Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
1080p playback: hardware discussion
superboyac:
I'm about to purchase my new HTPC. I was going to build it, but since it's only going to be used for watching media I don't really want to bother. I've had a question about 1080p playback for a while that I'd like to discuss: which hardware components are most important for 1080p playback? For example, if you had to give a percentage for each of the following items as far as how important it is to playing very large video files, what would it be?
--graphics card
--RAM
--CPU
I think those are the three guys to look at, right? I don't know which is more important though. Sometimes a new computer will choke on a 1080p mkv or mp4 file because it turns out that it has a cheapo graphics card. i was thinking of using this ~$600 desktop as my new htpc:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229285
I know it's probably overkill, but with 1080p playback, I want it fast and smooth. No struggling with it. I want to throw a 50GB bluray rip mkv file at it and not have any problems. I will build it with parts if necessary. I don't want to buy a prefab htpc little box and have it be underpowered in any way.
superboyac:
I'm still trying to figure out some kind of hierarchy of what contributes most to fast/smooth 1080p playback of the three items below:
--graphics card
--RAM
--CPU
I had a few discussions with some people in recent weeks, and didn't get any clear answers. Several people confirmed that what's for games is not necessarily good for 1080p video, but didn't know why. So I'm still investigating. Unlike most of my inquiries, this is not about price or bang for the buck. This is more theoretical: which thing is the video playback most dependent on, and by how much? Let's say it's most dependant on GPU, but it's only slightly more so than CPU. Then it's not worth breaking the bank for the GPU, and it's best to get an evenly matched CPU/GPU combo. But maybe GPU is a lot more important. Then you skimp on CPU and get a great GPU.
4wd:
Let's say it's most dependant on GPU, but it's only slightly more so than CPU. Then it's not worth breaking the bank for the GPU, and it's best to get an evenly matched CPU/GPU combo. But maybe GPU is a lot more important. Then you skimp on CPU and get a great GPU.-superboyac (September 10, 2012, 10:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
It's not necessary to spend a lot to get HD playback - you'll probably spend more on a nice case than the GPU/CPU/RAM combined.
$35-45 for a passively cooled HD6450 will more than handle any video decoding you're likely to throw at it - or drop the GPU altogether and just use one of the AMD APUs, say a A8-3870K - $109 gets you a quad core CPU + integrated HD6550.
OS: Something that will allow you to you use software/drivers that will offload HD decoding/encoding to the GPU.
GPU: A decent GPU with good drivers that offload the decoding, (and possibly encoding), from the CPU will enable you to use a CPU that would otherwise be under-powered for the job. Enables the CPU to just idle along, running cooler and thus quieter.
CPU: A sufficiently beefy CPU will compensate for an under-powered GPU but at the cost of heat and noise.
RAM: 4GB is plenty.
Stoic Joker:
GPU: A decent GPU with good drivers that offload the decoding, (and possibly encoding), from the CPU will enable you to use a CPU that would otherwise be under-powered for the job. Enables the CPU to just idle along, running cooler and thus quieter.
CPU: A sufficiently beefy CPU will compensate for an under-powered GPU but at the cost of heat and noise.
-4wd (September 11, 2012, 05:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Granted I haven't had time to stay up on hardware tech, but wouldn't the GPU also need to be cooled? The work is what the work is, so it seems (to me) that it would just shift the heat created by the processing required to a different chip. Much of this assertion is based on the size of the fans they're putting on graphics cards these days...and I could be completely off my nut (it has happened before (hehe)), but I thought I'd ask because it sounds a wee bit like a something for nothing (unpaid piper) scenario.
4wd:
GPU: A decent GPU with good drivers that offload the decoding, (and possibly encoding), from the CPU will enable you to use a CPU that would otherwise be under-powered for the job. Enables the CPU to just idle along, running cooler and thus quieter.
CPU: A sufficiently beefy CPU will compensate for an under-powered GPU but at the cost of heat and noise.
-4wd (September 11, 2012, 05:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Granted I haven't had time to stay up on hardware tech, but wouldn't the GPU also need to be cooled?-Stoic Joker (September 11, 2012, 06:54 AM)
--- End quote ---
If you're going to have a discrete GPU in the machine, you might as well take advantage of it.
The GPU is hardware designed to do video decoding, the CPU isn't - you would expect that the GPU would be more efficient at that task and hopefully use less power than the CPU which would probably have to step its clocks and V up to get the job done, (probably with the attendant increase in HSF revs).
You can get passively cooled GPUs that can handle the task - the HD6450 I mentioned is available passively cooled. You'd need a case fan anyway, (purely for efficiency), so choosing a case that optimises the air flow over the GPU as part of the path would be nice.
Otherwise, as I mentioned, drop the GPU and use an AMD APU, (it's integrated graphics are far ahead of any other available IGX), and then put a more efficient HSF combination on it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version