|
Alereon posted:I would suggest that Bay Trail is too slow for this application, several goons have tried it so far with disappointing results. Consider a Haswell-based Pentium or Celeron CPU, if an i3 is out of your pricerange. I just built a system specifically for Steam in-home streaming and Plex Home Theater using an ASRock Q1900-ITX embedded solution (got it for $60 off Amazon) and it runs great. Through Plex, I'm able to direct play (no transcoding needed from my Plex server) 30-40ish GB M2TS blurays without a hitch, and I'm able to stream games to my living room from my gaming PC in my office in 720p at a solid 55-60 frames per second. I'd argue a low-power, bay trail based system is ideal for an HTPC build if you're looking for something relatively cheap and can flawlessly playback any HD content from YouTube, Twitch, Netflix, Plex, XBMC, etc. Bonus points for bay trail being able to utilize fanless cooling. I used a 150W picoPSU with a 102W adapter to power my Steam/Plex box and it is 100% silent.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:15 |
|
|
I'm about to build an HTPC/Steam streamer out of an old Phenom X2 I had lying around so I guess this means it will be powerful enough 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:I'm about to build an HTPC/Steam streamer out of an old Phenom X2 I had lying around so I guess this means it will be powerful enough I'm sure a Phenom X2 would be fine. I opted for a low-power bay trail system for energy saving reasons (pretty sure my Steam/Plex box doesn't exceed 30-40w under load, and maybe like 10w idle at most?). I was intially looking at Athlon AM1 solutions for my Steam/Plex build, but I could not justify the price/performance when ASRock's fanless J1900 solutions exist for less. teagone fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
The super low power stuff is nice for sure but like I said I had a motherboard and CPU sitting idle - plus it's not like they have any resale value either. The Phenom is something like 84w I think? Not great but not untenable either. I guess if I want to run something natively the little bit of extra power won't hurt either. Hell, it's gonna have 8 GB of RAM since I don't have another use for those sticks anyway. I was going to try Ubuntu as the OS. What are you using?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:The super low power stuff is nice for sure but like I said I had a motherboard and CPU sitting idle - plus it's not like they have any resale value either. The Phenom is something like 84w I think? Not great but not untenable either. I guess if I want to run something natively the little bit of extra power won't hurt either. Hell, it's gonna have 8 GB of RAM since I don't have another use for those sticks anyway. Running Windows 8.1 on my box. It's typically being used in Steam Big Picture or Plex Home Theater 95% of the time though. And yeah, I repurpose old parts too. My Plex server is an AMD Phenom II X4 with 8GB RAM. Needed it beefy for transcoding media to phones/tablets for myself and family and friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Since the thread's slightly back to life, I'm curious: does more than one company actually sell an A6-5200 Kabini motherboard? I was looking at that for the next quick-and-easy HTPC or low-power setup I have to do, but it's like every manufacturer but one just bailed on the idea after making samples. I'm not familiar with ECS in terms of reputation, but the KBN-I/5200 seems on paper to be fine the next time a business needs a basic efficient setup. Benchmarks put that chipset into the "not painful for office work and casual entertainment" zone. I'd figured that particular APU was sort of unique in terms of power/performance/cost. Did I miss something, are Intel's iGPUs for Celerons competitive with the HD8400? e: Could've posted in the parts-picking thread rather than this one, but this is more a case of morbid curiosity than "I wanna buy it"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:Since the thread's slightly back to life, I'm curious: does more than one company actually sell an A6-5200 Kabini motherboard? I was looking at that for the next quick-and-easy HTPC or low-power setup I have to do, but it's like every manufacturer but one just bailed on the idea after making samples. I'm not familiar with ECS in terms of reputation, but the KBN-I/5200 seems on paper to be fine the next time a business needs a basic efficient setup. Benchmarks put that chipset into the "not painful for office work and casual entertainment" zone. If you're set on AMD for your HTPC for whatever reason, I'd recommend getting an Athlon 5350 + AM1 mainboard http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=AMD%20AM1 as I believe it's pretty much the same thing as that A6-5200, except it's slightly cheaper, not embedded, and you can get mainboards from ASUS, MSI, and Gigabyte I think. The bay trail Celeron iGPU isn't as good as the Athlon 5350's, but the performance difference isn't huge or anything. You can see application/gaming benchmarks comparing the two here: http://www.techspot.com/review/806-amd-kabini-vs-intel-bay-trail-d/page4.html That said, now that Steam in-home streaming exists, building an HTPC with beefier components for PC gaming in the living room isn't all that necessary (in my opinion). The box I built using a bay trail Celeron is pretty snappy for a general use; paired the ASRock Q1900-ITX with 8GB of Corsair RAM and a 120GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD. In my case, the setup I just listed makes for a solid HTPC, and as such, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking to build an office work/casual entertainment PC for under $300 or so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
