AVS Forum banner

Cheapest full 4K bluray and pvr build. (Atom?).

2K views 41 replies 12 participants last post by  Stevio 
#1 ·
Hi, I'm Stevio, been here (avs) before years ago but can't locate my exact user name or email.

I am wanting to build the cheapest HTPC that can support all 4k bluray features and modes and do 4-5 tuner PVR recording 100mb/s stream preferable (not needed to do both at the same time). Valve Steam would be great to have but games performance is not a big propriety, it is a media machine. Windows 10 is preferred, not that it is mandatory, but for running pc software and surfing it is good.

Digital audio out, and remote (added or included). I am looking for a cheap wireless remote, like WiFi direct or Bluetooth, but IR remote is OK.

Micro Atx or Mini Itx or smaller MB.
I want a very small system, and have looked at a range of cheaper cases with 0-2 PCIe slots. I am on the lookout for a cheap case with a visual graphic display. Or a cheap stick on visual graphic display.

I've found the asrock m-itx supports HDMI 2.0 but nowhere a mention of 2.0a, and the latest AMD R series embedded MB from Sapphire supports HDMI 2.0 but no mention of digital audio out (I believe the chip set supports it though). Full 18Gb/s+ HDMI is needed. Anyway, any chance an Atom PC with Windows 10 included will be able to handle it.

I already have 4 USB tuners and external bluray 128GB drive (looking at slim line internal). But the drive is not necessary if I can load the 4k files on a drive. ( :) unlikely).

A multi tuner pci-? card is possible.

If I need it, or I cant afford something that can do 4k bluray at the moment, a pcie slot is preferable for low end graphic card for HDMI 2.0a (maybe dp 1.3 when available, and future upgrades). I could start with normal bluray and upgrade to 4k bluray when a suitable low end card comes, as I won't have 4k discs yet.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Nvidia shield, as much as I deplore spyware, and clunky software performance, if it could run tuners and 4k bluray, it would be in. Any progress on these? I've read over at Kodi before about people trying tuners (progress is like watching mud flow) and hooking up optical drives. Such a shame Nvidia does not put the effort in to support this, or make a Windows 10 PC version that does. It looks a really attractive buy.

So, I don't want to do a $1000 build, even a $500, but lack of cheap embedded solutions might make that impossible, even on a normal bluray build (with 4k bluray and hdmi 2.0a coming latter through a processor upgrade and graphic card). It is a shame something like the artic cooler bluray htpc is not available. I believe they are planning new models.
 
#4 · (Edited)
OK, with my health I can't spend a lot of time on this. However, after 20 or so hours I have seen one asrock z170 mITX, one maybe asrock or gigabyte H170 mITX, and one of more latest APU R series with HDMI 2.0, as the zen series is still coming. However, no mention of HDMI 2.0a updates. However, they all hardware decode only 8 bit HEVC as yet. The Nvidia 950 is cheap and will apparently do 10 bit, but still 90w, so still waiting for a 60W card.

So, best bet is to get a nice good system for BR wait for a descent card for 4K BR.

The Nvidia sheild does a lot, except run aa BR disk or cheap tuners, or descent web browser and the office apps (I have Android) or run a descent linux layer (like Ubuntu did on Android, but did not release to public) so I can do most of these things.

Here are some links on the information:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9547/nvidia-launches-geforce-gtx-950-gm206-the-lesser-for-159
http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=232629
 
#5 · (Edited)
So, I either have to get something cheap to throw away for bluray and PVR until the dust settles on PC integrated support, or get such a system with two PCI riser slot case and buy the bottom GPU card that supports the full spec and fit in a 40-100watt envelope.

I currently can get an atom windows 10 pc with touch LCD for around $100US, or a.Nvidia sheild for $199US and use my existing harddrive. So how are these atoma for playing bluray images of my discs?
 
#6 ·
I've used Atom-based PCs in the past and, quite frankly, they suck. A lot of people are OK with Celerons, but I wouldn't go with anything less than an i3 even for regular TV or Blu-Ray playback. I've been disappointed by every low-end budget system I've ever tried and ended up spending more in the long run to get a system that met my needs. You get what you pay for.
 
