[jaochoo]

Thanks, bluray. Could I achieve the same with a cheaper CPU? I am sure an IVB i5 can handle all that with ease, but I don't wanna overpay, especially not since I might add a dGPU later on.

[Dougie Fresh]

When you say "ripping" and "encoding" do you really mean that you're going to re-encode the video from the format that's already on the BD or DVD into some other format?

If it's a straight rip 1:1 then you don't need a quad-core CPU just for ripping. If you are going to convert to a different format, then a quad-core is a good idea. There is a big difference here so it's good to clarify what you are planning.

Remember, what's on the BD or DVD is already compressed and encoded. A lot of people just rip by taking the data on the BD or DVD and writing it to a file or file structure which is limited more by the speed of the BD or DVD drive and requires very little CPU.

[jaochoo]

When you say "ripping" and "encoding" do you really mean that you're going to re-encode the video from the format that's already on the BD or DVD into some other format?

Generally I would probably just create a 1:1 copy of the disc, as long as the quality is maintained and the file doesn't get too big. I think re-encoding would only be the case if I would like to compress it to a smaller file size, but that would cause quality loss, right?

[Dougie Fresh]

When you say "ripping" and "encoding" do you really mean that you're going to re-encode the video from the format that's already on the BD or DVD into some other format?

Generally I would probably just create a 1:1 copy of the disc, as long as the quality is maintained and the file doesn't get too big. I think re-encoding would only be the case if I would like to compress it to a smaller file size, but that would cause quality loss, right?

Ok, thanks for the clarification. For 1:1 ripping, a dual-core is just fine (E.g. my main HTPC with the blu-ray that I rip with has a G530 in it). It's all I/O at that point. If you did want to shrink it, it could mean quality loss though it might just be reducing the resolution from say 1080p to 720p in which case you might not notice depending on your setup. For BD, I rip the main title to MKV 1:1 and for DVD I rip the whole DVD to folder structure. BD rips can range from 20GB-50GB and DVD rips 4GB-9GB.

Now, that isn't to say your "workstation" requirement is satisfied by a dual-core. I see workstation, especially development tools and I know that I use IntelliJ which benefits greatly from 8GB and a quad-core CPU. For combined HTPC and workstation my first thought is i5-3570K and 8GB of RAM. You get the HD4000 iGPU and you get the quad-core with high clock rate that'll do well with single-threaded and multi-threaded applications. Or, even i5-2500K if you can find a good deal on it.

[bluray]

Thanks, bluray. Could I achieve the same with a cheaper CPU? I am sure an IVB i5 can handle all that with ease, but I don't wanna overpay, especially not since I might add a dGPU later on.

Sometime, it is okay to spend a little more for something that you will like for a long time.......with all the stuffs in your list, I thought that spending $182 for a very good CPU is well worth it......you'll have the latest technology too.....

[witalik]

Isn't the Vertex2 SATAII? The motherboard will support both SATAII and SATAIII so I would get an SSD that supports the latter.

David

It is, but i had a great deal on this SSD, bought it for half of what i spend on it last year and as we speak it has gone up with 40 euro's again.

So i got all the stuff in now, Nmedia doesnt have a retail or seller in Europe.. So i will have to go trough buying it via Ebay or something.



and for Bluray the PSU i have now is a Gold + instead of bronze +, so i would reckon this also would give less heat ?

[assassin]

the PSU i have now is a Gold + instead of bronze +, so i would reckon this also would give less heat ?

No, its not that straightforward.

PSU ratings are relevant if the PSU uses 20% or more of its rated wattage (and efficiency is greatest at about 50% load overall which a HTPC will never come close to hitting in most instances). Since a HTPC (and especially the newer Intel CPUs) use about 25-40w at playback you are rarely going to hit the minimum required to meet that 20% mark.

So the bottom line is who knows what efficiency you are actually running at.

It makes little difference as long as you are running a 80+ PSU. The 7-8% additional that you get by "upgrading" to a Gold rated PSU is likely lost by such a low load. So I usually recommend to get a well built 80+ psu and not to pay extra for more "efficiency" because of these issues. You may never recoup the cost and if you ever do it will take many years.

[Dougie Fresh]

There's a nice chart about 80+ in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS

In normal usage you might use 30W-40W with the components you're showing. That's less than 10% of load. It won't make a difference 80+ of any level. It's hard to say what the efficiency will be at that load since it won't be published.

