AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Build a HTPC with current parts, build a HTPC with new parts or purchase a pre-built.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Build a HTPC with current parts, build a HTPC with new parts or purchase a pre-built.

post #1 of 61
6/25/12 at 9:59am
Thread Starter 
The main purpose of this device will be to playback x264 vidoes, both 1080p and 720p, over a wired network connection from my home server. I would like to use XBMC, as it is my player of choice.

All said, I currently have three options to go with and I was hoping you can help me out here, in weighing the pros and cons, since I'm fairly new at this.

A. Use My existing Parts to build a HTPC
I currently have a Q9550, 775 mobo, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HD and a GTX 275 and a beat-up tower case lying around. This is enough to put together a very shady looking PC. Alternatively, I can sell the parts for at least $300, but probably a bit more ( CPU goes for $200, and the GPU for $100 on ebay).

Over time, I could clean this system up as I find cheaper parts to do so with.

+ Provides an immediate solution
+ Expandable in the future
- Will be a pain to look at
- Will likely be fairly loud


B. Sell my parts, buy new parts for a HTPC
I could sell the parts, and in turn buy parts that total less than $400

+ Expandable in the future
- May not be able to efficiently get parts for $400 that will give me 1080/720p quality?

C. Sell my parts, buy a pre-built like the Acer Revo

+ Way less support needed
- Not expandable




My other question would be, can a Acer Revo or a $400 PC handle flawless 1080p playback of x264, over a wired network? With DD 5.1 or DTS?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 61
6/25/12 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehdi84 View Post

The main purpose of this device will be to playback x264 vidoes, both 1080p and 720p, over a wired network connection from my home server. I would like to use XBMC, as it is my player of choice.
All said, I currently have three options to go with and I was hoping you can help me out here, in weighing the pros and cons, since I'm fairly new at this.
A. Use My existing Parts to build a HTPC
I currently have a Q9550, 775 mobo, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HD and a GTX 275 and a beat-up tower case lying around. This is enough to put together a very shady looking PC. Alternatively, I can sell the parts for at least $300, but probably a bit more ( CPU goes for $200, and the GPU for $100 on ebay).
Over time, I could clean this system up as I find cheaper parts to do so with.
+ Provides an immediate solution
+ Expandable in the future
- Will be a pain to look at
- Will likely be fairly loud
B. Sell my parts, buy new parts for a HTPC
I could sell the parts, and in turn buy parts that total less than $400
+ Expandable in the future
- May not be able to efficiently get parts for $400 that will give me 1080/720p quality?
C. Sell my parts, buy a pre-built like the Acer Revo
+ Way less support needed
- Not expandable
My other question would be, can a Acer Revo or a $400 PC handle flawless 1080p playback of x264, over a wired network? With DD 5.1 or DTS?

Are you serious about the ebay price for a Q9550? You can buy a brand new, much more powerful, much cooler running i5 today for $150. Why in the world would anyone pay anything close to $200 for a four year old Yorkfield?

If I were you, I'd buy a new better looking, quieter case, and a Radeon 6570 or GT430 and otherwise use what I've got. For around $100 you'd be fine. (and much better off than with the Revo) and could easily play all your 1080P video.

You can easily build a 1080P capable system for less than $400 by the way.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 61
6/25/12 at 10:43am

For XBMC, AMD Llano APU (CPU + GPU) is the best choice. It can handle all contents up to 1080p60 with DXVA2.

 

- AMD A6-3500 Llano, ~$70

- A55/A75 chipset mb, $60-$110

- DDR3-1600 2 x 2GB, ~$30

- SSD 64GB, ~$70

 

If you can wait till October, AMD Trinity comes, that's the killer APU.

Reply
Reply
post #4 of 61
6/25/12 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Are you serious about the ebay price for a Q9550? You can buy a brand new, much more powerful, much cooler running i5 today for $150. Why in the world would anyone pay anything close to $200 for a four year old Yorkfield?

If all you need to replace is the CPU, it's cheaper and less hassle to get a Q9550 than to replace MB/CPU/RAM with a (presumably high-end) LGA-1155 motherboard, Core i5 and DDR3 RAM. For some, it's legacy support on the motherboard that's the deciding factor. Besides, the Q9550 can still hold its own.

