Max Builds an HTPC Part II: The CPU

Posted By: Max Zuckerman | Nov 18th, 2008 @ 3:18 PM | 25,626 Views | 33 Comments

Formats:

chip I’m not sure we completely closed out our discussion on the case yet, but the show must go on!

Next up is the CPU for our Home Theater PC. Last time we had such a discussion, I feel like AMD and Intel were top contenders. This round, Intel is doing a bit more “winning” in the chip space, BUT keep in mind that as a home theater PC, we want to consider thermal efficiency, cost, and performance.

That said, here are your pointers:

Intel just recently released their new Core i7 chip, is that the right choice for this?? (or am I throwing you off the path )
What’s more important for media… high clock speed or multiple cores?
Should we rely on the CPU for our high definition content, or our GPU later on?
Bonus: what two inputs yield a “true” or “1” output for a NOR gate? (that’s just some basic logic for you electronic nuts, if this is too simple, I’ll start asking tougher questions )

Tags: cpu, max builds a pc series, maxbuildsMediaCenter

Rating:

Lloyd_Humph2

Core i7, or a high end Quad. Cores are more important than clock speeds, though a nice balance is good. You need the cores for media encoding etc. since that certainly speeds up stuff!

Core i7 925, the cheap one, still beats a quad to the ground, apparently... so they definately seem like the best choice.

The GPU should handle HD content. So a 2.8/3.0GHz Quad. Or a really high end duo, to keep heat at a minimum. Smiley

Midpipps

I have to say the core i7 is tasty
especially this one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115200

but this would be a nice i7 for a media center
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202

also the intel q6600 is a good cheap and reliable processor that runs most applications flawlessly
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

AMD wise I like the AMD phenom 9950 black edition for its speed and price point
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103273

None of these should really be any big worry for heat and noise as per they all seem to have some sort of system that will keep them cool and quiet under low load times and unless you do folding in the background watching movies should not stress these much at all.

Trix

In reply to Midpipps

#Nov 18th, 2008 @ 3:47 PM

I'm feeling no i7. When Core 2 was released, it had quite a bit of errata, I am sure the i7 is the same, but I am also certain it would probably be just fine...

In anycase, I suggest a q6600 or AMD chip. I think thermal efficiency is good for a Media Center build, since this PC will be on most of the time if not all the time. A passive cooler would be neat to investigate. Maybe we could put a server chip in a consumer motherboard, I know the socket 939 opterons worked in such a manner.

http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3456

The GPU will definitely be a big factor, and should be utilized for HD.

Intel seems to be the popular company at the moment, but is anyone else with me in wanting to support the underdog, along with ATI..

I'll keep thinking about it.

Mouser

As far as cost and performance i do like AMD, the phenom would be a good budget keeper and most likely have excellent performance.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103291

But on the intel side i agree with trix, the q6600 is pretty low in price and probably good, i say probably because i've never experienced one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

And whenver it actually gets to the GPU i will support ATI over nVidia but until then.

haubey

Core i7. Cnet has it down that the low end I7 beats the high end core 2 quad core. also, the i7 brings back hyperthreading, so if you have cores, it's kind of like 8. but then you would need a special motherboard if you go with the i7.... still worth it. and the processors work together faster because tey get ride of he front side bus (i think that's it) and use a new technology called quickstep (i think) so they can do things quicker. Core i7 all the way!

squirt22

In reply to haubey

#Nov 18th, 2008 @ 5:15 PM

Yes the i7 eliminates the FSB all-together, and replaces it with the Intel QuickPath interconnect, which gives the chip up to 6.4 GT/s data transfer speed.

Max
Spaceman Spiff!

In reply to squirt22

#Nov 18th, 2008 @ 6:21 PM

Good info, Squirt.... now do you think we should use it??

Or do you guys just always point to the absolute newest and most expensive thing possible! Wink

aeoth

In reply to Max

#Nov 18th, 2008 @ 6:29 PM

I think thats exactly whats happening max... this is really just "Max Builds a Gaming PC With Maybe A TVTuner"

I've got a few questions - do you expect to be encoding 24/7? If not, the increased power usage, cost and thermal output of the Core i7/Quad cores are all far in excess of what you need for HTPC "duties" (if you want to throw in gaming, sure...a faster CPU may be better, but those are going to somewhat extreme lengths)
Why use a HTPC case? If you want low noise AND the most high end graphics (last thread saw people wanting 4870x2!), a larger tower case is the way to go. A HTPC case is great for when you want to stick it in a cabinet, but with the amount of heat these sort of components are going to create, it'll combust!

Even with integrated graphics my Intel Pentium Dual Core E2160 @ 1.8ghz (rebranded Core2Duo chip with less cache) handles Bluray movies at 1080p, all while running under 100w.

Whats the bet somebody suggests 4-8gb of ram for when you get up to that section? Tongue Out

edit: oh, bonus question, the two inputs would be 0 and 0

Trix

In reply to squirt22

#Nov 18th, 2008 @ 6:21 PM

AMD has had a built in memory controller with no FSB for a while now.

The only thing that makes me nervous is this is Intel's first generation integrated memory controller.

Intel and AMD's first generations always have a crazy errata list. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2152458,00.asp

Q6600 or a new phenom still has my vote. I am sure the i7 is fine, but I hate to think of a later version coming out with corrected errata a few months down the road.