teagone posted:That said, now that Steam in-home streaming exists, building an HTPC with beefier components for PC gaming in the living room isn't all that necessary (in my opinion). The box I built using a bay trail Celeron is pretty snappy for a general use; paired the ASRock Q1900-ITX with 8GB of Corsair RAM and a 120GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD. In my case, the setup I just listed makes for a solid HTPC, and as such, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking to build an office work/casual entertainment PC for under $300 or so. If anyone wants to go this route and is starting from scratch, Newegg has had some pretty stellar deals on refurb SFF systems. J1900/4GB - currently $179AR for either system (Usually 1TB drive vs 500GB drive costs more). Has gone as low as $150AR http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103925&cm_re=acer_j1900-_-83-103-925-_-Product http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103927&cm_re=acer_j1900-_-83-103-927-_-Product J2900/8GB/1TB - Currently $289, has been as low as $249 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103932&cm_re=acer_j2900-_-83-103-932-_-Product The J1900 systems at $150 end up being less than the cost of Case/Mobo/RAM, and about breakeven at $180 (getting the drive for free). I wanted the smaller case, so I didn't do this, but it's probably a great deal for some.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
A10-7800 is reviewed. Second verse, same as the first. Nothing to see here folks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
teagone posted:I just built a system specifically for Steam in-home streaming and Plex Home Theater using an ASRock Q1900-ITX embedded solution (got it for $60 off Amazon) and it runs great. Through Plex, I'm able to direct play (no transcoding needed from my Plex server) 30-40ish GB M2TS blurays without a hitch, and I'm able to stream games to my living room from my gaming PC in my office in 720p at a solid 55-60 frames per second. I'd argue a low-power, bay trail based system is ideal for an HTPC build if you're looking for something relatively cheap and can flawlessly playback any HD content from YouTube, Twitch, Netflix, Plex, XBMC, etc. Bonus points for bay trail being able to utilize fanless cooling. I used a 150W picoPSU with a 102W adapter to power my Steam/Plex box and it is 100% silent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Last I saw you post the interface was too slow above 720p and you were looking into a PCI-E x1 videocard to get acceptable performance, did you fix a problem or something? To be clear, I said running Steam Big Picture mode at 1080p was a bit jittery (for me) since it relies on the client PC to run and isn't streamed from the host computer, which is why I was asking if adding in a PCIe 1x card to the client PC would make any noticeable difference regarding the speed at which Big Picture mode would run. However, I also said running Steam Big Picture mode in 720p on a bay trail based computer is perfectly fine and acceptable and that I'm happy with the performance at that resolution; it runs surprisingly smooth. I was simply asking if it was a viable option to get Big Picture mode to run at 1080p smoothly by adding a PCIe 1x videocard. My inquiry had nothing to do with HD 1080p mkv/bluray/youtube/video playback or general HTPC usage. That said, Steam in-home streaming gameplay is different, since most of the load is handled by the host computer (in my case, a Core-i3 4330, 8GB RAM, Radeon 7850 2GB). On my client PC, i.e., the ASRock Q1900-ITX system, all games run at 55-60fps at 720p capped at 20MBit/s. Pretty sure I can stream games at 1080p at 50-60fps if I set the client bandwidth to automatic or cap it to like 8MBit/s, but I'm perfectly happy with the way everything looks when streamed at 720p 20MBit/s. Do note I had also inquired about whether or not the host computer having a better CPU or GPU would give me better in-home Streaming performance (ability to stream 1080p at 20MBit/s on the client) in another thread, but Factory Factory had suggested it could be a network limitation that determines streaming performance and has little to do with the host PC's hardware specifications. [edit] As a front-end for Plex though? This ASRock Q1900-ITX is boss. It's perfect for a Plex HTPC platform. teagone fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
I finally got around to doing some testing with Steam In Home Streaming. Host: i5 2500k at 4.3GHz GTX 680 2GB 16GB / SSD for boot / steam Intel onboard Gigabit Client: A10-7850 8GB / SSD Intel PCI-E Gigabit I had Steam Big Picture Mode on at 1080p and was playing BioShock Infinite at 1080p ultra settings and it was silky smooth. I was blown away at how well it worked. I did a couple of other games, and was the same experience. I am definitely going to use this more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:I finally got around to doing some testing with Steam In Home Streaming. Do you have a lesser client PC you could test a stream to? Like a zacate or something. I'm curious since your host PC is significantly more powerful than mine to see if the host specs do indeed make a difference in client performance. My host/client setup also utilizes Realtek gigabit...is it possible in-home streaming performance would fare better on intel LAN?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