#7 ·
Yes, past Atom processors did suck. However, the current generation quad core Atoms with 7th-generation Intel graphics hardware decode H264 and can play 4K video even at 100 Mbps+ easily, along with Bluray rips, and bit-perfect HD 1080p broadcast digital captures. Go into a BestBuy with a usb drive with your most challenging video file, plug it into any Atom computer or tablet, play the file with the default Windows media player (Windows 10) and you will see. Sometimes the Atom-based computers have cheap wifi receivers, so they may not stream well, but that is not an Atom fault.
 
#8 ·
The Shield is $179 right now on Amazon, and comes with a free remote (which you don't need if you have a universal like a Harmony). And, it can tune TV through a SiliconDust HDHomeRun. I don't care that it can't play BD's, that is what a stand-alone BD player is for, or in my case I use my PS3s.
 
#19 · (Edited)
Current Atom processors play 4K video and blurays flawlessly

captain-video said: "The last time I tried using an Atom-based PC it literally choked on just about everything, but that was when I was trying to play Blu-Ray iso's instead of mkv's. The point about obsolescence was to illustrate that slightly more horsepower will make your PC last longer and be more compatible with newer apps and higher definition programming. I'd be curious to see how an Atom or Celeron will do with 4K material vs. my i3's. "

As I have said, your experience with Atom chips is outdated, just like your operating system. I will repeat, any current PC, including Windows tablets selling for $99 with an Atom processor will play 4K videos and bluray rips and digital HDTV digital recordings flawlessly. If you want to see this take a usb stick with a 4K video or a bluray rip to any BestBuy, insert into any computer of any price and you can test this. I shoot 4K video and use Atom computers on location to play them. Curiosity satisfied, unless you think I am a liar.

However, there is no guarantee that the current Atoms will play 4K blurays. The current Atoms hardware decode H264, which is why they work so well with current 4K video and HD blurays. If 4K Blurays use the H265 codec then they may not work well. One wants chips that hardware decode H265; only the newest Intel ix chips do that.
 
#22 ·
captain-video said: "The last time I tried using an Atom-based PC it literally choked on just about everything, but that was when I was trying to play Blu-Ray iso's instead of mkv's. The point about obsolescence was to illustrate that slightly more horsepower will make your PC last longer and be more compatible with newer apps and higher definition programming. I'd be curious to see how an Atom or Celeron will do with 4K material vs. my i3's. "

As I have said, your experience with Atom chips is outdated, just like your operating system. I will repeat, any current PC, including Windows tablets selling for $99 with an Atom processor will play 4K videos and bluray rips and digital HDTV digital recordings flawlessly. If you want to see this take a usb stick with a 4K video or a bluray rip to any BestBuy, insert into any computer of any price and you can test this. I shoot 4K video and use Atom computers on location to play them. Curiosity satisfied, unless you think I am a liar.

However, there is no guarantee that the current Atoms will play 4K blurays. The current Atoms hardware decode H264, which is why they work so well with current 4K video and HD blurays. If 4K Blurays use the H265 codec then they may not work well. One wants chips that hardware decode H265; only the newest Intel ix chips do that.
All I can say is, buy whatever makes you feel comfortable and I'll do the same. If you're happy with a low end CPU and it does what you want, who am I to argue? If stepping up to a more powerful CPU only costs a few dollars more, it just makes economic sense to do it, IMHO.

As for Windows 7 being outdated, that's just your opinion. It may be behind in the latest technology, but unless you're trying to run the latest games and apps that point is completely irrelevant. I deal with a lot of computer-based test systems and many of them are still running XP and even Windows 2000. Nothing is outdated as long as it is still useful for the intended task. Windows 7 is still viable for use with WMC and will remain so for as long as guide data is available. Just because there's a newer OS available doesn't mean it's better for your application.

FYI - any video running on a tablet is nowhere near the resolution of the original source material so you're never really running true 4k material or even HD content on any portable device. The resolution will be but a fraction of the ancient NTSC broadcast standard at best. I'd be shocked it an Atom processor couldn't handle it.
 
#23 ·
The Sony Xperia Z5 has a 4k display, and there are more coming. And many, many devices exceed 480 vertical pixels (NTSC), not sure where you got your information that tablets and phones don't have the ability to display 4k - much less something as low as 480.

You technically said they are not at the same resolution, and they are. Can you see the difference on a 6" display? Probably not, but they do have the resolution.
 
