HTPC Upgrade Best CPU & MB for highest performace lowest cost.

Greetings!

I would like to upgrade my HTPC system lowest cost and get highest
performance and use as many components from my present system. Note I
am only look at upgrading my MB and CPU. Hopefully to tie me over for
total new system including Quad core blue ray etc. when the prices come
down in the future.

My present HTPC: Note: I am only using one CPU fan so my system is
nice and quiet and running cool. BTW. the MB and CPU combination is
max out.

CPU Type AMD Athlon XP,
2133 MHz (16 x 133) 2800+
Motherboard Name ECS 741(GX)-M
(3 PCI, 1 AGP, 1 CNR, 2 DDR DIMM, Audio, Video, LAN)
Motherboard Chipset SiS 741
System Memory 1024 MB
(PC3200 DDR SDRAM)

Duo Display:
Video Adapter ALL-IN-WONDER
9600 SERIES - Secondary (256 MB)
Video Adapter ALL-IN-WONDER
9600 SERIES (256 MB)
3D Accelerator ATI Radeon 9600
(RV350)

HDTV Wonder PCI

Here is the motherboard I was considering, ASRock 775Dual-Vsta Socket
775, VIA PT880 Pro/Ultra Chipset w/ PCI Express x16 & 8x AGP (ATX)

I selected this motherboard because it supports AGP, unfortunately this
board is not a real good OC. I would also like to use my PC3200 (400
Mhz.) Ram which would limit my OC potential.

What CPU would you select to get best performance at lowest overall
cost? I don't mind paying more money if I really can get the true
performance out of the 2 Duo core E6400 but something tell me that my
old components won't let it happen and it would be waste of $$?

2 Duo core
E4400 FSB 800MZ 9X mult, E6300 $215.
E6400 FSB1032 mult 8x $260
or E6600 $380

Pentium® 4 -524, 3.0-GHz @ 533Mhz w/ 1Mb EM64T (Socket 775) $99
Pentium® 4 -541, x64, 3.2-GHz @ 800Mhz w/ 1Mb (Socket 775) $125

Any other suggestions maybe there other options I overlooked?

Thanks!

>>>>> "big" == biggy <> writes:

big> Greetings! I would like to upgrade my HTPC system lowest
big> cost and get highest performance and use as many components
big> from my present system.
.. . .

big> What CPU would you select to get best performance at lowest
big> overall cost? I don't mind paying more money if I really can
big> get the true performance out of the 2 Duo core E6400

Hmmm...I can't answer your direct question. But I am curious and have
a question for you: what Home Theater functionality do you want that
your current system is not giving you? Something deficient with the
audio or video?

--
To me, it's always a good idea to always carry two sacks of something
when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, "Hey, can you give me
a hand?," you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks."
- Jack Handey

Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>>"big" == biggy <> writes:
>
>
> big> Greetings! I would like to upgrade my HTPC system lowest
> big> cost and get highest performance and use as many components
> big> from my present system.
> . . .
>
> big> What CPU would you select to get best performance at lowest
> big> overall cost? I don't mind paying more money if I really can
> big> get the true performance out of the 2 Duo core E6400
>
> Hmmm...I can't answer your direct question. But I am curious and have
> a question for you: what Home Theater functionality do you want that
> your current system is not giving you? Something deficient with the
> audio or video?
>
In my experience, PC people tend not to think that way. It's more a
question of bragging rights -- "My PC will run an artificial benchmark
faster than yours ... "

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

>>>>> "CJT" == CJT <> writes:
>> Hmmm...I can't answer your direct question. But I am curious
>> and have a question for you: what Home Theater functionality do
>> you want that your current system is not giving you? Something
>> deficient with the audio or video?
>>
CJT> In my experience, PC people tend not to think that way. It's
CJT> more a question of bragging rights -- "My PC will run an
CJT> artificial benchmark faster than yours ... "

Good! You saw the implicit statement in my question, that I think the
OP just might be focused on a tree or two and not seeing the forest.
--
There's one thing I always wanted to do before I quit...retire!
Groucho Marx

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your quick reply!

To answer your question yes indeed I am having problems and here are a
couple
examples, playing back of some HD file formats WMV media player system
stalls or I get lots of drop frames. Extremely long processing times
for convert mpeg files for HDTV (PVR) recordings to standard DVD.

Window HD WMV format playback requirements are:

Minimum Configuration
(to play 720p video)

... Windows XP
... Windows Media Player 9 Series
... 2.4 GHz processor or equivalent
... 384 MB of RAM
... 64 MB video card
... 1024 x 768 screen resolution
... 16-bit sound card
... Speakers

Optimum Configuration
(to play 1080p video with 5.1 surround sound)

... Windows XP
... Windows Media Player 10
... DirectX 9.0
... 3.0 GHz processor or equivalent
... 512 MB of RAM
... 128 MB video card
... 1920 x 1440 screen resolution
... 24-bit 96 kHz multichannel sound card
... 5.1 surround sound speaker system

As you can see HD windows media files (WMV) playback minimum
requirements are 2.4 Ghz processor. The preferred system is 3ghz or
more. I am sure that duo core processor will help with multi tasking,
but as you note the processing speed even with the E6600 is only 2.4
Ghz. That is why I was thinking of going to the single processor
Pentium® 4 -541, x64, 3.2-GHz @ 800Mhz w/ 1Mb (Socket 775). I could go
on & on but I think I have answer your question and I haven't even
started talking about Blue Ray. That's for super computer I hope to
build when the prices drop maybe next year when the quad processors are
online.

