New HTPC Build

strider

Visions of acoustic treatments on the walls of MY audio room have turned into foam alphabet letter flooring, plans to build new speakers have been whittled down to making the current ones tip resistant and covering the delicate paper drivers with protective grills. It's happening. There's no turning back; the audio room's becoming the family room. I need to consolidate my system, make it kid resistant as well as wife friendly, all while trying to maintain a level of performance that suits me. Currently my sources are a Sony ES CD/SACD changer, Debut III turntable, and a diy USB DAC being fed FLAC files via Foobar. A turntable has just got trouble written all over it, so it's boxed up for the time being. Nothing wrong with the CD/SACD playback, but storing 700 discs in a way that's accessible to me but not my boys has become pretty futile. The computer audio has also become a PITA since my last DAC upgrade, the USB to S/P DIF converter that I added to so I can play 24bit/96khz material only accepts info from a USB 2.0 source. The desktop I'd used previously is so old it only has 1.0, the laptop we have has 2.0 but my wife uses it to surf the web while I'm listening to music in the basement, so that's tough.

My plan is to build an HTPC to take over as my source for the time being. It'll play my music, the kids movies downstairs (via HDMI, when we get a new TV), and the kids movies upstairs (via ethernet cable to the current TV). Right now I've got one spec'ed on a wishlist at Newegg, based on a suggested build from the HTPC forum on the AVS site. It's going in a micro ATX case that's horizontal in form that'll go on the AV rack. Blu Ray burner, SSD for the OS and my media player software, 2 TB internal drive for movies and other files, external HD for the music. This is the wishlist so far: http://sz0043.wc.mail.comcast.net/zimbra/h/search?si=0&so=0&sc=8941&st=message&xim=1&action=view

I'm pretty set on the case/motherboard/processor/power supply. I'm not married to either of the internal drives, something's always going on sale so that'll be a purchase time decision. The Bluray drive is what I've settled on based on reviews, I'd like a BD burner for backing up larger files rather then burning Bluray movies. The RAM is spec'ed as 8GB of 240 pin DDR3 1866. Don't know if it'd be worth the upgrade to 2133 RAM at 8GB or 16GB of the 1866. 16GB of 2133 is a bit pricey. I'd like a TV tuner card, something I can use instead of a box from my cable company that has DVR functionality. The tuners from Hauppage seem strong from what I've read, they also are compatible with the J Rivers Media center software that I intend to use.

This is my first computer build, any input/advice is welcome, especially WRT RAM choice and TV/DVR card. I believe the components I've chosen are compatible with one another, if not plase let me know. I plan on running Windows 7 as the OS, and J Rivers as the media player.

PrazVT

I think you have everything well in hand. The only real advantage to higher clocked ram is if you're going to overclock the cpu. I would say in an htpc (small case, less effective airflow), you're better off just getting lower latency (CAS #) ram running at stock speeds. And considering this machine is for media consumption, I don't think there'd be much impact for you either way. 8GB is plenty for everything in terms of video / audio playback. I would suggest going 2 x 4GB rather than 4 x 2GB for stability purposes. More of a strain on the CPU with all the slots filled (though probably not an issue at stock speeds - you may have to bump the vDImm one notch, but that's about it).

I'd say, add a nice video card w/ hardware h264 decoding and you're good to go. Also make sure you're running Win 7 x64 to make use of the full 8GB.

If you want the machine to be real quiet, I'd also go with one of those Corsair H50 or H70 closed-loop liquid coolers. As long as the case has a 120mm fan hole, you can mount the radiator/fan to it.

Hard drives will be expensive due to that flood in Thailand. So you may want to get one for the OS and hang in there until the prices come back down to normal.

strider

Is the video card a necessity right now? I was under the impression that one of the things that made the Sandy Bridge series of processor attractive was that they have integrated HD graphics. Video performance is lower on the priority list for me right now and I'd really like to stick to a budget of $1k before peripherals or software.

Would I need a cooler like that? Don't need the system to be dead quiet and I don't see myself overclocking anything.

PrazVT

Ah, didn't realize you were getting a sandy bridge cpu. If that is the case, then you're probably fine.

