Extremely Cheap HTPC

S

S3th13

Gawd
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
992
Could someone help me price out the cheapest HTPC possible with these constraints:

- Plays .mkv 1080p video perfectly
- Audio over HDMI
- Discrete GPU for post image processing via Media Player Classic: Home Cinema
- Gigabit Ethernet(10/100/1000)
- At least somewhat power conscience...
- Cheap HTPC case, although I'm sure I can find one with a crappy PSU on newegg.


Components that I do not need:
- Hard Drive
- CD/DVD Rom
- Operating System

Thanks for the help. Any other information that I need is also appreciated.

And if you don't want to search for all of these components, all I really need is a few suggestions on key parts. I.E. Cheap GPU suitable for HTPC, best AMD motherboard/CPU combo, etc
 
Last edited:
Ok here we go

Card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102819 (Passive LP if needed and does 7.1 Audio and full video over HDMI) Best card for the price range period.

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103698 (This is going to be low heat)

Mobo: Find the cheapest one that works with that CPU. Others can do that. Oh and stay with MicroATX

Case. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147126 (Cheap but Rosewill is a pretty good maker of cases)
 
Thanks for everything. That does seem like a decent case, but I was looking for more of thin, horizontal case. A single core with that architecture will be able to decode an x.264 1080p stream?
 
Get a 8200/8300 motherboard with a phenom chip, whatever you feel like spending or a 9300/9400 with a c2d.
I use a Intel G45 board with 2ghz c2d and 2gb of ram. It's more than enough for 1080p.

You don't need a discrete card. The onboard on these boards handle full 1080p HD and 7.1 audio over HDMI.
 
Archer75 said:
Get a 8200/8300 motherboard with a phenom chip, whatever you feel like spending or a 9300/9400 with a c2d.
I use a Intel G45 board with 2ghz c2d and 2gb of ram. It's more than enough for 1080p.

You don't need a discrete card. The onboard on these boards handle full 1080p HD and 7.1 audio over HDMI.
Click to expand...


I hate to be blunt. But after using my new mobo for a time. I wish people would stop recommending it. Its just too darn weak! The ATI 4550 will offload the video decoding just fine and have far more power for the heat.
 
Then what software to do you use to decode x.264? Any I've used on my desktop (shown below) uses at least 25% of my CPU.
 
$200

Hope I didn't forget anything.

S3th13 said:
Then what software to do you use to decode x.264? Any I've used on my desktop (shown below) uses at least 25% of my CPU.
Click to expand...

x264 is an encoder, nothing more. It encodes to the h264 codec. GPU decoding can be done many ways, depending on your hardware. For your desktop since you have an ATI card, you can use MPC-HC to offload all HD video to your GPU. You can also use the standalone MPC-HC filters in Windows 7MC for GPU decoding.
 
Archer75 said:
Get a 8200/8300 motherboard with a phenom chip, whatever you feel like spending or a 9300/9400 with a c2d.
I use a Intel G45 board with 2ghz c2d and 2gb of ram. It's more than enough for 1080p.

You don't need a discrete card. The onboard on these boards handle full 1080p HD and 7.1 audio over HDMI.
Click to expand...

They will handle the 1080p, but they won't be able to handle the post processing.
 
criccio said:
$200

Hope I didn't forget anything.



x264 is an encoder, nothing more. It encodes to the h264 codec. GPU decoding can be done many ways, depending on your hardware. For your desktop since you have an ATI card, you can use MPC-HC to offload all HD video to your GPU. You can also use the standalone MPC-HC filters in Windows 7MC for GPU decoding.
Click to expand...

You only forgot that the CPU has been discontinued.

But about the decoding you have valid points. MPC-HC will use the GPU. So its worth it to get a nice ATI 4550 to do all that work.
 
Zachstar said:
You dont use the core to decode HD video. You would have to have a FAR hotter core to do that. The 4550 has the means to decode the video just fine.

This case is alot more expensive but looks good http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147098
Click to expand...

The onboard can decode it just fine. You don't need a discrete card. Everyone with onboard can decode just fine, always have. With less than 10% cpu usage too. Leaves the CPU free to do whatever else is needed. And he did specify cheap.
You don't need post processing of 1080p. If you are talking 1080i then yes, post processing can help. But that board and cpu are plenty for that. I have read that a phenom is required for a 8200/8300 for advanced deinterlacing.
Is there something specific you are after when you say "post processing"?
 
Zachstar said:
You only forgot that the CPU has been discontinued.
Click to expand...

hehe, wasn't paying much attention.

Redone: $250
But about the decoding you have valid points. MPC-HC will use the GPU. So its worth it to get a nice ATI 4550 to do all that work.
Click to expand...
Why would you do that when the onboard 8200 will do 1080p easily...?