Sure wish I could brag about my poor little 2.1 Ghz xp2800 system.
Windows task manage is running out 100 % most of the time and between
frames dropping out and audio out of sync during play back and system
crashes. I am eager to get some good suggestions for my small upgrade!

Thanks again for your response!




Bob Fry wrote:
> >>>>> "big" == biggy <> writes:
>
> big> Greetings! I would like to upgrade my HTPC system lowest
> big> cost and get highest performance and use as many components
> big> from my present system.
> . . .
>
> big> What CPU would you select to get best performance at lowest
> big> overall cost? I don't mind paying more money if I really can
> big> get the true performance out of the 2 Duo core E6400
>
> Hmmm...I can't answer your direct question. But I am curious and have
> a question for you: what Home Theater functionality do you want that
> your current system is not giving you? Something deficient with the
> audio or video?
>
> --
> To me, it's always a good idea to always carry two sacks of something
> when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, "Hey, can you give me
> a hand?," you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks."
> - Jack Handey

biggy wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply!
>
> To answer your question yes indeed I am having problems and here are a
> couple
> examples, playing back of some HD file formats WMV media player system
> stalls or I get lots of drop frames. Extremely long processing times
> for convert mpeg files for HDTV (PVR) recordings to standard DVD.
>
> Window HD WMV format playback requirements are:
>
> Minimum Configuration
> (to play 720p video)
>
> .. Windows XP
> .. Windows Media Player 9 Series
> .. 2.4 GHz processor or equivalent
> .. 384 MB of RAM
> .. 64 MB video card
> .. 1024 x 768 screen resolution
> .. 16-bit sound card
> .. Speakers
>
> Optimum Configuration
> (to play 1080p video with 5.1 surround sound)
>
> .. Windows XP
> .. Windows Media Player 10
> .. DirectX 9.0
> .. 3.0 GHz processor or equivalent
> .. 512 MB of RAM
> .. 128 MB video card
> .. 1920 x 1440 screen resolution
> .. 24-bit 96 kHz multichannel sound card
> .. 5.1 surround sound speaker system
>
> As you can see HD windows media files (WMV) playback minimum
> requirements are 2.4 Ghz processor. The preferred system is 3ghz or
> more. I am sure that duo core processor will help with multi tasking,
> but as you note the processing speed even with the E6600 is only 2.4
> Ghz. That is why I was thinking of going to the single processor
> Pentium® 4 -541, x64, 3.2-GHz @ 800Mhz w/ 1Mb (Socket 775). I could go
> on & on but I think I have answer your question and I haven't even
> started talking about Blue Ray. That's for super computer I hope to
> build when the prices drop maybe next year when the quad processors are
> online.
>
> Sure wish I could brag about my poor little 2.1 Ghz xp2800 system.
> Windows task manage is running out 100 % most of the time and between
> frames dropping out and audio out of sync during play back and system
> crashes. I am eager to get some good suggestions for my small upgrade!
>
> Thanks again for your response!
>

The Core2 Duo clock rate, should be multiplied by at least 1.5x, to get
a better representation of its effective clock rate. So a 2.4GHz Core2 Duo,
is more like 3.6Ghz. And rather than take my word for it, look at some
benchmarks, compared to some P4 processors.

First of all, with this benchmark, the Pentium D 840 Dual core 3.2GHz, has
the same benchmark results as a Pentium 4 540 (or a 640 for that matter).
The two red bars highlight the selected processors.
So this benchmark seems to only use one core, and allows comparing in
a limited way, the performance of one core of the two cores on a dual
processor. (Many of the benchmarks here, were selected to make dual cores
look good, so it is hard to compare single core performance.)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=446&chart=181

Now, highlight a E6400 2.13GHz dual core and the Pentium 4 570 3.8GHz single core.
The ratio of 3.8/2.13 is 1.78, so you get more than 1.5x the effective clock
rate. And this is comparing a single core to a single core.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=433&chart=181

In the next pair, first I start by comparing the E6400, to the Pentium D 960.
Both are dual cores, the E6400 is 2.13GHz dual and the D 960 is 3.6GHz dual.
The E6400 is ahead by a little this time, because there is no Pentium D family
dual core at 3.8GHz to compare to.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=433&chart=181

Keeping the same E6400 and Pentium D 960 processors, and then switching to a
dual core benchmark (in this case, synthetic comparison of integer and floating
point, where both cores are used). This compares dual core to dual core
performance, and on integer the E6400 (2.13GHz) is ahead of the D 960 (3.6GHz).
On float, they are pretty close to one another.

(Integer)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=433&chart=158
(Float)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=433&chart=159

The Pentium D 960 comes in 130W and a 95W version. The Core2 Duo family are
all rated at 65W.

For a motherboard, I'd be looking for a motherboard that properly supported
any power management features on the processor. At least, for an HTPC, you
want cooler operation when the processor is not busy. EIST and C1E are listed
here. It would take a lot more research though, to determine what is needed to
get it to actually work.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL9S9

# Dual Core
# Enhanced Halt State (C1E) <--- C1E
# Enhanced Intel Speedstep® Technology <--- EIST
# Execute Disable Bit 1
# Intel® EM64T 2
# Intel® Thermal Monitor 2
# Intel® Virtualization Technology

This utility allows making some changes, but I don't know if this program alone
is enough to make it work.

http://cpu.rightmark.org/products/rmclock.shtml

So a Core2 Duo at "only 2.4GHz", is a lot of processor.

(Note: I had to set the Followup: field above, because the USENET server I use
demands it.)

Paul