AMD Midrange HTPC
To be honest, if there's one system in this roundup that is likely to get a lot of comments and criticisms, it's going to be the HTPC configuration. That's not to say that our particular configuration is unreasonable, but getting into the HTPC market we will invariably encounter a lot of differing opinions about what is necessary and what is not. We'll start with the assertion that anyone looking to build an HTPC already has a decent HDTV and sound system, so we get to bypass those expenses and focus on the rest of the components.
| AMD Midrange HTPC System |
| Hardware |
Component |
Price |
No Extras |
| Processor |
Athlon 64 X2 BE-2350 AM2 (2.1GHz 2x512K) - Retail |
$99 |
|
| Motherboard |
GIGABYTE GA-MA69GM-S2H (690G) |
$85 |
|
| Memory |
Transcend AxeRAM 2x1GB PC2-6400 (TX800QLJ-2GK) |
$75 |
|
| Video Card |
Integrated X1250 with HDMI |
$0 |
|
| Hard Drive |
HITACHI Deskstar 7K1000 750GB 7200RPM 32MB (HDS721075KLA330) |
$200 |
|
| Optical Drive |
Pioneer BDC-202BK Blu-ray/DVD+R Combo (SATA) - Optional |
$290 |
-$254 |
| Case and PSU |
Antec Veris Fusion (430W PSU) |
$175 |
|
| TV Tuner |
AVerMedia AVerTV Combo PCIe MCE (Retail) |
$115 |
|
| TV Tuner |
KWORLD ATSC 115 PlusTV HD (PCI) - Optional |
$76 |
-$76 |
| Sound Card |
ASUS Xonar D2 7.1 - Optional |
$181 |
-$181 |
| Display |
Pre-existing HDTV |
$0 |
|
| Speakers |
Pre-existing Home Theater Stereo |
$0 |
|
| Keyboard and Mouse |
Logitech 920-000526 Keyboard with 1500 Rechargeable Mouse |
$61 |
|
| Operating System |
Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit (OEM) |
$105 |
|
| Bottom Line |
$1462 |
$951 |
 |
Our personal opinion is that an HTPC needs to be quiet above all else, and one of the best ways to achieve that result is to make sure you get a low-power processor. AMD's Athlon X2 BE-2350 meets that requirement, though obviously at a price premium. We're giving up 400 MHz compared to a stock 4800+ but spending the same amount of money. (You can also upgrade to the BE-2400 and give up 300 MHz compared to the 5000+ at the same price.) Our personal take on HTPC's is that raw CPU performance isn't a critical factor, but if you intend to do a lot of video transcoding you might need to upgrade the CPU to something faster. Unfortunately, a faster CPU will very likely mean something that generates more heat and thus requires better cooling. Most people looking at building an HTPC usually already have at least one other computer in the house, however, so having that system do transcoding over the network might help to keep noise levels in the living room down to an absolute minimum.
 |
Also worth mentioning is that we didn't bother with any super expensive memory, instead choosing some decent DDR2-800 memory that can provide 4-4-4 timings. We aren't interested in overclocking this HTPC (though it's technically still possible), and spending additional money on higher performance RAM just doesn't make sense. In fact, as we alluded to earlier, many people might simply want to purchase this cheaper memory on the gaming configurations as well.
 |
Moving on to the motherboard, we come to the primary reason for selecting an AMD platform for our HTPC. While it's possible to find Intel platform motherboards with an HDMI port, you're really talking about some slim pickings right now. As a whole, we simply feel AMD's Radeon X1250 (690G) is a better IGP, especially when looking at the HTPC market. If you're looking for a close second to the Gigabyte board (which is currently our favorite HTPC motherboard after testing), the abit AN-M2HD (which uses an NVIDIA GeForce 7050 chipset) offers similar features and performance at a slightly higher price. It also includes Shader Model 3.0 support for your gaming pleasure, for those who enjoy SM3.0 gaming slideshows.
(Ooooooh! Aaaaaaah!)
Because we used an integrated graphics solution, obviously there's no need for a discrete graphics card. Of course, some people might prefer a discrete graphics solution that includes hardware accelerated H.264 decoding, in which case you could skip out on the IGP motherboards and pick up pretty much any other reasonable motherboard. If you're looking to build an HTPC based on an Intel platform, this is definitely the route we would take. GeForce 8600 and Radeon HD 2600 cards should all do a reasonable job at handling any H.264 content, although we were able to decode everything up through 1080i H.264 videos fine using just the CPU. 1080p on the other hand needs a bit more help. If you want to install an HD-DVD and/or Blu-ray drive, we would definitely put more thought into spending an extra hundred dollars or so on a discrete (fanless) GPU.