As for cooling - I've used the Corsair H50 for my parents' computer and my media server box (both run 24/7), and over the last year they've been quiet and cool. I've found that maintenance is much less frequent going this route. And frankly you could run it without a fan on the radiator and still probably get the same perf as the stock Intel heatsink / fan combo.

Anyway it's a 'nice to have', but not crucial. If it's in budget and would fit in your case, I'd recommend it.

Face

I have Corsair water coolers on both of my PC's and they work great. They're a little quieter than the OEM cooler and do a better job cooling. If you want to quiet things down even further, check out Noctua fans: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&Manufactory=12454&N=50012454&IsNodeId=1&SpeTabStoreType=0

disneyjoe7

A shock cooler may work just fine. You need nothing special for CPU I'm running a i3 530, you don't need more then 4gigs of memory. Windows 7 32bit is just fine, I leave it as that but I fair warn you before.

PrazVT

Memory is pretty cheap these days and it's not like there are going to be any compatibility issues with x64. Unless it's a cost issue I'd go w/ x64 and as much ram as you want.

Syndil

Might want to peruse this thread before deciding on 64 vs. 32-bit:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?127012-Anyone-else-use-an-HTPC

For a dedicated HTPC 4GB of RAM is definitely more than sufficient. A HTPC is not very RAM intensive, nor is it particularly sensitive to RAM latency. You won't see any benefit from adding 4GB more. More RAM will mean more heat that needs to be removed from the case, potentially resulting in fans turning at higher speeds and generating more noise. And if the HTPC is going to live in a listening environment, combating the noise it could potentially generate would be my top concern. I would want to go with as many passively cooled components as possible. If not, then no big deal.

strider

PrazVT wrote: »

Memory is pretty cheap these days...

This was my thinking as well, but after reading some more on AVS and the HTPC guide, I kept hearing things like:

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

...you don't need more then 4gigs of memory. Windows 7 32bit is just fine, I leave it as that but I fair warn you before.

and

Syndil wrote: »

For a dedicated HTPC 4GB of RAM is definitely more than sufficient. A HTPC is not very RAM intensive, nor is it particularly sensitive to RAM latency. You won't see any benefit from adding 4GB more.

I do have to admit the "less RAM will be better" theory is so counterintuitive to me, though. More RAM, more watts per channel, upsample to higher frequency, more bits, it'll sound better, right?

disneyjoe7

Windows 7 32bit which I would use for a HTPC why because it works and there's no issues. I can only see 3.5gigs memory so 2 gig memory x 2 is 4 gig and the computer works.


If you what 16gigs and working with Windows 7 64bit, do it if wish. I told you're an idiot, it's your time, your money. I don't care. I laugh too you later, maybe just not public but too myself.


Heck I live in Orlando I see lot of stuff that makes me laugh, here would good to.

strider

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I told you're an idiot, it's your time, your money. I don't care. I laugh too you later, maybe just not public but too myself.

Gee, thanks Steve. I was actually leaning towards 4 GB after reading some things here and on the AVS guide. Now I think I may go 32GB of RAM and see if I can melt a CPU or something. Then we'll see who's the idiot.....

disneyjoe7

Sorry too be so blunt about it. Enjoy your day, and Merry Christmas too you.

strider

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Sorry too be so blunt about it. Enjoy your day, and Merry Christmas too you.

No worries, my friend. I appreciate the input. Merry Christmas to you, too!

I think I am going to go W7 32bit with 4GB of RAM. It's funny, when I first started kicking around ideas I was going to have a netbook or a $200 eMachine doing the work, somehow I've talked myself into a computer that could have launched the Apollo mission.

That's funny. Just went and read the thread that was quoted above about an HTPC issue. You quoted the exact portion of the HTPC guide that got me thinking about backing down to 4GB and the 32 bit W7.

disneyjoe7

Be sensitive on what parts will work together. When I couldn't use the HDMI output of the MoBo I got a 5000 AMD video card which was recommend. When I wish to have more then 6t HD I couldn't use the P7H55 MoBo which was also recommend but it doesn't do RAID stuff, I replaced with a P7P55 Mobo so I could get RAID to work, it wasn't recommend and guest what it don't work also.

strider

The compatibility issues are the ones that worry me. This is the first computer build I've ever attempted, so I've been trying to go with known combinations.