I was faced with an even worse choice for my socket 939 build. Upgrade to an Athlon X2 64 S939 + 2GB DDR 400 for $200 or go socket AM2/DDR2 for $150. Went with neither and built a Core 2-based Intel rig instead. tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 61
6/25/12 at 10:46am
Why not use his existing quad core and just add a video card that "can handle all contents up to 1080p60 with DXVA2?" That's a lot cheaper approach. There's nothing wrong with that Q9550 other than that it runs a little warm.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 61
6/25/12 at 10:48am
For XBMC Intel CPU + AMD/NVidia GPU is what I think is the best choice.

I use the Intel iGPU and haven't found anything in my collection that it doesn't play.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 61
6/25/12 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd View Post

If all you need to replace is the CPU, it's cheaper and less hassle to get a Q9550 than to replace MB/CPU/RAM with a (presumably high-end) LGA-1155 motherboard, Core i5 and DDR3 RAM. Besides, the Q9550 can still hold its own.
I was faced with an even worse choice for my socket 939 build. Upgrade to an Athlon X2 64 S939 + 2GB DDR 400 for $200 or go socket AM2/DDR2 for $150. Went with neither and built a Core 2-based Intel rig instead. tongue.gif

Well, that would be true if the replacement was $50 or something. But I'm not sure it's true if you have to pay $200 for an oudated processor. You can buy an i3-2120, a new motherboard, and 4 GB of DDR3 for that price and have just as powerful a system that runs a lot cooler.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 61
6/25/12 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

 Why in the world would anyone pay anything close to $200 for a four year old Yorkfield?

 

The average sold price of Q9550 at eBay in June 2012 (more than 50 completed listings) is ~$170. The lowest is ~$115, the highest is ~$250.

Reply
Reply
post #9 of 61
6/25/12 at 10:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by renethx View Post

The average sold price of Q9550 at eBay in June 2012 (more than 50 completed listings) is ~$170. The lowest is ~$115, the highest is ~$250.

That doesn't answer why anyone would pay that price.

$250 is simply absurd.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 61
6/25/12 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

That doesn't answer why anyone would pay that price.
$250 is simply absurd.

Again, motherboard with legacy support: e.g. PCI-X slot, native PCI slot (I think most new boards just use PCIe -> PCI bridge nowadays), etc. For consumers, it's easier and far cheaper to buy a new PC. For industrial, there's usually a lot more stuff to consider.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 61
6/25/12 at 12:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Why not use his existing quad core and just add a video card that "can handle all contents up to 1080p60 with DXVA2?" That's a lot cheaper approach. There's nothing wrong with that Q9550 other than that it runs a little warm.

If I can do it within the price of what I can sell some of my parts for, it would be nice if I reduce the number of parts, heat and noise. If possible, of course. For example, I really don't want to use the GTX 275. It's just one more part that can fail. Plus, if I move to the new LGA 1115s for example, it will be cheaper for me in the future to upgrade/repair issues. LGA 775 parts and DDR2 is expensive.

All said... the i3s alone can really render 1080p x264 movies without dropped frames and HD audio? By themselves? ( I guess this is Assassin ). That kind of blows my mind, because I'm pretty sure the Q9550 cannot do that.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 61
6/25/12 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehdi84 View Post

All said... the i3s alone can really render 1080p x264 movies without dropped frames and HD audio? By themselves? ( I guess this is Assassin ). That kind of blows my mind, because I'm pretty sure the Q9550 cannot do that.

Yes, they can. They "drop" as many frames as ATI or NVidia and playback 1080p x264 with ease.

Sounds like you don't believe me. Read this independent review for more confirmation (i3 2100 HD2000)...

http://dvr.about.com/od/capturetvwithacomputer/a/Assassins-Elite-Htpc-Three-Months-In.htm
Quote:
Over the course of several months we've used the Elite as our daily Media Center PC in our living room. It also serves content to four Xbox 360 extenders throughout our home. During this time, the Elite has been nothing but exceptional when it comes to the demands we've placed on it. The system has yet to lock up, dump running programs or have any sort of hardware issue while in use.

Recording and viewing television is the main function for our family and the Elite never hesitates when accessing all of the content we record. When you consider that this includes all of the metadata associated with the recordings, this is no small feat. Accessing and displaying this much data can pound on an HTPC and the Elite never stutters or drops the ball when it comes to pulling content.

