[snowjim]

Hi,

I have used XBMC on a couple of diffrent hardwares (Intel NUC i5 and Zotac HD-ND22) but it have never worked perfect. There have been lagging and sync problems.

Now Im thinking for building a NAS that could also be used for XBMC. This is the hardware that would fit the NAS best :

- Fractal Design Node 304
- Inte Prentium G3220 3,0Ghz
- ASRock E3C226D2I (mini-itx with ECC)
- 4GB DDR3 EDD Reg
- XFX Core Edition P1-550S-XXB9 550W

What do I need to make this work fully with XBMC in Windows Server 2012? And when I say fully I mean no lag att all and no sync problems?

[bluray]

The PSU in your list is huge. This "SeaSonic SS-300ET" should be plenty of power. Since you have expansion slot, I'm recommending this "SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6570 2GB" discrete GPU to go along with your Intel CPU...

[snowjim]

The PSU in your list is huge. This "SeaSonic SS-300ET" should be plenty of power. Since you have expansion slot, I'm recommending this "SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6570 2GB" discrete GPU to go along with your Intel CPU...

Thanks I have added the parts and its not that much more.

Do you thinkt that this will works good with XBMC even on a Windows machine?

As you seen, I have a Intel NUC and a Zotac since before that do work but not perfect.

[Dougie Fresh]

With the Pentium G3220 you should not need a discrete GPU. The on-board Intel GPU is more than sufficient for XBMC. Should you run into a weird driver issue, want more gaming, etc. then that would be the time to add, later, a discrete GPU.

[bluray]

The PSU in your list is huge. This "SeaSonic SS-300ET" should be plenty of power. Since you have expansion slot, I'm recommending this "SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6570 2GB" discrete GPU to go along with your Intel CPU...

Thanks I have added the parts and its not that much more.

Do you thinkt that this will works good with XBMC even on a Windows machine?

As you seen, I have a Intel NUC and a Zotac since before that do work but not perfect.

Yes, discrete HD6570 should do great on XBMC with Windows. I always preferred discrete GPU over iGPU when there is room in the case and the budget for it. The PC and playback seems to be snappier with discrete GPU. It is great for upscaling video as I stated in this (post #6)....

[nooryani84]

Looks fine, the question is what your NAS will be doing - just a file server? If you want to do any transcoding or other stuff then you may need a more powerful CPU. Other than that, the setup looks great. What HDD/SSD do you plan on using?

[p750mmx]

Hi,

I have used XBMC on a couple of different hardwares (Intel NUC i5 and Zotac HD-ND22) but it have never worked perfect. There have been lagging and sync problems.

[cut]

Could you describe what you mean with "not perfect", under Windows (7/8), or what OS did you use? Both systems could run just fine if correct configured, even an old ION 330 will work just fine (without lagging and sync issues) on a Windows 7 system. And the (older type) NUC i5, with HD graphics 4000, can also do a great job, with the right Intel drivers installed.

There is really no need for a discrete GPU in most cases.

[DrDaxxy]

The PSU in your list is huge. This "SeaSonic SS-300ET" should be plenty of power. Since you have expansion slot, I'm recommending this "SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6570 2GB" discrete GPU to go along with your Intel CPU...

Thanks I have added the parts and its not that much more.

Do you thinkt that this will works good with XBMC even on a Windows machine?

As you seen, I have a Intel NUC and a Zotac since before that do work but not perfect.

Yes, discrete HD6570 should do great on XBMC with Windows. I always preferred discrete GPU over iGPU when there is room in the case and the budget for it. The PC and playback seems to be snappier with discrete GPU. It is great for upscaling video as I stated in this (post #6)....

Haswell does high-quality (Lanczos3 etc.) upscaling without a hitch. Hell, my i3-4130T is fast enough to decode 10-bit 1080p in software (and even if that Pentium isn't, a graphics card won't help, as no vendor supports hi10p hardware decoding yet).
You keep recommending adding dedicated GPUs (or more horsepower in general) when for pure media playback use, there no longer seems to be any benefit whatsoever to using one. It's a waste of money and energy.

The only things in XBMC involving a GPU at all are GUI rendering (and I haven't seen any x86 processor better than Atom class in recent years that can't render an XBMC skin at 50fps), video playback (which is not a problem for integrated GPUs at all, and there's no use having a card that's capable of decoding faster than the actual playback speed), and visualisations (also very light).

What on earth are these advantages you speak of?

[bluray]

Haswell does high-quality (Lanczos3 etc.) upscaling without a hitch. Hell, my i3-4130T is fast enough to decode 10-bit 1080p in software (and even if that Pentium isn't, a graphics card won't help, as no vendor supports hi10p hardware decoding yet).
You keep recommending adding dedicated GPUs (or more horsepower in general) when for pure media playback use, there no longer seems to be any benefit whatsoever to using one. It's a waste of money and energy.

Try upscaling as stated in my post #6 using iGPU, then try it with a discrete GPU I suggested on the same PC, and then you will have your answer.....

The only things in XBMC involving a GPU at all are GUI rendering (and I haven't seen any x86 processor better than Atom class in recent years that can't render an XBMC skin at 50fps), video playback (which is not a problem for integrated GPUs at all, and there's no use having a card that's capable of decoding faster than the actual playback speed), and visualisations (also very light).

What on earth are these advantages you speak of?

As I stated, if there is budget for discrete GPU go for it. Your top paragraph provided answer for your bottom line question....

[bluray]

If you are into PQ as these guys (Unhappy with Intel HD4000. ATI Card suggestions?), you should read their posts. After 5 kids later, my eyes degraded badly. For me, PQ is not as important AQ these days....

[nooryani84]

To be honest, the HD 2000 was sufficient for me. The screen you're displaying it on will have a big impact as well. I'm using a Philips 32pfl9705h and I have to turn off pretty much all post-processing - these kind of features are subjective though.

[Dougie Fresh]

It's easy enough to try the integrated gpu and add one later if PQ is an issue.

[nooryani84]

Though I'll admit, once you get used to higher PQ, it's hard to downgrade to something inferior.

[bluray]

Though I'll admit, once you get used to higher PQ, it's hard to downgrade to something inferior.

+1....A lot of hardcore home theater enthusiasts always want the best PQ on their humongous screen. You might not notice much of a different on a tiny screen, but over 80" screen as what a couple friends of mine have in their theater room really make a different with what GPU they use......

[p750mmx]

If you are into PQ as these guys (Unhappy with Intel HD4000. ATI Card suggestions?), you should read their posts. After 5 kids later, my eyes degraded badly. For me, PQ is not as important AQ these days....

I didn't know that my four children are responsible for the loss of my eyes, I will punish them when the come home
For me image quality is the first I look for but as you clearly stated, I can't see what my children can see, but I rarely here them complain.
Intel made some nice products but some good drivers to support that seems to be difficult for them, that also was a problem for AMD, after the 12.8-12.10 series they also put a lot of shitty drivers on the net. And with that, one must put a effort in adjusting settings until it is as optimal as it can get. I even combine different driver versions for HDMI audio and video when one or the other doesn't seems to do the job right. I nice working Media Center can take a lot of work before it comes to that.