Guide to Building a HTPC, Workstation and Server - Page 105

I thought this would be the place to ask...

I am going to change this motherboard (690G) to at least a 790GX or an 790FX with the better southbridge but that depends on product release and the itch to make upgrades.

In any event, both boards have a rear e-SATA port where the Gigabyte board I have only has front support since the case I use does. I was thinking about a 4/5 bay case without an e-SATA card because I'll just use the rear port on the back of the board.

What case would you recommend that doesn't come with a SATA card?

Any drive recommendations?

Thanks

Hi, does the GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H rear e-sata port support 4-5 hdd bay case?

hello everybody, what a great thread!

renethx, i have taken a look at your MicroATX System Feature Comparison and now I have a question:

Which one of the following two systems is better for post-processing of SD- and HD-contents (and deinterlacing 1080i material)?

a.) 780G + Phenom X3 8450
b.) 780G + Athlon X2 4850e + HD4350/HD4550/HD46XX

What do you think, will there be any differences?
I am not interested in the sound features of the HD4XXX series, because i am going to connect my htpc to my A/V Receiver via S/PDIF . I just wonder if the dGPU of system b.) would be worth the extra money.

I just want to have maximum picture quality on my SAMSUNG LE46A656.

Greetings,
CheckersAlfons

Post 3

Hey everyone!

I did a quick search on the forum for this and couldn't find it. Y'all might like it.

http://www.antec.com/us/pro_en_Veris.php

Renethx, thank you for your quick reply.

This is the list of all components I am going to buy:
Case: Antec Fusion Remote
PSU: Seasonic S12II 330W ATX 2.2
MB: Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H, 780G
CPU: AMD Athlon X2 4850e Sockel-AM2 boxed, 2x 2.50GHz, 2x 512kB Cache
CPU-Cooler: Scythe Ninja mini
RAM: 2GB DDR2-800
HDD: Western Digital Caviar Green 1000GB SATA II
DVD: I have one at home
TV-Tuner: Technisat SkyStar HD2 PCI

I'll wait for some passive-cooled Versions of HD4650/4670, and if post-processing is the same as of HD4850, I will buy one additionally.

Renethx, according to your MicroATX System Feature Comparison, a Phenom X4 + 780G + HD4850 is excellent in post-processing of both SD and HD contents. What about my possible combo: Athlon X2 + 780G +HD46XX? Is the CPU to weak for excellent post-processing? By the way: What are HD HQV scores?

To be honest, my favorite combination would be a 45nm Intel CPU (E5200/E7200)+ AMD HD4650, but it seems that Intel mainboards are more expensive because I did not find a mainboard that costs about the same as the GA-MA78GM and also has optical audio out and is microATX.

A GA-MA78GM for Intel CPU's would be perfect

http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p...tinum&class=mb

MSI DKA790GX Platinum

Lies. Vista is actually a worse choice for a HTPC than XP. Vista hogs all your resources. Please find me one thing you'd want a HTPC to do that XP Pro won't do.

Secondly,

I have a PC with a CPU well under your requirements and it does everything I need very well.

Please include the thread/user referenced in your quotes (you appear to have edited them out). I agree that Vista is a hog and don't know why anyone would want or need it. I am currently trying to see what it takes to allow my Windows 2K server (not 2003) to support Blu Ray playback so I am not even an XP fan myself...

Really? Which resources?

Been away from this forum for about a month (new baby!) so naturally Im completely out of date.

Looking to build an HTPC and want the best quality blu ray and HDtv quality available for IGP. Last I heard the 760g + phenom had best all around picture but with only 2 channel audio over hdmi. 8200 had 7.1 LPCM but not as good interlacing. We were all anxiously awaiting the G45 which would hopefully have just as good video/interlacing as well as 7.1 LPCM goodness.

I see its out now, read the forum for one of them but havent heard anything definitive...Is the g45 the 760G 8200 killer?

Wow, thats a ringing endorsement! Can I ask if the recommended system will now change to the G45? I see the micro-atx is still 760G. What exactly is disadvantage (if any) to the G45? All I can see is that its a little more expensive.

renethx
In this Intel blog
The conclusion has me a bit vexed.
Is he saying the G45 chipset cannot transmit Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA?!

Thanks, O knowledgeable master!

Of course I could use the PCIx1.....

Oh well just an idea.

Huh?

#1 - that blog, while recent, is using ancient drivers (15.8). Those were before the G45-specific stuff was even added, back in 15.9. We're up to 15.11 now.

#2 - The G45 does support PAP. So that means all it needs is a software player (like TMT), and you can bitstream TrueHD and DTS-MA. Unlike the 4850 which apparently has no PAP.

So this is just completely wrong. Right now there is no TrueHD/DTS-MA support for anything, but come later this week the Asus Xonar will support it, because TMT is being released to support it. The G45 shouldn't be far behind.

Don't trust bloggers, for goodness sake.

I don't think I said anything that categorical. It would result in a diminishment in my reputation for being vague and using weasel words to get around saying things plainly.

That blog puts it as bluntly as you'll probably get it, though: if it's not advertised as being able to bitstream, it probably doesn't bitstream. I'd think Marketing would have loved to be able to advertise that kind of capability (though they never said boo about HDMI multichannel audio, so what do I know?).

HDMI can bitstream, so the G45 can bitstream. It's simply about the PAVP, which the G45 advertises as having.

If Intel is too lazy to work with the software players to get them to support their G45 PAVP, then they will lose all credibility in the HTPC space. I'd be shocked, but not totally surprised, if they abandoned yet another platform.