Archer75 said:
You don't need post processing of 1080p.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Because the 8200 is not worth it in my book. Its junk. If you want Nvidia go with a 9 series. I will never recomend relying on AMD mobos for 7.1 audio after the 785G debacle. But a cheap build does not need to be a crap build. The ATI 4550 coupled with that CPU is under 100 leaving plenty of room for mobo and case for an under 200 USD build with components from other areas. I have one of these 8200s I would not throw a loud ass 4670 back in it fast enough.
 
Zachstar said:
Because the 8200 is not worth it in my book. Its junk. If you want Nvidia go with a 9 series. I will never recomend relying on AMD mobos for 7.1 audio after the 785G debacle. But a cheap build does not need to be a crap build. The ATI 4550 coupled with that CPU is under 100 leaving plenty of room for mobo and case for an under 200 USD build with components from other areas. I have one of these 8200s I would not throw a loud ass 4670 back in it fast enough.
Click to expand...

Well we aren't talking about a 785g board. The 8200 is just fine. The nvidia 9x00 series is just the intel version of those boards. That's it. Both can accelerate 1080p without breaking a sweat.

Those 8200/8300 require a phenom for advanced deinterlacing, the 9300/9400 don't, both have the same HD processing ability:
Advanced HD Deinterlacing = this refers to two technqiues for 1080i sources:
1. Motion adaptive deinterlacing for video sources.
2. Proper inverse telecine (3:2 cadence) detection for film based sources.

For advanced deinterlacing on a ATI4550 you have this:
current driver issues prevent cards under a 4670 from doing Vector Adaptive.

Info here:
http://www.missingremote.com/index....=view&id=2564&Itemid=230&limit=1&limitstart=1

With a 9300/9400 you could use a 35w conroe-L CPU for lower power consumption.
 
Right...

Considering how many low profile HTPC's with 8200/8300 chipsets I have put together for myself and family members and have never had a problem playing anything on any of them, I respectfully disagree. So will many people here. There is not "junk" about them.

You won't gain a damn thing with the 9300/9400 for solely HD decoding.
 
So now yall want him to go with a phenom? What in the world? Talk about more heat.

Anyway now that you have a wide range of views I think you will have a better idea what you want.

Again my opinion is what I stated in the first reply. Modern AMD 45nm single core for less heat. ATI 4550 for GPU encoding and a number of other abilities. Rosewill case. And good luck.

You've got multiple people clamoring but that 8200 but in my opinion I think you will be severely disappointed as I was. Atleast keep in option for adding a discrete card in the future.
 
Zachstar said:
So now yall want him to go with a phenom? What in the world? Talk about more heat.
Click to expand...

No. That isn't what is being said. Archer75 was noting that a Phenom based CPU was needed for advanced deinterlacing. Not everyone wants or needs advanced deinterlacing so you don't need a Phenom based CPU.

Though since the Regor core of the AMD Athlon II X2 240 is derived from the Phenom II's Deneb Core and by extension the Agena core of the original Phenom CPUs, there is a possibility that the AMD Athlon X2 240 is will be enough for advance deinterlacing.
 
Archer75 said:
The onboard can decode it just fine. You don't need a discrete card. Everyone with onboard can decode just fine, always have. With less than 10% cpu usage too. Leaves the CPU free to do whatever else is needed. And he did specify cheap.
You don't need post processing of 1080p. If you are talking 1080i then yes, post processing can help. But that board and cpu are plenty for that. I have read that a phenom is required for a 8200/8300 for advanced deinterlacing.
Is there something specific you are after when you say "post processing"?
Click to expand...

Some of the 1080p rips that I use aren't as clear as a normal blu-ray, so some post processing, like enhancing darks, clearing up noise, and some deinterlacing is necessary.
 
S3th13 said:
Some of the 1080p rips that I use aren't as clear as a normal blu-ray, so some post processing, like enhancing darks, clearing up noise, and some deinterlacing is necessary.
Click to expand...

That is a because of bad re-encoding and/or a badly calibrated display. Post-processing should not be used... :rolleyes:

All you will end up doing is over sharpening/blurring and crushing the blacks. All in all you will be losing detail.
 
Zachstar said:
Because the 8200 is not worth it in my book. Its junk. If you want Nvidia go with a 9 series. I will never recomend relying on AMD mobos for 7.1 audio after the 785G debacle. But a cheap build does not need to be a crap build. The ATI 4550 coupled with that CPU is under 100 leaving plenty of room for mobo and case for an under 200 USD build with components from other areas. I have one of these 8200s I would not throw a loud ass 4670 back in it fast enough.
Click to expand...