teagone posted:Do you have a lesser client PC you could test a stream to? Like a zacate or something. I'm curious since your host PC is significantly more powerful than mine to see if the host specs do indeed make a difference in client performance. My host/client setup also utilizes Realtek gigabit...is it possible in-home streaming performance would fare better on intel LAN? I don't have anything less potent unfortunately. I only use Intel NICs because I've found anything else performs very badly with large data streams, and in particular, my cable card via ethernet solution for Windows Media Center. If you are having frame dropping issues, I'd look to realtek as a culprit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
teagone posted:Do you have a lesser client PC you could test a stream to? Like a zacate or something. I'm curious since your host PC is significantly more powerful than mine to see if the host specs do indeed make a difference in client performance. My host/client setup also utilizes Realtek gigabit...is it possible in-home streaming performance would fare better on intel LAN? It works on C-60(which is a slower Zacate), though I've tested only 1024x600 or 1280x720 resolution. Realtek GbE through WLAN-N router, no problems even at 80 mbps quality. So far I've only played LA Noire which locks the game to 30 fps. I'm using the latest In-Home streaming beta which supports Nvidia hardware encoding. As the client only has to do H264 decoding(which is done through DXVA2) I should see no issues for AMD netbooks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
I briefly tried 1920x1080 with Batman: AO and Civ 5 to an Atom Z3770 tablet, which is as close as you can get to a Q1900 without being a Q1900. Worked fine. Host specs very similar to mayodreams'. Gigabit to two-stream 802.11n 5 GHz (i.e. 300 Mbps client with zero spectrum crowding).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:A10-7800 is reviewed. I like how AMD thinks their 7850K is worth $175 as if Intel and discrete cards don't exist. Surely there must be enough idiot AMD fanboys in this world who prefers an APU that struggles in 720p over a G3258 and a GTX750 Ti for the same price. JnnyThndrs posted:While the forums were down, I turned traitor and read /r/hardware for the first time. They are probably way too busy comparing their FXs with i5s to notice they are also probably spending the equivalent of an i7 4790K on motherboards and cooling just to make sure that 200W+ chip doesn't burn up the mobo or melt the chip. What you mean by "opportunity costs?" gently caress that poo poo man! Palladium fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
I'll have you know my 7850 does just fine at 1920 x 1080  e: oh, they just used the same number for their APU as one of their discrete cards. Nice to see they are keeping up sensible naming conventions anyway. Maybe this is why autodetect sees my card as an APU? IDK
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:If anything, power usage on processors of any mode is going down, and rapidly. Yeah the long-term trend has been set by the mobile computing segment, where the trend is towards low-power processors and offloading the heavy-duty work to the GPU cores. That's even AMD's approach in the low-end market with their APU processors. Obviously that approach doesn't work for everything, brawny cores are still better at some things, but the problem there is that AMD processors are just too weak for too much power draw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Palladium posted:They are probably way too busy comparing their FXs with i5s to notice they are also probably spending the equivalent of an i7 4790K on motherboards and cooling just to make sure that 200W+ chip doesn't burn up the mobo or melt the chip. What you mean by "opportunity costs?" gently caress that poo poo man! Yeah that was what I ran into when I was looking at parts. AMD is just outclassed in pure performance, the niche remaining is "I can get a complete mobo/processor set for less than an Intel mobo alone" ultra-bargain pricing and the cooling requirements make that infeasible. I still think there's enough fanboys and cheapasses out there to move low-end processors and motherboards in the $100-150 range. Basically go after the people who would otherwise buy an Intel NUC but have the space for a bigger machine if there's a performance reason to do so. But you'd basically need to be handing out free watercooling kits to move any of the mid or high range parts in preference to the Intel equivalents. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah that was what I ran into when I was looking at parts. AMD is just outclassed in pure performance, the niche remaining is "I can get a complete mobo/processor set for less than an Intel mobo alone" ultra-bargain pricing and the cooling requirements make that infeasible. The A8-7600 is the only AMD chip that somewhat makes sense, assuming: 1. You will NEVER upgrade the GPU 2. You don't want to touch a used <$50 discrete HD7770, that eats, spits, stomps, kills, murders, annihilate, destroys, or spits out the integrated GPU.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Anandtech benched the cherry-picked 4-module FX-8350s aka FX-9590. Here are some choice words regarding the situation from the focus group: quote:Well, one pro is that you get a processor that is fairly comparable to an Intel i7 in performance, and most importantly, you'll be giving your money to a company that didn't try to screw you by attempting to corner the market through extortionate threats to their own OEM customers if they used AMD CPUs when they were better than Intel's. quote:Ive read up on bulldozer architecture. 4 modules with 2 logical and physical cores = 8 cores. Intels hyperthreading arent physical cores but software driven. so an OS sees an i7 with 8 cores even tho 4 of those cores are virtual. AMD has 8 physical/logical cores. Each module or 2 cores do have to share FpU, l2 cache (i think) and another thing. So, the cores are hampered by this but it doesnt take away the fact that there are 8 cores there. And i know its slow even though it has more cores than intel. But by refining it and better software optimization, i am wishing AMD to at least compete with intel enthusiast x99 chipset in the future with half the price. Why? Bc i cant afford intel. Simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
