast directly to them. I have one.
On 4/16/24 08:41 AM, Alan Holbrook wrote:
I have an older Win10 box with USB 2.0 ports and no HDMI out. I have video >>> on it that I'd like to send to a monitor with an HDMI port using VLC or
some similar software. I see that there are USB to HDMI dongles available >>> that I could plug into the computer and then attach to the monitor with a >>> standard HDMI cable. Would such a setup work for what I want to do? Is >>> USB 2.0 liable to give me performance issues while playing the video?
Or, is there any other solution anyone can suggest?
If this is a rare occasion, you might look into a Chromecast adapter
for you standard TV. You could could then cast the video to your TV
via the Chromecast. But then that means buying the Chromsecast
adapter for $29 US.
You could do without the 4K model and just get the plain ole simple Chromecast.
https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entertainment/dp/B0B9HS6DLZ
Be careful with this, because as far as I know, you need a smartphone (with the Google 'Home' app) to set up the Chromecast. In the old days
there was a Chromecast setup program for Windows (I used it), but IIRC
it does no longer exist or/and does not work anymore.
I have an older Win10 box with USB 2.0 ports and no HDMI out. I have video on it that I'd like to send to a monitor with an HDMI port using VLC or
some similar software. I see that there are USB to HDMI dongles available that I could plug into the computer and then attach to the monitor with a standard HDMI cable. Would such a setup work for what I want to do? Is
USB 2.0 liable to give me performance issues while playing the video?
Or, is there any other solution anyone can suggest?
I have an older Win10 box with USB 2.0 ports and no HDMI out. I have video on it that I'd like to send to a monitor with an HDMI port using VLC or
some similar software. I see that there are USB to HDMI dongles available that I could plug into the computer and then attach to the monitor with a standard HDMI cable. Would such a setup work for what I want to do? Is
USB 2.0 liable to give me performance issues while playing the video?
Or, is there any other solution anyone can suggest?
Or, is there any other solution anyone can suggest?
On 4/16/2024 8:41 AM, Alan Holbrook wrote:
I have an older Win10 box with USB 2.0 ports and no HDMI out. I have video >> on it that I'd like to send to a monitor with an HDMI port using VLC or
some similar software. I see that there are USB to HDMI dongles available >> that I could plug into the computer and then attach to the monitor with a
standard HDMI cable. Would such a setup work for what I want to do? Is
USB 2.0 liable to give me performance issues while playing the video?
Or, is there any other solution anyone can suggest?
When I wanted to stream Netflix to a new TV from Win7, the
computer had no HDMI port. I got a cheap graphics card. I think
it was about $35, so that I could have the ports I needed for the
TV and the monitor both.
On 4/16/2024 4:47 PM, Paul wrote:
You should have stated where you got that card :-)
This card (1050ti) has a video decoder block. My movie is played by the 1050Ti.
The CPU is sleeping in the corner.
[Picture] Currently using 77W total to play the movie... Yikes. Not proud of this.
Machine totally idle is 36W. Rail one CPU core is 130W. Use whole CPU, 224W.
https://i.postimg.cc/X7mvzcpS/video-decoder-acceleration-cheap-card-1050.gif
There are even older cards, you might find for sale.
(GT710)
https://www.newegg.com/gigabyte-geforce-gt-710-gv-n710d3-2gl-1-0/p/N82E16814125844
GT710 sounds familiar. I just went to Microcenter and got what was
cheap that had HDMI plus other options. I'm afraid I don't understand you analysis and the distinction of decoding on the card. I don't play games
or do anything that needs optimized graphics, so whatever is basic
works fine for me.
You should have stated where you got that card :-)
This card (1050ti) has a video decoder block. My movie is played by the 1050Ti.
The CPU is sleeping in the corner.
[Picture] Currently using 77W total to play the movie... Yikes. Not proud of this.
Machine totally idle is 36W. Rail one CPU core is 130W. Use whole CPU, 224W.
https://i.postimg.cc/X7mvzcpS/video-decoder-acceleration-cheap-card-1050.gif
There are even older cards, you might find for sale.
(GT710) https://www.newegg.com/gigabyte-geforce-gt-710-gv-n710d3-2gl-1-0/p/N82E16814125844
If the video card plays mpeg2 or H.264, chances are better it will
work and have some quality.