The same can be said when accessing our archived media. With full gigabit support to the server, movies and TV shows load quickly and playback begins almost instantly. Once Total Media Theater 5 was installed, Blu-ray playback within Media Center (though not perfect) was excellent. Any issues during playback had everything to do with TMT5 and not the hardware running it.

The whole point here is that no matter what I've asked the Elite HTPC to do, it has done the task without issue. From streaming Netflix to pushing HD TV to three extenders at a time to recording up to six HD shows at once, nothing has phased the system. It doesn't even seem to blink no matter what is asked of it. (And yes, we are heavy TV and movie watchers.)
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 61
6/25/12 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehdi84 View Post

If I can do it within the price of what I can sell some of my parts for, it would be nice if I reduce the number of parts, heat and noise. If possible, of course. For example, I really don't want to use the GTX 275. It's just one more part that can fail. Plus, if I move to the new LGA 1115s for example, it will be cheaper for me in the future to upgrade/repair issues. LGA 775 parts and DDR2 is expensive.
All said... the i3s alone can really render 1080p x264 movies without dropped frames and HD audio? By themselves? ( I guess this is Assassin ). That kind of blows my mind, because I'm pretty sure the Q9550 cannot do that.

I'm pretty sure the Q9550 can decode 1080p H.264 when paired with an efficient software codec. However, doing it on Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge via the built-in hardware decoders is much more power efficient. You don't even need the i3. A Celeron G530 is good enough. I'd say sell your current parts while resale value is still fairly high. First thing I'd get rid of is the GTX 275. Runs hot, uses a ton of electricity and doesn't even do full hardware decode of Blu-ray codecs. tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 61
6/25/12 at 1:34pm
I can tell you unequivocally that the i3 processor can, without a doubt, decode and playback all current HD Audio codecs and high bit rate 1080p 24fps content from blu-ray. I've been doing it for over a year now with my Clarkdale i3 HTPC fed from my Clarkdale i5 PC over my gig Lan through a couple switches and the router. I have never had a problem with playback after getting it set up. A lot of time the i5 is downloading, repairing and converting files while it is serving up media to me PC.

Trust me the intel processors are very capable.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 61
6/25/12 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

I can tell you unequivocally that the i3 processor can, without a doubt, decode and playback all current HD Audio codecs and high bit rate 1080p 24fps content from blu-ray. I've been doing it for over a year now with my Clarkdale i3 HTPC fed from my Clarkdale i5 PC over my gig Lan through a couple switches and the router. I have never had a problem with playback after getting it set up. A lot of time the i5 is downloading, repairing and converting files while it is serving up media to me PC.

Trust me the intel processors are very capable.

 

With XBMC internal player (read the op smile.gif), perhaps you will disable DXVA2 because of poor support for Intel iGPU, that makes the excellent Intel GPU hardware completely useless (every video playback tasks are done by CPU). biggrin.gif I would go with AMD with or without DXVA2 (you can choose whichever).

Reply
Reply
post #16 of 61
6/25/12 at 2:12pm
I guess. I don't use XBMC. I didn't see that was a requirement in the OP. I don't have any issues with playback. I'm not sure what all the hooplala is about. The i3-550 in my HTPC has never given me an issue at all.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 61
6/25/12 at 2:39pm
There is no difference in pq with and without dxva enabled.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 61
6/25/12 at 11:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

There is no difference in pq with and without dxva enabled.

 

Run HQV 2.0 and you will see huge differences between DXVA2 off = software + XMBC's own algorithm and DXVA2 on = hardware + AMD driver's algorithm. wink.gif  Of course this may not reflect on the real-world experience in many cases. That's why people often say "no difference".

 

If you turn off DXVA2, PQ is identical whatever GPU you use as every video playback task is done by CPU. AMD Llano gives more options such as DXVA2, full-range RGB level, and madVR (with external player). A lot of XBMC users prefer DXVA2 for various reasons. Relying entirely on software is an outdated, boring method, developed by people often incompetent to utilize the hardware (think about Nevcairiel's LAV video decoder, Ericgur's brilliant work of Intel QuickSync decoder and madshi's madVR, all incorporate the modern GPU hardware aggresively).

