Upgrade 3000 Venice to X2 3800+ CPU? (1 Viewer)

[Topher5000]

TV-Server Version:
MediaPortal Version: 0.2.2.0
MediaPortal Skin: Blue Two
Windows Version: Windows XP (SP2)
CPU Type: AMD Athlon 64 3000+
HDD: WD 320gb + WD 500gb
Memory: 895mb
Motherboard: MS-7207PV (MSI) K8NGM2
Motherboard Chipset:
Motherboard Bios:
Video Card:
Video Card Driver:
Sound Card: Realtek High Definition Audio
Sound Card AC3: coaxial out
Sound Card Driver:
1. TV Card: Hauppauge
1. TV Card Type: PVR-150MCE
1. TV Card Driver: 2.0.43.24054
2. TV Card:
2. TV Card Type:
2. TV Card Driver:
3. TV Card:
3. TV Card Type:
3. TV Card Driver:
4. TV Card:
4. TV Card Type:
4. TV Card Driver:
MPEG2 Video Codec:
MPEG2 Audio Codec:
Satelite/CableTV Provider:
HTPC Case:
Cooling:
Power Supply:
Remote: MCE
TV: Hitachi PJ-TX100
TV - HTPC Connection: HDMI

My htpc doesn't play .ts streams very well, & I see Tigerdirect.ca has AMD X2 3800+ socket 939 cpu's for $69 CAD with no rebate. At this price, would it be worthwhile to upgrade the cpu, or should I just wait & upgrade the mobo & cpu to an AM2 socket, or get one of the PCI hw decoder cards?

 

[Muldini]

Hey, you didnt mention your TV card, also your TV resolution would be interesting to know.
My old HTPC had a slower CPU (Athlon XP 2100+) than you got and handled SDTV @ 720x576 well enough.

Regards,
Muldini

 

[Topher5000]

My video card's a Hauppauge PVR-150MCE & my TV's a Hitachi PJ-TX100 projector with 1280x720 resolution. My htpc is hooked up with a DVI-to-HDMI adapter & is fed through a Monoprice HDMI switcher.
Everything plays great except HD .ts files, in which pans & action aren't smooth. They don't really stutter, but they're not really watchable.

 

[Muldini]

Sorry bud, ment your VGA card.
What you wrote makes sence though since your specs seem quite low for HD files / high bitrates.

You might be able to deal with it with a new GPU (depending on what you got now).
If you got a kinda decent VGA card already and playing back HD files results in 100% CPU load then the mentioned dual core CPU might help, what you need to keep in mind is that the 3800+ is 2 x 2GHz and most codecs use only one of the cores.

 

[blackheart42]

I had an Athlon 64 3200+. It could handle 720p without much trouble. Some clips shot at 60 frame per second could be a problem, but otherwise it looked great. 1080p worked if everything was set up just right. The key is the video card (not the tuner card), the video driver, and the video player program. Change one option or add one thing to the system and you'll have trouble. Make sure that no program is running that doesn't absolutely have to be running. Try different players on different HD clips. Some work better on one player than another.

I've since upgraded my system to an X2 3800+ and I've still found that MediaPortal isn't the best choice for viewing HD, particularly 1080i or 1080p.

The processor upgrade does give you more CPU headroom. When I'm playing back HD, both cores are showing significant activity.

Blackheart

 

[petzlux]

If you have trouble playing HD (1080p) streams, it most probably stems from your processor. Are these streams encoded in H264? H264 puts a lot more strain on your processor than Mpeg2 (and there are Mpeg2 1080p streams), so you will need to find a faster processor.

Before buying a new processor though, try a different decoder. What decoder are you using at the moment ? Users have found CoreAVC to be the most efficient H264 decoder.
I have a 3500+ and couldnt view smooth 1080p H264 files using ffdshow's decoder or nvidia purevideo. With CoreAVC now the processor isnt maxed out and it works fine !

 

[Topher5000]

Sorry, I use the mobo's onboard video (GeForce 6150).
The file I tried was 1080i, mpeg2 I think (I'm at work right now.)
As for the codec, I use nVidia Purevideo. I tried an H.264 file & just got a black screen, so for that I'll try CoreAVC.

 

[Topher5000]

So, my choices are the X2 3800+ dual core, 2.0ghz for $70, an Athlon 64 3500+, 2.2ghz for $70 or an Athlon 64 4000+, 2.4ghz for $94. I think that the 4000+ would be the best choice since it runs faster & I'm unlikely to be running any software that would take advantage of the dual core functionality. Does this make sense?

 

[petzlux]

Go for the dual core , even though it is marginally slower per core than the 4000+, the difference is so slim and you get two cores for the price of one, which is always great.

Even today where most applications are still only capable of taking advantage of one core, Windows can distribute all running applications onto several cores, and thus, you can run for example the TVEngine and Client on one core, while the other core can solely be used for decoding.

 

[blackheart42]

I agree with Petzlux.

Even if there are no other applications running, a dual-core processor will let Windows use one core for basic OS functions while the other core is dedicated to playing the video. I also think that at least some video decoders can utiilize dual cores.

You should probably also look at buying a video card rather than using the onboard video. The onboard video works well for standard definition, but you're pushing your luck for HD. I started with onboard video and found that upgrading to even a cheap video card was worthwhile. Onboard video shares memory and, more importantly, bandwidth on the memory bus. Many HD clips that I couldn't play before the video upgrade played fine afterwards. And that was with an Athlon 64 3200+.