My laptop for example, has a single core, and is little better than
a Pentium 4. But it still plays video, because the chipset has
a decoder. But the laptop isn't good at much else. The CPU sees
to that (it is like a 64-bit version of the AthlonXP ).
On 4/16/2024 5:44 PM, Paul wrote:
Would it be accurate to say the newer the graphics, the more
If the video card plays mpeg2 or H.264, chances are better it will
work and have some quality.
My laptop for example, has a single core, and is little better than
a Pentium 4. But it still plays video, because the chipset has
a decoder. But the laptop isn't good at much else. The CPU sees
to that (it is like a 64-bit version of the AthlonXP ).
it's taking over the work, or does it really depend on the hardware?
The 710 seems to handle streaming fine, but actually it's been better
since awhile back when I discovered that I had some old RAM that
fit that machine, jackinh up the total from 4 to 6 GB. Before the
machine was slightly groggy and video would occasionally stutter.
The computer is a Dell XPS625. My father ordered it custom back
in 2010, but then at some point his mental functioning deteriorated
to the point that he could no longer use it. So now it's one of my
streaming boxes.
Alan Holbrook <no.thanks@lets.not> wrote:
I have an older Win10 box with USB 2.0 ports and no HDMI out. I have video >> on it that I'd like to send to a monitor with an HDMI port using VLC or
some similar software. I see that there are USB to HDMI dongles available >> that I could plug into the computer and then attach to the monitor with a
standard HDMI cable. Would such a setup work for what I want to do? Is
USB 2.0 liable to give me performance issues while playing the video?
Or, is there any other solution anyone can suggest?
I would look at other options before USB 2. What video outputs do you have? DVI, Display port and even VGA would work with the appropriate adapter.
Would it be accurate to say the newer the graphics, the more
it's taking over the work, or does it really depend on the hardware?
The 710 seems to handle streaming fine, but actually it's been better
since awhile back when I discovered that I had some old RAM that
fit that machine, jackinh up the total from 4 to 6 GB. Before the
machine was slightly groggy and video would occasionally stutter.
The computer is a Dell XPS625. My father ordered it custom back
in 2010, but then at some point his mental functioning deteriorated
to the point that he could no longer use it. So now it's one of my
streaming boxes.
First you would want to review the BIOS settings.
I haven't committed all these things to memory :-)
There was some deal with AMD at one point, where you
could decouple dual-channel. This allowed cores (like on
your quad core) to make independent requests on a single
channel. Ah, yes, it was called "Unganged". It could depend
on what the machine is doing, as to which option is better.
A lot of software is single core and does not take
advantage of multiple cores, and leaving the RAM in dual
channel mode may help. On a server (multiple uncorrelated processes),
maybe Unganged is better.
At one time, the AMD memory controller was not very sophisticated.
Intel had Flex memory, whereas AMD did not bother with this. It
would have made their test bench too large to test. With Intel,
it didn't matter which holes you put the RAM in, the Intel could
pair them you virtually in a sense. The AMD was too clumsy for
this, and required to put stuff in the correct holes. Nobody
would tell you that you made a mistake.
If this is a rare occasion, you might look into a Chromecast adapter
for you standard TV. You could could then cast the video to your TV
via the Chromecast. But then that means buying the Chromsecast
adapter for $29 US.
You could do without the 4K model and just get the plain ole simple Chromecast. https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entertainment/dp/ B0B9HS6DLZ
But you seem to be
mixing up two methods, mentioning VNC (not VLC, that's a video
player).
Big Al <alan@invalid.com> wrote in news:uvm04o$vlq7$1@dont-email.me:
If this is a rare occasion, you might look into a Chromecast adapter
for you standard TV. You could could then cast the video to your TV
via the Chromecast. But then that means buying the Chromsecast
adapter for $29 US.
You could do without the 4K model and just get the plain ole simple Chromecast. https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entertainment/dp/ B0B9HS6DLZ
Not casting to a TV. It's a monitor.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 507 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 186:26:38 |
Calls: | 9,958 |
Files: | 13,825 |
Messages: | 6,355,849 |