Why couldn't you use the HDMI output on the motherboard?

disneyjoe7

My thinking was that my Plasma TV only likes 720p or 1080i and nothing else. I since got a 32" lcd tv later which works with anything, I retried to get that working but still couldn't get the HTPC to work with the HDMI on the MoBo? Gave it a hour to play with it, in the end felt it wasn't worth my time to figure it out over $90. But then again the picture is great with the video card, and many people liked it... In fact my people during PF didn't know it was a computer which we watching.

Syndil

strider wrote: »

I do have to admit the "less RAM will be better" theory is so counterintuitive to me, though. More RAM, more watts per channel, upsample to higher frequency, more bits, it'll sound better, right?

It's a hard lesson learned by some (some stubbornly refuse to accept it), but more doesn't always mean better. Sometimes more is just more.

Glowrdr

I've got 16 GB in mine, and I can tell you this... Facebook is Reaallly fast on mine now. lol

Sad to say, but that's the most resource hungry thing I do. That and transcode videos - but sometimes I think that's a wash. :loneranger:

disneyjoe7

When you state you're using more then 4 GB of memory then I assume you're using 64 bit OS, which I feel is a mistake. I have and could use 64 bit OS, but feel why when 32 bit OS works and has no issues.

Lietuvis91

Memory is hands down the best bang for the buck performance improvement on any computer, and 4 gigs for windows 7 is "enough", but if you want a smartphone like response from your htpc, you will need way more. Memory is definitely cheap enough to get 8, 12 or 16 gigs, however I would stop at 16 for sure. In order to be able to use this much memory, you will need a 64 bit OS, as 32 is limited to 4 gigs. I would go to a 64bit OS just to be able to use more RAM, cuz as I said before, that is hands down the best performance enhancer on any system.

Face

More than 4 is advantagous for gaming.

Syndil

Lietuvis91 wrote: »

Memory is hands down the best bang for the buck performance improvement on any computer, and 4 gigs for windows 7 is "enough", but if you want a smartphone like response from your htpc, you will need way more.

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of how a PC works. Adding more memory does not always automatically equal a speed improvement. RAM is used as a high-speed buffer to store files that are currently open. This includes the files needed to run the operating system and whatever applications you have open at the time, which in the case of an HTPC would probably be only a handful of low impact applications. Windows Media Center would probably be the largest of those, which on my PC uses only about 120MB RAM when idle, or up to ~200MB RAM when playing a hi-def stream. Probably uses a bit more if a recording process is happening at the same time, but note that we're talking about MB of RAM here, not GB. A GB is 1024MB of RAM.

Right now my PC is playing a high-def stream in Windows Media Center, playing an MP3 in WMP, playing another MP3 in Spotify, running my browser (Opera) with numerous open tabs, a temporary Squeezebox server, my backup software, my antivirus software, MS Outlook, and a few other non-essential background tasks like Windows Live Mesh, Pantone Huey and CPUID HWMonitor Pro, and I'm still using only 3.1GB of my available of RAM. This is far more than an HTPC would ever need to do.

2GB is the minimum I would recommend for running the OS alone, but 4GB is plenty for storing both the OS's files and several non-intensive applications, which is what a HTPC would be doing. Anything more than that would be unused and therefore would not have a positive impact on performance.

cokewithvanilla

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

When you state you're using more then 4 GB of memory then I assume you're using 64 bit OS, which I feel is a mistake. I have and could use 64 bit OS, but feel why when 32 bit OS works and has no issues.

I would love to know the downsides of a 64bit OS, because I haven't discovered them. I've only been using them since Vista came out... on all my computers... including the 4 media center pcs. I've not noticed any down side. The computers have been playing all formats of music (6k tracks), movies (230 something), and pictures (35k) flawlessly for a year or two.

Syndil

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I would love to know the downsides of a 64bit OS...

That is discussed in this thread:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?127012-Anyone-else-use-an-HTPC

Glowrdr

I'm running Win 7/64, in a RAID setup and am having no issues. Although it does sound like there have been some complaints (just read the other thread) - it also sounds like it's not a hardware issue. As long as someone knows a little bit about what they are doing, then I would expect there to be no issues (or at least a fix would be available).

