Hi,
I have got hold of the following kit: -
AMD Athlon 4850e
Gigabyte GA-MA69VM-S2 (rev. 1.0) Motherboard
ATI Radeon HD 3450
The GPU has HDMI output and I have seen various threads saying it can handle 1080p ok.
I was wondering if it would be worthwhile upgrading the CPU on the motherboard and changing the GPU to a 430GT for HD Audio Bitstreaming via HDMI.
Or should I just get a new set up based around a AMD350 or similar? No gaming required, purely for HTPC duties.
It's all going in a Antec Fusion HTPC case.
Regards,
Simpic
Your current hw should work fine on windows. Buying gt430 for just audio bitstreaming is insane
nemek Wrote:Your current hw should work fine on windows. Buying gt430 for just audio bitstreaming is insane
He did say
HD audio bitstreaming. Will his current hardware do that?
I can wholeheartedly recommend getting an
Asus GT520 if you want HD bitstreaming - it's much better suited for HTPC duties than the GT430 since it uses 40% less power to do the same thing.
It works perfectly on both Windows 7 and Linux but keep in mind that XBMC does not yet feature native HD bitstreaming - it is being worked on however and in the meantime you can use (on Windows) dsplayer XBMC with ffdshow to accomplish the task.
@nemek: if the rest of the equipment (amp and speakers) is of sufficient quality, installing a new video card "just" for HD audio bitstreaming is totally worth it - the difference is remarkable.
T800 Wrote:He did say HD audio bitstreaming. Will his current hardware do that?
No, it won't - that is only available on AMD 5000 series or newer, Nvidia Fermi based cards (like the GT520 I mentioned above which is the smallest and cheapest incarnation of this and best for HTPC) and Intel Clarkdale (Core i3-/i5-XXX) as well as Sandy Bridge (Core i3-/i5-2XXX).
Thanks for the info voyman. I'll look into that card.
What do you reckon to upgrading the chip? Is it worth it or not?
Regards,
Simpic
if you already have that hardware, I'd stick with the CPU - it's a lower power version (45W instead of the usual 65-95W) and therefore well suited for HTPC. generally speaking, any recent desktop cpu will more than suffice for an HTPC for normal people - there are those who do lots of post-processing on the video via custom renderers that need fast cpus; but for everybody else, it's just a waste.
voyman Wrote:I can wholeheartedly recommend getting an Asus GT520 if you want HD bitstreaming - it's much better suited for HTPC duties than the GT430 since it uses 40% less power to do the same thing.
+1 for the Asus GT520. Another plus is the passive heatsink that will allow it to fit in ANY case and still be completely silent.
Thanks Gents.
Asus GT520 ordered. Looks like I'll be installing windows 7 for the time being until HD Audio is sorted on LINUX with out too much CLI hacking!
Regards,
Simpic
Has anyone noticed a visible difference in loading WIN7 & XBMC using a SSD over a normal HDD?
Price point is pretty mute for me on these options.
Regards,
Simpic
simpic Wrote:Has anyone noticed a visible difference in loading WIN7 & XBMC using a SSD over a normal HDD?
Absolutely! Especially if you have a system equipped with an UEFI bios, like the newer intel chips or even AMD's Zacate platform. From hitting the power button to using your remote to scroll through media, you can easily shave 30-45 seconds. But obviously it depends on your hardware and software configuration, and if you have a bunch of stuff to load in the background. But it also makes a big difference if you use sleep or hibernation modes, you'll wake up in a fraction of the time...quick enough that people actually want to use those modes instead of just leaving it on 24/7 idle.
But unlike a mechanical drive, once you get into windows an SSD allows you instant usability. It is probably the single best investment for any modern PC that doesn't have a high primary storage requirement. Lower power, lower heat, no moving parts, and several times the performance of even the best mechanical drives...cant argue with that
wicky Wrote:It is probably the single best investment for any modern PC that doesn't have a high primary storage requirement. Lower power, lower heat, no moving parts, and several times the performance of even the best mechanical drives...cant argue with that
Amen.
Agreed, if I wasn't using a SSD putting the HTPC to sleep and waking it would take too long and I would just leave it on 24/7.
Quote:if I wasn't using a SSD putting the HTPC to sleep and waking it would take too long and I would just leave it on 24/7.
I guess You are misunderstanding sleep (S3) and hibernate (S4) states.
S3 is suspend to ram - it means only ram are powered. PC will draw few watts and wake up immediately.
S4 is suspend to disk (hdd) - it takes more time to sleep pc (dumping ram to hdd) and way more time for waking up (reading from hdd) - here sdd may be useful but it would be better to use S3 instead.
nemek Wrote:I guess You are misunderstanding sleep (S3) and hibernate (S4) states.
S3 is suspend to ram - it means only ram are powered. PC will draw few watts and wake up immediately.
S4 is suspend to disk (hdd) - it takes more time to sleep pc (dumping ram to hdd) and way more time for waking up (reading from hdd) - here sdd may be useful but it would be better to use S3 instead.
Interesting Nemek.
So is there a minimum RAM requirement for S3 mode? The machine I'm building will have 4GB. I'll be running WIN7 + XBMC only.
I guess it's a BIOS setting to use either S3 or S4?
Regards,
Simpic
simpic Wrote:Interesting Nemek.
So is there a minimum RAM requirement for S3 mode? The machine I'm building will have 4GB. I'll be running WIN7 + XBMC only.
I guess it's a BIOS setting to use either S3 or S4?
Regards,
Simpic
It's not a BIOS setting.
You get the option to hiberate or sleep when you shutdown/restart in Windows 7. You can also set it to hiberate or sleep after it's stood for a set amount of time in the power options.