#24 ·
So, you're telling me that a standard 1080p Blu-Ray movie that's about 25GB on average will be displayed on a small tablet with the same resolution after it's been reduced to about 85MB or so? There's a crapload of compression that goes into reducing a movie or video for display on a mobile device. I'm no expert on the subject so I'm just going by what seems to be common sense, IMHO. The truth is that there is absolutely no need for a display of that size to reproduce video at that resolution because you can get away with a much lower res setting and never see the difference.
 
#25 ·
Who said I had to compress it? And why would I go all the way down to 85mb if I did? If I compress my movies, they are typically in the 8GB range, not 85MB. I have a 64GB MicroSD card in my tablet, so there's no reason to go that small.

That said, I admit to compressing further down than that in some cases where the number of shows and movies I take with me is important. I use Plex and select the 4.0 Mbps 720p quality. But like I said, nobody said I had to. I could use the full rip if I wanted.

The last part, "you can get away with a much lower res setting and never see the difference", I agree with you. :)
 
#33 ·
After rethinking my earlier posts, the point I was getting at with regards to screen resolution and screen size is this. While a tablet or other portable device may be capable of displaying 4k resolution, your eyes will probably be unable to discern the difference between 4k material and DVD quality or even lower on such a small screen. The higher resolution on such devices is more of a marketing ploy than a useful feature. If you run a Blu-Ray video through an app like DVDFab or similar software, it generally asks what type of device it will be used on. If you select a smart phone or tablet, it will down-rez the original file to something extremely small, which is where I came up with the 85MB figure earlier. There's no need for such high resolution material on these devices and copying the original source file would probably max out your memory on the device rather quickly. The only reason to load such a large file onto a smartphone or tablet would be if you were using it as portable storage and a playback device for a much larger screen.
 
#34 ·
High screen resolution is even more important on small devices



No, again. When you view videos on a small screen your eyes are very close to the screen. Therefore high resolution is even more important on a small device than on a big TV, where viewers are 7-10 feet from the screen. One can more easily tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 6" phone screen viewed as one would normally look at the phone than the difference between 720p and1080p on a 40" screen viewed from 8 feet, a normal viewing distance. The difference between a 4K video on a 4K 6" phone and a 1080 video on that phone is also easily discerned.
 
#35 · (Edited)
I'll have to take your word on that, but with a grain of salt and skepticism. Small details that would stand out on a big screen are simply going to get lost on a small display, regardless of how high the resolution is. Hi-Def content begs to be seen on a big screen. Watching HD on a 6" screen just seems ridiculous to me. HD content was meant for big screens with full surround sound. To me, anything less is simply a waste of my time. I guess current generations are more concerned about convenience and portability than actual quality and the home theater experience. :rolleyes: The benefits of 4k vs. 1080p are going to be far more apparent on a big screen than they are on a 6" smart phone. While you may claim to see the difference on a small screen, is it really enhancing your experience to the same degree? I sincerely doubt it. Besides, I don't relish having to hold a screen 18" from my face to watch it when I can be sitting in a recliner drinking a cold beer and getting immersed in a good movie. There is just no comparison.
 
#36 · (Edited)
You are mixing up the quality of experience with simple facts about what is discernible and what is not. No one is arguing it is a better experience to watch a 4K video (or any video) on a cell phone compared to a large screen. But, that has nothing to do with the fact of the ability to discern resolution differences, which depends on both screen size and viewing distance. If you have the small 4K screen 1 inch from your eyes you can discern every little detail. If a 50" 4K screen is 10 feet away, you will not as easily. It's optics.

I agree with you completely that a big screen trumps resolution for an immersive viewing experience. For that, the most cost effective route is a projector - just project even a 720p image on the wall to get a 100" image and it beats any 4K TV one could ever afford for a video experience, beer or no beer.
 
#39 ·
I won't argue about the science aspect of it because I am admittedly ignorant of all the facts. My point is that I honestly don't care how good the resolution is on a tablet or smart phone because I'd never use one for watching TV or movies. You are correct that this is the AVScience forum, but that's the general title. There are other subforums that deal specifically with this type of topic. This is a Home Theater Computer forum so discussion of smart phones, tablets, or other small screen devices isn't really relevant here. It's also way off topic from the original thread.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top