 

Other people may think differently based on their own criteria, of course. smile.gif


Edited by renethx - 6/26/12 at 1:59am
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 61
6/26/12 at 4:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by renethx View Post

Run HQV 2.0 and you will see huge differences between DXVA2 off = software + XMBC's own algorithm and DXVA2 on = hardware + AMD driver's algorithm. wink.gif   Of course this may not reflect on the real-world experience in many cases. That's why people often say "no difference".

If you turn off DXVA2, PQ is identical whatever GPU you use as every video playback task is done by CPU. AMD Llano gives more options such as DXVA2, full-range RGB level, and madVR (with external player). A lot of XBMC users prefer DXVA2 for various reasons. Relying entirely on software is an outdated, boring method, developed by people often incompetent to utilize the hardware (think about Nevcairiel's LAV video decoder, Ericgur's brilliant work of Intel QuickSync decoder and madshi's madVR, all incorporate the modern GPU hardware aggresively).

Other people may think differently based on their own criteria, of course. smile.gif

I put absolutely no weight on HQV scores --- most of the reviewers also state that it has no correlation to HQV scores and perceived PQ as well. For madvr and some of the other options you mention they are not available in XBMC (which is what we are discussing here) so its a relatively moot point. Also, I have yet to see even 1 screenshot showing the dramatic difference that some are claiming with Madvr on 1080p/720p based content. Even Nevcairiel, who you reference, has stated there is only about a 5% gain at most by using Madvr. To me none of these are reasons to switch from XBMC if you like the way it works and looks (I think it looks identical to Madvr). And certainly not a reason to recommend against Intel when using XBMC.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 61
6/26/12 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

I put absolutely no weight on HQV scores --- most of the reviewers also state that it has no correlation to HQV scores and perceived PQ as well. For madvr and some of the other options you mention they are not available in XBMC (which is what we are discussing here) so its a relatively moot point. Also, I have yet to see even 1 screenshot showing the dramatic difference that some are claiming with Madvr on 1080p/720p based content. Even Nevcairiel, who you reference, has stated there is only about a 5% gain at most by using Madvr. To me none of these are reasons to switch from XBMC if you like the way it works and looks (I think it looks identical to Madvr). And certainly not a reason to recommend against Intel when using XBMC.

 

Yes, you (and everybody) shouldn't bother with what you are unable to notice. smile.gif

Reply
Reply
post #21 of 61
6/26/12 at 8:31am
I'm still at a loss as to why the easiest and cheapest solution for the OP isn't simply to keep his existing Q9550 system and spend $50 on a GT430 or a Radeon 6570 video card. What will that system not do just as well as a new build? The only downside I see is that it will run warmer than a new system, but so what?

If he wants to spend the money on a new case (that he could use in the future for a new build if he wanted to do so later) he's free to do that, or not. Or do it a few months from now when he has the cash or finds something he likes on sale. If he wants to sell his current video card, maybe he can recoup some of the cost of the new one.

But if he's worried about the cost, why isn't this the obvious way to procede?

Can someone please explain what I'm missing here?
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 61
6/26/12 at 8:48am
I think that is excellent advice. Just choose a card that you wouldn't mind re-using in case you decide to upgrade a little while in the future.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 61
6/26/12 at 8:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

I'm still at a loss as to why the easiest and cheapest solution for the OP isn't simply to keep his existing Q9550 system and spend $50 on a GT430 or a Radeon 6570 video card. What will that system not do just as well as a new build? The only downside I see is that it will run warmer than a new system, but so what?
If he wants to spend the money on a new case (that he could use in the future for a new build if he wanted to do so later) he's free to do that, or not. Or do it a few months from now when he has the cash or finds something he likes on sale. If he wants to sell his current video card, maybe he can recoup some of the cost of the new one.
But if he's worried about the cost, why isn't this the obvious way to procede?
Can someone please explain what I'm missing here?