Granted, it's probably not best to start packaging every PC on Best Buy and RadioShacks shelves with x64 - but for the majority of the PC world that has upgraded their hardware within the last 10 years - I don't think there is any reason to be scared of it.

disneyjoe7

Since I used his information for my parts to build a HTPC, and when I tried to update my HTPC but it didn't work as well. If I was to do it again, and wanted to buy only good parts which should work good together I may buy his recommend for $4.00. I think it would be interesting what he recommend by 64bit or 32bit OS.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=940972

Lietuvis91

Syndil wrote: »

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of how a PC works.

2GB is the minimum I would recommend for running the OS alone, but 4GB is plenty for storing both the OS's files and several non-intensive applications, which is what a HTPC would be doing. Anything more than that would be unused and therefore would not have a positive impact on performance.

Wow... I'm only an IT tech who's main responsibility is hardware. I said what I said from experience, and while the nonsense you just posted might sound logical to those who simply don't know any better, it is far from reality. I will not get into a bickering match with you, as you obviously have no first hand experience with this, otherwise you would not post such nonsense.

strider

My concerns with running the 64 bit version of Windows stemmed from the poster on the AVS forum who wrote the HTPC build guide I'm using. He's being updating the guide since '07 if memory serves, and builds HTPC's professionally. His recommendation is to stick with 32bit unless running more then 4GB RAM or booting off of a hard drive that's more then 3TB. He went on to say that all of the video playback software is 32 bit and running it on a 64 bit OS could cause problems. As we can all see from above, people who know computers have differing opinions on this (as well as every other facet it looks like).

I'm not a "computer guy" or a gamer, and I probably have not used a fraction of the functionality or power of any computer I've ever owned. My goal is to build a computer that is stable in use, capable of burning, storing, and serving our redbook discs, hi rez music files, and standard DVD's, playback of Bluray discs, and surfing the internet. I'd also like it be be as future proof as practical.

It worries me that there may be compatibility issues between the media programs I plan to run and a 64 bit OS that I would assume would be less likely to need to be upgraded (vs the 32 bit OS) in the relatively near future. Most (all?) opinions I've read have stated that 4GB of RAM would be perfect for an HTPC. The caveat is the next statement that typically follows it: if you're going to be transcoding video you'd probably be better served with more RAM then that. In the Polk forum thread referenced above, someone stated that it was better to burn a DVD in it's native format to your hard drive, then convert it to another format before playback. Am I misinterpreting video transcoding, or should I go with more then 4GB?

Glowrdr

Well, the facts cannot be disputed. a 32-bit OS just WILL NOT recognize more than 4 gig memory due to the structure which I will not get into. So, realistically - if you have no plans whatsoever of using more than 4 gig, then the dispute is settled. 32 bit it is.

The problem with 64 bit, is... even though it's been out for years, not all programs take advantage of it. Even Flash. There is no 64-bit version of flash. Not a deal breaker, but an eye opener either way.

As far as transcoding is concerned - that's kind of a catch 22. RAM really has nothing to do with transcoding. My previous PC was a 3.2 gig, dual core system with 4 gig of ram. Anytime I would do anything with video - I would max out both cores @ 100% and my system would lock up (or become very laggy) and my thermal alarm would sound due to the improper cooling I was running for a system that would be running at 100% for hours on end.

With that said, I currently have an 8 core, 3.4 gig system. I actually can't officially tell you what I am running at now, but I can tell you I have no issues decoding/transcoding - and I do it 20x faster. I am also running 16 gig of ram.

My thought on the ram is this - If I can use 4 gig of ram for 2 cores, theoretically I can use 16 gig of ram for 8 cores. In the computer world, things may not seem equal (4 gig x 2 core = 16 gig x 8 core) - but there is no way that more is less. I'm not really looking to partake in the x32 or x64 OS arguement. Apples to apples, more is better all of the time when it comes to RAM. Real world experience wins over book smarts any day of the week as far as I'm concerned.