But let's not pretend this has anything to do with a technical limitation of the G45, since it doesn't. This is entirely about Intel willing to form the right partnerships or not. If they can't get it done with the G45, they can't be trusted to ever get it done.

Fool me once (G35), shame on you... Fool me twice (G45), shame on you.

Let's see how this plays out. And later this week, I'm buying at least one Xonar. Perhaps I need to just do everything as a 4*50 + Xonar from here on out, and get non-IGP (non-Intel) motherboards.

Today's post in that blog highlights what we know--great work renethx!

So, I am using the Asus 8200, and the DVD playback and SD playback in general is subpar. I am using a low power system running on a PicoPSU 120, so I don't have a ton of leeway. I was going to add a 9400GT or 9500gt if I could get away with it. Would using either of those to transmit the video portion to the TV improve the quality of the DVD's? I'd still run the audio from the board's HDMI to the Onkyo 606 receiver for the 8ch LPCM thats working flawlessly.

Would I see an improvment over the 8200's quality?

This is an update on my much older post. I did give up on the slot-A Athlon effort because of a number of complications. Here is what I now have and it appears to provide very good playback (no jitters, breaks, etc) but...
Previously Owned items (Zero cost):
ATX Case and 350W Power Supply
768MB of Kingston PC2700/333MHz DDR memory
189GB IDE HD
Floppy
37-inch LG 37LG50 (capable of native 1080p)
20-inch SONY MultiSync Monitor (native 1080p through VGA port)
Keyboard, Mouse, etc
Note: I am currently running these are dual displays but running
the LCD isolated by itself as the single display provides identical
results as outlined below so it appears that the GPU doesn't
particular "care" if it has to handle one display or spread the
video details across the two screens (in either mode, the BluRay
playback ONLY occurs on the 1080p LCD).

Purchased Items:
Goal3+ motherboard with Sempron 3000+ processor (~$45)
Radeon Sapphire HD 3650 with 512MB DDR2 (~$55)
Sony BDU-X10S BluRay player ($125 via promotions & credits)

So as you can see, the total cost is just over $200 and about 4 hours of time getting the right drivers loaded. I also had to move from Windows 2000 server to XP Home in order for the drivers to work (I have not been able to get the W2K drivers on the Radeon website to work...yet). So (for the meantime), I have set the W2K platform aside on a separate set of older SCSI RAID-5 drives if I want to continue to pursue that part of the effort again in the future.

It should be noted that I also use this platform to run a Cinemar HTPC operating platform that controls not only my Home Theater but also the Whole House audio, home intercom and telephone integration functions. For the purposes of these results Cinemar was not running.

I also have a front projector system in the Home Theater room that will also accept a component video input that I plan on routing this signal through once these details have been worked out. I plan to be able to select either the LG 1080p or the front projector depending on if I want the movie to show in either the office or the HT. Showing in both might be a neat idea but I am (fairly certain) that is not a capability of this video board at this time and choosing one of the other is really no problem as they are on separate interfaces anyway (LCD is connected via a DVI-to-HDMI cable).

Only the PowerDVD application was running along with XP Task Manager and the ATI Catalyst Control Center application. Windows Task Manager shows CPU usage between 77% and 95% with only periodic peaks hitting 100%. Catalyst ATI Overdrive monitor shows GPU actively only around 20% with GPU temp under 50-degrees with an optimized settings of 725/515 (GPU/Memory respectively) via the automated "auto-tune" feature in that software.

Here are my concerns:
1) The PowerDVD application has been "patched" (upgraded in ATI terminology) but I have not paid for any audio upgrades. I've read somewhere on here that we can download a foreign version for free that does this but then that same thread also clearly states "after you have paid for it..." so that has me concerned that the only way to get 5:1 audio for this application is by spending more $'s (which I would like to avoid because I feel that an application capable of playing BluRay's should NATIVELY support the accompanying audio and not be a "crippled" version designed to force the general public into buying what might otherwise be an inferior product). So my first question to this board is...Can I get the enhanced audio capabilities for the PowerDVD application without spending any more $'s on that application or if I HAVE to spend the $'s, which application would be the best to spend them on (Please keep in mind that I have a Yamaha RV-V2400 which has Coax and optical S/PDIF inputs only and can play 5.1 or 7.1 from that interface). Also please keep in mind that I don't need (nor want) any type of HDMI-embedded audio for this application.

2) Whenever the PowerDVD application starts, it states in a PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION pop-up window "For smooth high quality video play back, click Yes. Your display resolution will be temporarily lowered until you stop the video." Of course, I click NO because I do not want it lowered and it "appears" to play just fine and the resolution does appear to be 1080p. Why does PowerDVD give me this "apparently bogus" message? Is this another factor of it being a "crippled application" that comes with the Sony BD drive? Is there some 3rd-party "tool" application I should run to verify that 1080p IS being run when this movie plays?

3) This is probably the most important question out of all of these... I thought that the Radeon 3650 card was "suppose" to have the capacity to off-load the video demands from the motherboard's CPU. Seeing as how the GPU is only running about 20% and the motherboard CPU is nearly slammed, this does not appear to be occurring in my case. Rather, it appears that the Radeon's GPU is only "assisting" the motherboards own processor. Is this occurring due to my error in configuring the playback software? Is is occurring because of the crippled PowerDVD application? Is it occurring because a certain chipset (north or southbridge) is required on the motherboard that this motherboard doesn't posses? If so, I can understand that and could upgrade to one of the lower-end recommended systems on this thread but the last thing I would want to do would be to spend more $'s on a different MB/CPU solution and then STILL see the GPU itself not running any faster due to that additional cost. As I said, it "appears" to playback as it is at the required 1080p level.

Thanks in advance for your educated guidance.