OP's preference. If it were up to me, I'd just sell the GTX 275 and get a cheaper card. As I mentioned earlier, the Q9550 can still hold its own. It's definitely better than a Pentium G620/Celeron G530 you might use in a $300-400 build.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehdi84 View Post

If I can do it within the price of what I can sell some of my parts for, it would be nice if I reduce the number of parts, heat and noise. If possible, of course. For example, I really don't want to use the GTX 275. It's just one more part that can fail. Plus, if I move to the new LGA 1115s for example, it will be cheaper for me in the future to upgrade/repair issues. LGA 775 parts and DDR2 is expensive.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 61
6/26/12 at 10:15am

After I reread the posts, I realized that many posters don't understand XMBC and Intel iGPU very well. XBMC DXVA2 + Intel iGPU often causes heavy pixelation. So you will have to disable DXVA2 and have to rely on a software solution. That means video decode is always done by CPU and all post processing tasks including deinterlacing are done by CPU. Intel iGPU plays almost no role here. That's a difference from AMD and NVIDIA GPUs.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehdi84 View Post

All said... the i3s alone can really render 1080p x264 movies without dropped frames and HD audio? By themselves? ( I guess this is Assassin ). That kind of blows my mind, because I'm pretty sure the Q9550 cannot do that.

Yes, they can. They "drop" as many frames as ATI or NVidia and playback 1080p x264 with ease.

Sounds like you don't believe me. Read this independent review for more confirmation (i3 2100 HD2000)...

http://dvr.about.com/od/capturetvwithacomputer/a/Assassins-Elite-Htpc-Three-Months-In.htm

 

assassin doesn't use Intel iGPU with XBMC. Then why does he compare it with ATI or NVIDIA GPU? confused.gif  Well, if he turnes off DXVA2, that's true, it doesn't matter which GPU he uses...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehdi84 View Post

If I can do it within the price of what I can sell some of my parts for, it would be nice if I reduce the number of parts, heat and noise. If possible, of course. For example, I really don't want to use the GTX 275. It's just one more part that can fail. Plus, if I move to the new LGA 1115s for example, it will be cheaper for me in the future to upgrade/repair issues. LGA 775 parts and DDR2 is expensive.
All said... the i3s alone can really render 1080p x264 movies without dropped frames and HD audio? By themselves? ( I guess this is Assassin ). That kind of blows my mind, because I'm pretty sure the Q9550 cannot do that.

I'm pretty sure the Q9550 can decode 1080p H.264 when paired with an efficient software codec. However, doing it on Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge via the built-in hardware decoders is much more power efficient. You don't even need the i3. A Celeron G530 is good enough. I'd say sell your current parts while resale value is still fairly high. First thing I'd get rid of is the GTX 275. Runs hot, uses a ton of electricity and doesn't even do full hardware decode of Blu-ray codecs. tongue.gif

 

Unfortunately you won't use SNB/IVB built-in decoder with XBMC.

 

Yes, Core i3 or even Celeron/Pentium (CPU here, not GPU), as well as Core 2 Duo > ~2.4GHz and AMD Athlon/A-Series dual core > 2.5GHz, is powerful enough to decode all (up to) 1080p contents in software mode. If you add an AMD or NVIDIA GPU, however, perhaps you will use GPU's hardware decoder/post-processors with DXVA2 turned on. GPU's hardware decoder (a fixed function on the GPU die) is again powerful enough to decode all (up to) 1080p contents and often more power efficient than the CPU as a programmable video decoder.

Reply
Reply
post #25 of 61
6/26/12 at 10:16am

There are several choices. For example,

 

1. Use Q9550 and GTX 275, DXVA2 on.

2. Use Q9550 and add a better discrete GPU such as GT 430 or HD 6570. GPU will be fully utilized with DXVA2 turned on.

3. Build a new system with Intel Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge processor (CPU + GPU), without a discrete GPU. You will turn off DXVA2. So video playback is done only by CPU. GPU will be wasted.

4. Build a new system with AMD Llano APU (CPU + GPU), without a discrete GPU. GPU will be fully utilized with DXVA2 turned on.

5. Build a new system with Intel Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge processor and add a discrete GPU such as GT 430 or HD 6570. GPU will be fully utilized with DXVA2 turned on.