If you can't afford Intel, how can you afford the electricity to run AMD? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:If you can't afford Intel, how can you afford the electricity to run AMD? How much time does the cpu on your home pc spend at full load? At idle there isn't much difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
adorai posted:How much time does the cpu on your home pc spend at full load? At idle there isn't much difference. I crunched the numbers on this for the previous system building thread. If you take the higher idle power...  ...and then you game for four to eight hours per week or so, then at $0.20 per KWh and spending $350 for an Intel CPU/Mainboard over $200 for AMD, you break even in two years. After two years, the TCO for an FX chip exceeds the TCO for an Intel chip. E: Plus since it's lower performance, you'll want to upgrade sooner, and then the whole concept of "buy AMD for better price/performance" just shits itself completely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
This is what made me o_O 350 loving watts
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:This is what made me o_O Murder the earth, scorch the planet, piss on the ashes 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Murder the earth, scorch the planet, piss on the ashes
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Murder the earth, scorch the planet, piss on the ashes The "rolling coal" desktop
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:I crunched the numbers on this for the previous system building thread. If you take the higher idle power... It's much, much worse for AMD than that. If somebody wants to overclock the cheapest 8-core $160 FX8320, it has to be at least a $160 mobo that can deliver 200+W to the FX unless they want stuff blowing up with how blatantly AMD underrates their TDP, and I can't imagine anything less than a $100 H100i to keep it cool. Forget extra costs like case cooling, beefier PSU etc. Now, what can you buy for ~$420? A 4790K that will run happily stock turboed @ 4.2GHz on the cheapest of S1150 boards with a Hyper 212+. Performance advantage over AMD? *ahahahaha* That is HOW hosed AMD is at the moment when it makes even a $340 Intel chip look like a complete bargain in comparison. EDIT: Then you say "then don't spend so much to overclock the FX!" and run it stock with a $80 board and a $30 212+, which saves $110 to make the total $270...And it's still completely outclassed by a stock i5 4590 with a budget mobo and 212+ at ~$10 more. Palladium fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
Palladium posted:A 4790K that will run happily stock turboed @ 4.2GHz It turbos to 4.4 out of the box, unless you're referring to a multi-core turbo level
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:It turbos to 4.4 out of the box, unless you're referring to a multi-core turbo level i7 4790K without iGPU = Sustained minimum 4.2GHz at 4C/8T
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Palladium posted:i7 4790K without iGPU = Sustained minimum 4.2GHz at 4C/8T http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_40-GHz (You're right in the point you're making but I think you're a bit confused on 4790k specs)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:Huh? I think he means if you disable the onboard video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:Huh? The turbo bin for 4 cores is a lower clock rate than the turbo bin for 1 core (which is what the 4.4 GHz maximum turbo refers to).
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
AMD should give all its money to IBM and ride the CPU-synaptic brain train
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:Huh? Sorry if I was somewhat vague there. A stock 4790K actual clock speed when fully loaded with 4 cores + 8 threads and without the iGPU active is 4.2GHz. So that 4GHz rated speed is actually conservative; I know because I have running one right now. Interestingly, this isn't far from what you can realistically get by overclocking a 4690K...
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Does anyone know of an AM1 motherboard (preferably one of the cheap ones) that absolutely, positively supports IOMMU?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:The turbo bin for 4 cores is a lower clock rate than the turbo bin for 1 core (which is what the 4.4 GHz maximum turbo refers to). Though now that nearly every motherboard manufacturer cheats with multicore enhancement, the lower turbo bins are essentially irrelevant. I've yet to see my 4790K run at less than 4.4GHz under load.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:15 |
|
|
Where would I go to learn more about the future of AMD? I'm forever hopeful that they will make something awesome. The APUs interest me, are any of them decent or is basically just the same as the rest and is utter crap? EDIT: How does the graphics on the cpu stand up against the graphics on the Intel CPUs? Lord Windy fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 09:38
|
|