Zachstar, I'm going to have to ask you stop making recommendations. After reading the quoted post above, this post, and this post, you are contradicting yourself and going to end up causing general confusion for others who don't know what they should be looking for. You go from hating on the 8200 and AMD in general, to recommending an 8200 board but adding on a video card that doesn't ad anything over the onboard video and then a 8100 and Sempron CPU in the third thread. It's not helpful.
 
Which chipset would you recommend for the best picture quality? Still the 8200?
 
I was originally planning on using my Hp laptop as an HTPC, but the picture quality going to my LCD isn't even comparable to my desktop.

The specs are:

1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR2
nVidia 8400GS 64MB + VRAM
HDMI output

Would the onboard 8200 be an upgrade from this?

Edit- It seems that the onboard 8200 supports nVidia PureVideoHD and my 8400GS does not. Would this make a substantial difference?
 
S3th13 said:
Which chipset would you recommend for the best picture quality? Still the 8200?
Click to expand...

Best picture quality really depends on the quality of your display and the material you provide it.
According to HQV scores(some people debate those) the ATI 4670 on up is top dog. Now on my display I can see the difference between it and others which is why I do put stock in the HQV scores.
The 4550 and some 4650 have their own issues. Maybe cleared up with drivers, I don't know.
On different displays you may not be able to notice any difference between 4670 and a 8200 board. And I still have no problem recommending a 8200/8300/9300/9400 board.

Here is a link to a high traffic HTPC forum if you want to do some additional research:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=26

S3th13 said:
I was originally planning on using my Hp laptop as an HTPC, but the picture quality going to my LCD isn't even comparable to my desktop.

The specs are:

1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR2
nVidia 8400GS 64MB + VRAM
HDMI output

Would the 8200 IGU be an upgrade from this?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think so. But that laptop shouldn't give you picture quality issues. It really depends on how you have your software configured. Which in my opinion is the hardest part of build a HTPC.
 
It seems that the onboard 8200 supports nVidia PureVideoHD and my 8400GS does not. Would this make a substantial difference?
 
Archer75 said:
The 8400GS does support it: http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_8400_Gs_faq.html

However to take advantage of it you need to be using the proper codecs.
Click to expand...

This. If you DO go with an Nvidia chipset/GPU, I recommend CoreAVC over using DXVA. CoreAVC uses CUDA which is much more compatible with a variety of x264 settings used to encode. Some rips will just fail to be accelerated by the GPU using DXVA.
 
The drivers on my laptop show nothing about PureVideo. They're extremely basic and HP doesn't offer any others.
 
criccio said:
This. If you DO go with an Nvidia chipset/GPU, I recommend CoreAVC over using DXVA. CoreAVC uses CUDA which is much more compatible with a variety of x264 settings used to encode. Some rips will just fail to be accelerated by the GPU using DXVA.
Click to expand...

And I am using CoreAVC.
 
S3th13 said:
And I am using CoreAVC.
Click to expand...

S3th13 said:
The drivers on my laptop show nothing about PureVideo. They're extremely basic and HP doesn't offer any others.
Click to expand...


The drivers wouldn't. It's just a logo really. Nothing to turn on.

Which version of CoreAVC are you using? CUDA support was only recently added. And CoreAVC needs to be set as the default AVC/h.264 codec. You are using Vista? When I was running Vista I would use radlight filter manager to adjust the merit of CoreAVC and then use graphedit to verify that it's actually being used.

Just because you install a codec/filter doesn't mean the system will use it. Thus there are tools to tweak that. If you are using windows 7 I can provide a link to a different tool to do this.
 
criccio said:
No longer needed to do that. To adjust filters for use in WMP and 7MC you just use this.
Click to expand...

Right, but I think he's running Vista. And that tool doesn't say it supports Vista, just 7. And I haven't tested it in Vista so I didn't know.
 
Yeah, I'm running Vista Home Premium 32-bit. I could upgrade to Windows 7 if its a better medium for HD playback. And I'm suing CoreAVC 1.8... the version before CUDA is introduced.
 
Last edited:
S3th13 said:
Yeah, I'm running Vista Home Premium 32-bit. I could upgrade to Windows 7 if its a better medium for HD playback. And I'm suing CoreAVC 1.8... the version before CUDA is introduced.
Click to expand...

Upgrade CoreAVC!!!! I couldn't stand any version lower then 1.9 (when they dropped in hardware support). Lower version just ran like a dog on a hot summer day for me, it was terrible. And yes, upgrade to Win 7 as soon as possible! Vista (for HTPC use) is just a pile of crap compared to it.
 
Alright.....enough. Zachstar, CrimandEvil and everyone else who can't seem to keep the thread on topic - you guys take your pissing match to PM or better still, drop it now.

Any more and we'll be forced to take whatever action is required to make the point.

It stops now.
 
Seriously tho folks. If you have CoreAVC mention it first. As it solves a great deal of problems in my opinion. And of course you have to have a CUDA based card to use it more effectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top