Ongoing Lower-end HTPC project (1 Viewer)

[Anonymous]

I've been attempting to build an HTPC for a little while now. At first, due to hardware limitations, I had to make do with a very low-end system that would only be used for playing music and viewing image slideshows.

The specs were as follows:

AMD K6-2 CPU @ 400MHz
Asus P5A motherboard
128MB RAM (possibly more)
ATI Rage 128 AGP graphics card
Random (Creative SB?) ISA sound card
Windows 98 SE

I was going to run myHTPC on it, before it became Meedio and turned into payware.

I ran into some stability problems with Windows 98 and put the project aside for a while to focus on some other things. During this time, I upgraded my desktop machine's CPU, which meant I had a spare 1GHz Athlon collecting dust. Recently, I purchased a used Socket A motherboard and set to work on my HTPC project once again.

The new specs:

AMD Athlon CPU @ 1000MHz
Gigabyte motherboard
384MB RAM
ATI Rage 128 graphics card
Same random sound card
Windows XP Home SP2
MediaPortal!

As expected, WinXP is much, much more stable than Win98 was. And, instead of myHTPC, I'm running MediaPortal!

I was a bit concerned about my hardware specs being below the recommended level, but MediaPortal is running fairly well. I can tell that the Rage 128 card is slowing it down a bit, but it isn't really to the point of being bothersome. Seeing as I won't be doing any TV capture (or much movie/video output at all), I think the hardware is going to hold up.

If I had cash to burn, I'd get a much better graphics card. But alas, I much work with what I have I'll see if I can post some pictures of the system sometime soon.

 

[X4]

try Xplite and tweak to the MAX!

 

[jdiffend]

recommended level, but MediaPortal is running fairly well. I can tell that the Rage 128 card is slowing it down a bit, but it isn't really to the point of being bothersome. Seeing as I won't be doing any TV capture (or much movie/video output at all), I think the hardware is going to hold up.

If I had cash to burn, I'd get a much better graphics card. But alas, I much work with what I have I'll see if I can post some pictures of the system sometime soon.

I wouldn't fight with that video card too long.
Radeon 9200se cards start around $38, the 9200 under $50 and a 9600se can be had at a similar price if you wait for a rebate offer. The GForceFX 5200 is also under $50. All will end your woes. Radeon 7000 cards would even be an improvment but with the 9200se so cheap... why bother.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-140-026&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-156-012&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-325&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-130-210&depa=1

 

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't fight with that video card too long.
Radeon 9200se cards start around $38, the 9200 under $50 and a 9600se can be had at a similar price if you wait for a rebate offer. The GForceFX 5200 is also under $50. All will end your woes. Radeon 7000 cards would even be an improvment but with the 9200se so cheap... why bother.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-140-026&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-156-012&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-325&depa=1
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-130-210&depa=1

I actually was browsing Newegg yesterday for the same reason. As I said, I have a tight budget, so I would be more apt to get a cheaper card. In fact, the 9200SE at $36 looks quite nice! The only problem is that the cheaper products only have DirectX 8 support. To my understanding, that would mean that more work would be offloaded to the CPU as opposed to a "native" DirectX 9-based card since MediaPortal is a DirectX 9 application.

I realize that the CPU is doing most of the work as it is, with the Rage 128 card installed, so nearly ANYTHING would be an improvement over what I have right now. However, if I am going to spend money on a video card, I'd rather get a full-blown DX9 card to "future-proof" it a bit; which means I'll have to wait a bit longer to acquire the necessary funds.

Having said that, the $44 FX5200 *appears* to have hardware DX9 support. That card is definetly an option

 

[jdiffend]

I actually was browsing Newegg yesterday for the same reason. As I said, I have a tight budget, so I would be more apt to get a cheaper card. In fact, the 9200SE at $36 looks quite nice! The only problem is that the cheaper products only have DirectX 8 support. To my understanding, that would mean that more work would be offloaded to the CPU as opposed to a "native" DirectX 9-based card since MediaPortal is a DirectX 9 application.

The 9200 supports video overlay on the primary display so it will work... just not DirectX9. I know the 9100 IGP has drivers that support DX9 and it's based on the 9200 chip. I don't know if they added additional hardware to support it or not. It wouldn't surprise me if it were a marketing decision not to extend DX9 support to the 9200.

The 9600se is probably the fastest card you can find without a fan... so it's still quiet.

Having said that, the $44 FX5200 *appears* to have hardware DX9 support. That card is definetly an option

My understanding with the FX5200 was that it's engine is even more stripped down than it's counterparts from ATi (9550 or 9600se) as far as hardware support of DX9... hence the price difference. However, it does support DX9 and is probably faster than the ATi9100IGP which works fine.

 

[jdiffend]

The 9200 supports video overlay on the primary display so it will work... just not DirectX9. I know the 9100 IGP has drivers that support DX9 and it's based on the 9200 chip. I don't know if they added additional hardware to support it or not. It wouldn't surprise me if it were a marketing decision not to extend DX9 support to the 9200.

Ok, the 9100IGP is NOT DX9.
However, with the combination of drivers I have I am able to use the DX9 renderless mode. Why I don't know and until someone can repeat my success don't count on using that mode.

It just shows it's possible to do.

 

[CoolHammer]

DX8.1 cards can be used with updated drivers in dx9 renderless mode.
BUT then some off the work is done by CPU not GPU as it is case with DX9 cards.

So actually it is up to your cards drivers how vm9 handles.

CoolHammer

 

[Callifo]

I thought all 9xxx series were dx9 cards? Went and bought a 9250 VIVO specfically and now I find I gotta get a 95xx? Bit of a waste putting that speed card in a HTPC.

 

[jdiffend]

I thought all 9xxx series were dx9 cards? Went and bought a 9250 VIVO specfically and now I find I gotta get a 95xx? Bit of a waste putting that speed card in a HTPC.

9250 and up are DX9.

I think the DX9 issue is pretty much for the video. The feature was added to make it easy to add video to games. I'm sure lower cards could support it if the drivers do. I'm not sure what other DX9 only features they could use. DX8 will do any of the other stuff I've seen.

**** edit ****
It was supposed to say 9550 and up are DirectX 9.
The 9500 is also but it was discontinued.

 

[jdiffend]

I thought all 9xxx series were dx9 cards? Went and bought a 9250 VIVO specfically and now I find I gotta get a 95xx? Bit of a waste putting that speed card in a HTPC.

Well, since getting interested in Media Portal I've been looking through the DirectX 8/9 stuff. DirectX 9 has the video playback mode MP seems to want to use... possibly some stuff for recording but I'm not sure. However, it looks like it should have been possible to do this with Direct Show as well... once I get further through the docs I'll know. Microsoft has a lot of examples I've played with and it doesn't look that bad to do this. I'm sure DX9 does offer some advantages though... the question is, are they really needed?