 

A quick summary:

 

CPU GPU Cost 1080p24 decode by CPU (Usage) 1080p24 decode by GPU Post processing by GPU HD audio bitstreaming Power at idle Power at 1080p24 playback by GPU (or CPU if GPU decoder is not available)
C2Q Q9550 GeForce GTX 275 $0 Yes (10%) Yes (H.264 only) Yes No (DD/DTS only via onboard audio) 80W 100W
C2Q Q9550 GeForce GT 430 $60 (GPU) Yes (10%) Yes Yes Yes 55W 65W
Celeron G530 Intel HD Graphics (iGPU) $150 (CPU/mb/mem) Yes (50%) No No Yes 35W 55W
AMD A6-3500 HD 6530D (iGPU) $150 (CPU/mb/mem) Yes (35%) Yes Yes Yes 35W 45W
Celeron G530 GeForce GT 430 $210 (CPU/mb/mem/GPU) Yes (50%) Yes Yes Yes 45W 55W

 

The second choice is the quickest and the result is pretty good.


Edited by renethx - 6/26/12 at 10:31am
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 61
6/26/12 at 10:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by renethx View Post

2. Use Q9550 and add a better discrete GPU such as GT 430 or HD 6570. GPU will be fully utilized with DXVA2 turned on.

The second choice is the quickest and the result is pretty good.

Cheapest, too, if the OP can sell the GTX 275 for $100. He even makes some money. tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 61
6/26/12 at 11:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by renethx View Post

After I reread the posts, I realized that many posters don't understand XMBC and Intel iGPU very well. XBMC DXVA2 + Intel iGPU often causes heavy pixelation. So you will have to disable DXVA2 and have to rely on a software solution. That means video decode is always done by CPU and all post processing tasks including deinterlacing are done by CPU. Intel iGPU plays almost no role here. That's a difference from AMD and NVIDIA GPUs.


assassin doesn't use Intel iGPU with XBMC. Then why does he compare it with ATI or NVIDIA GPU? confused.gif   Well, if he turnes off DXVA2, that's true, it doesn't matter which GPU he uses...


Unfortunately you won't use SNB/IVB built-in decoder with XBMC.

Yes, Core i3 or even Celeron/Pentium (CPU here, not GPU), as well as Core 2 Duo > ~2.4GHz and AMD Athlon/A-Series dual core > 2.5GHz, is powerful enough to decode all (up to) 1080p contents in software mode. If you add an AMD or NVIDIA GPU, however, perhaps you will use GPU's hardware decoder/post-processors with DXVA2 turned on. GPU's hardware decoder (a fixed function on the GPU die) is again powerful enough to decode all (up to) 1080p contents and often more power efficient than the CPU as a programmable video decoder.

You are really splitting hairs here, imo. It doesn't matter what is being used if the result is the same. I am comparing the Intel iGPU/CPU (whatever you want to call it) to an NVidia 430 and ATI 6450. The results are identical to my eyes. All do 1080p, 720p, 1080i and HD Audio bitstreaming. Same as in WMC or MPCHC using Madvr. As mentioned you can't use Madvr currently in XBMC so it is a moot point. BTW turning DXVA on saves about 2-3 watts at most.

Bottom line: Use whatever you want for XBMC as they all work very well.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 61
6/26/12 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd View Post

if the OP can sell the GTX 275 for $100. He even makes some money. tongue.gif

 

This applies to every other solution. If he can sell Q9550 for $150 and GTX 275 for $100, he may make some money even if he buys a SNB, a H61 mb, DDR3-1600 2GB x 2 and a discrete card.

Reply
Reply
post #29 of 61
6/26/12 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by renethx View Post

This applies to every other solution. If he can sell Q9550 for $150 and GTX 275 for $100, he may make some money even if he buys a SNB, a H61 mb, DDR3-1600 2GB x 2 and a discrete card.

True. Requires a lot more work to set-up though.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 61
6/26/12 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

You are really splitting hairs here, imo.

 

No, not at all. Your posts often include wrong information. I just made a correction. smile.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

BTW turning DXVA on saves about 2-3 watts at most.

 

Another perfectly wrong statement. wink.gif (Well, depending on what you play.) During the play back of this 2 min FHD film clip (1080p24, ripped directly from a BD), the average system power consumption of my Celeron G530 system is:

 

- ~40W when DXVA2 is turned on (with heavy pixelations)

- ~52W when DXVA2 is turned off

 

The difference is ~12W. (Well, personally I don't care about such a difference.)


Edited by renethx - 2/11/13 at 10:14am
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Build a HTPC with current parts, build a HTPC with new parts or purchase a pre-built.