A good power supply for this setup would have been a 12V picoPSU-90 with a 12V 7A-8A AC adapter (84W-96W -- whatever you could find at the best price).

Also a good article: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/C...cation/856

[jaochoo]

I see workstation, especially development tools and I know that I use IntelliJ which benefits greatly from 8GB and a quad-core CPU. For combined HTPC and workstation my first thought is i5-3570K and 8GB of RAM. You get the HD4000 iGPU and you get the quad-core with high clock rate that'll do well with single-threaded and multi-threaded applications. Or, even i5-2500K if you can find a good deal on it.

I am not a professional developer, it's more a hobby, and the tools I use for web development are mainly simple text editors like Notepad++ or development IDEs like Eclipse which I never had performance issues with running on dual-core CPUs. The most resource hungry software probably will be Photoshop. All of these are currently running on my Thinkpad Edge notebook which apparently is an i3-380UM. So I am wondering whether I really need the 4 cores. (The i5-2500K is definitely out for me; for almost the same price I could get a i5-3570K with newer technology, better graphics and less TDP).

Thanks, bluray. Could I achieve the same with a cheaper CPU? I am sure an IVB i5 can handle all that with ease, but I don't wanna overpay, especially not since I might add a dGPU later on.

Sometime, it is okay to spend a little more for something that you will like for a long time.......with all the stuffs in your list, I thought that spending $182 for a very good CPU is well worth it......you'll have the latest technology too.....

Sure, but there are also other nice areas that cost, like the SSD I bought (rather than going with a HDD only), or the UnRaid server I will build, so I want to choose wisely what I spend the money for.

I just listed the CPUs and their prices and specifications. Based on that comparison, I am currently leaning towards the i3-3225. It's latest IVB technology, has the better HD4000, a quite high clock rate, and a low TDP, while not being much more expensive than the next best SB (not considering that these prices might fall after the i3 IVBs are released), and whereas the i5-3570K (which also has HD4000) is much more expensive while only offering 2 more cores and a bit more clock rate. What do you think?
Only downside would be that I have to wait another few weeks... So I'm really torn between waiting or just saying "Fuck it, let's spend the money!" :-(

[witalik]

There's a nice chart about 80+ in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS

In normal usage you might use 30W-40W with the components you're showing. That's less than 10% of load. It won't make a difference 80+ of any level. It's hard to say what the efficiency will be at that load since it won't be published.

A good power supply for this setup would have been a 12V picoPSU-90 with a 12V 7A-8A AC adapter (84W-96W -- whatever you could find at the best price).

Also a good article: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/C...cation/856

Its about the same price, i wonder what would be best to do actually. return this and get a pico or just keep this.

[witalik]

Btw just came across this when i was checking the 2125T vs 2125

http://ark.intel.com/products/59080/Inte...-3_30-GHz)

It states this :

Memory Types DDR3-1066/1333

I bought 1600 memory now, but is it no use now because it cant use that speed ?

And here i read in the reply by IntelEnthusiast:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/325326-10-2125

DDR 3 1600 is costing the same as the DDR 3 1333 just make sure that you pick up 1.5v memory as the 2nd generation Intel Core processors only support DDR 3 at 1.5v ±5%. Any more can damage the memory controller on the processor.

Specs of the memory card i have now are :

blu - 4GB Module - DDR3 1600MHz CL9 DIMM

Part Number: KHX1600C9D3B1/4G

HTS: 8473.30.1140, ECCN: EAR99

Specs: DDR3, 1600MHz, CL9, 1.65V, Unbuffered, Spec Sheet PDF
Timings: 1600MHz, 9-9-9, 1.65V

(From Kinsgston site)

Anything to be worried about ?

[Arkitket]

Just step the RAM down in the bios to run at 1333Mhz (chances are your bios will do it automatically, but if not you should do it manually).

[assassin]

I usually stick with 1.5V for Intel builds.

I have some RAM that I recommend and have used dozens of times over at my hardware guide.

[witalik]

Havent really checked this out, came upon this by chance ! Pretty weird it doesnt state something at the site i orderd it all from.

So i really should check this out asap as the system starts up? I assume the voltage goes down also if i lower the RAM down ?

[witalik]

Can anyone confirm this ? Should i be getting new RAM or can i use this Kingston RAM.

Because if i lower the voltage i wont have the benefit of using 1600 ram ?