Syndil

Lietuvis91 wrote: »

Wow... I'm only an IT tech who's main responsibility is hardware. I said what I said from experience, and while the nonsense you just posted might sound logical to those who simply don't know any better, it is far from reality. I will not get into a bickering match with you, as you obviously have no first hand experience with this, otherwise you would not post such nonsense.

Whatever, man. I could get into a pissing contest with you and say that I've been working with personal computers since personal computers existed, or that I am the founder and president of an IT consulting firm serving small and medium businesses in the Louisville, KY and Southern Indiana markets, but obviously anyone can make up anything they want and post it on the Internet.

If more RAM was always faster, PC manufacturers would be stuffing everything they sold with 16GB of RAM instead of the usual 2 or 4GB. The only reason we are starting to see numbers higher than that become more common is because a) RAM is fairly cheap right now and b) marketing. Undereducated consumers have always associated bigger numbers = better, even when that is absolutely not the case, as so clearly illustrated by digital camera manufactures trying to stuff as many megapixels as they can into tiny 1/3" inch CCD sensors at the detriment of overall image quality. So if they can choose between a computer with 4GB of RAM or one with similar specs but 8GB of RAM, they'll go for the bigger number, even if all they are going to use it for is web-browsing and email and will never utilize more than 2 or 3GB of their available RAM.

RAM only helps a computer go faster if there wasn't enough to start with. If there is not enough RAM, a computer will be forced to utilize the on-disk page file, which will have a noticeably adverse effect on performance, as reading/writing from a HDD is many times slower than reading/writing from RAM. On the other hand if the PC is not forced into using the page file, that means that there is enough RAM, and adding more is not going to somehow magically make it overclock itself and run things faster.

For a purpose-built HTPC, 4GB is more than sufficient with plenty of headroom. Anything more would have no benefit to performance, and in addition would generate more heat to be removed from the case.

If you don't want to take my word for it, do the research yourself. Here's a good place to start:

Tom's Hardware - Do You Really Need More Than 6GB Of RAM?

Complete with multiple test platforms and benchmarks, covering everything from load times to FPS in games to video encoding, all laid out in graph form for easy digestion. Of course Tom's Hardware is only the most respected computer-related website on the 'net, so they must be a bunch of hacks, too.

Disappointed in the lack of performance differentiation after the program had been launched, we began various tests to determine if any ?normal? user would see larger benefits during multitasking. The most common ?background? applications we could think of were file downloads, video encoding, and virus scans, while the most demanding top applications are games. Because virus scans tie up the hard drive, we limited our background applications to video encoding (TMPGEnc with DivX) and file transfers (Windows Vista SP1 x64 standalone update at 726.5 MB) while retesting our Far Cry 2 benchmark. Simultaneous use of these tasks had no noticeable effect on game frame rates, and while DivX encoding times did slow down by around 60%, memory capacity did not affect those results. We even tried opening more than 100 Internet Explorer windows, but there was no noticeable impairment even with only 3 GB available.

If you really see a noticeable performance improvement with more than 4GB of RAM, then you're either a power user, or your PC is likely infested with viruses eating away at your available RAM (and CPU cycles).

PrazVT

Couple of things:

1 - The whole RAM heat issue is being overstated here. 4 sticks of RAM running at rated speed / CAS is not going to put out exorbitant amounts of heat.

2 - CPUs are now 32nm, so they barely put out any heat. As I've upgraded from 65nm CPUs (Q6700) to 45nm CPUs (Q9650) / i7 920 to 32nm CPUs (current i7 970 6core / 12 thread), (using the same water cooling setup) temps have gone down down down.

So let's not worry about heat. That's a worry from the last decade.

3. Windows x64 supports both 32bit and 64bit programs. It's a non issue. I can't think of anything I've wanted to run that won't run on Win 7 x64. Codecs, Office, games, Video / Audio encoding / edit software, CD / DVD / Blu-ray rippers, ... etc. etc. Flash works fine in Win 7 x64 - not sure where that is coming from.

4. I think we've established that there is nothing wrong with running Win 7 x32 with 3.25GB of RAM for an HTPC. The debate here seems to be about the fear of Win x64. Windows 32 bit should have died 2 years ago, but the advent of netbooks and low end core i3/i5 notebooks kept it alive.