Any HTPC worth its salt needs to be able to record videos, so we added a TV tuner card. The AVerMedia AVerTV Combo is a dual TV tuner that supports Over-the-Air HDTV signals (ATSC), Clear QAM, as well as analog channels. It integrates with Windows MCE 2005 and Windows Vista, but you'll need to use the separate AVer MediaCenter application (currently a free trial that doesn't expire) in order to view QAM digital channels. Scanning through all the QAM channels to get things configured can be a tedious process, but for QAM support it's pretty much a necessary evil. Heat is also a concern at times, according to online comments.
If you want to be able to record/view additional channels, you can install a second card as well. The retail box includes a Media Center remote and IR blaster, but you only need one of those so if you pick up a second card you can save a bit of money and get the white box version. However, you need a motherboard with two PCIe x1 slots if you want to use two of these cards, so either you'll need to get a different motherboard or you'll need to pick up a PCI card for your second tuner. The "best" current option (and we use that term loosely) seems to be the KWORLD ATSC 115, which has similar features to the AVerMedia card and includes a second remote. Some users have had serious issues while others don't report any problems, but we generally consider this to be an optional extra. AMD also
just announced their new TV Wonder lineup with Clear QAM support which should become available shortly. We're certainly interested in seeing how the actual hardware and software turns out, but until the products actually become available we'll have to stick with other alternatives.
Now, there's something else to consider in all of this, and that's the US government mandated February 19, 2009 deadline to end analog broadcasts. Both of the TV tuners that we've listed include analog support, which we still find to be necessary in order to view the largest number of channels. However, some people might prefer to just forget about analog altogether - especially those that live in larger metropolitan areas where the switch to digital TV is already well underway. One final option on the TV tuner side that is pretty unique is the HD Homerun from Silicondust USA. This is a Dual HDTV tuner/recorder that functions over a network and provides ATSC/QAM support. The price of $169 is more than many other options, but this is arguably a more flexible overall solution.
What's the point of having an HTPC if you don't have a lot of storage space? To that end, we selected a Hitachi 750GB hard drive - if you're recording HDTV signals, you will chew through space at a rate of around 8GB per hour, which still gives enough storage for over 90 hours of video. We also have what we can only consider an optional Blu-ray/DVDR combo drive - optional because at $290, most people might be inclined to wait a bit longer. If you don't want to spend that much (or simply feel Blu-ray and HD-DVD are overrated), feel free to stick with our standard SATA DVDR recommendation from the other configurations.
 |
Another optional component is the sound card. Windows Vista has done a lot to level the audio playing field, and honestly most of us are perfectly happy using integrated audio. Still, for audiophiles, the ASUS Xonar D2 provides a noticeably better experience. The integrated HDMI port only provides stereo audio pass-through, so if you're hooking up to a good home theater system, you will almost certainly want to use a separate S/PDIF output. The motherboard we selected does include that feature, but the Xonar adds DTS support. At almost $200, however, this may be a luxury that most users are willing to forgo.
 |
Finally, while it is certainly possible to stuff all of these components into pretty much any ATX/uATX case, a real HTPC needs to blend in with its environment a bit better. The Antec Veris Fusion is a decent looking uATX HTPC case that includes a 430W power supply and a VFD panel. Getting everything installed and wired correctly can take some effort compared to your typical PC chassis, but the end result is a lot more visually appealing. Unfortunately, the case doesn't include any sort of remote control, so you will need to purchase one separately. We wouldn't call this a perfect case by any means, but it still offers a good value and looks attractive, making it a good choice for a midrange HTPC. We also included a wireless keyboard/mouse from Logitech, for those times when the remote control just doesn't cut it.
While we prefer the ease of installation that comes with Windows Vista, all of the TV tuners mentioned above should also work with MythTV. That will almost certainly require a lot more effort, and as with most things Linux you may have better results by using an NVIDIA graphics chip. If you've got more time than money, though, MythTV can be a very powerful alternative that still provides good quality. On the other hand, if digging through forums and recompiling kernels and drivers doesn't sound like your cup of tea, Vista remains the far easier solution.
The final price comes to just under $1500, but as we've already mentioned there are several optional features that many people might choose to bypass. If you cut out the Blu-ray drive (and substitute in a standard DVDR), the extra PCI tuner, and the ASUS soundcard you can get the price to $950. Go with MythTV and you can cut out another $105. Clearly, there's a lot of room for tweaking this particular configuration to fit your own needs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
jonp - Thursday, October 18, 2007 - link
I would like to propose an alternative to both the Cooler Master Centurion 534 and the Lian Li PC-7B plus II: the Thermaltake Swing VB6000BNS/VB6000BWS (both available at Newegg $60/$67). This mid-tower case has:4 5.25" ext drive bays
2 3.5" ext drive bays
4 3.5" int drive bays (facing the case side for easy access)
0.8mm SECC steel except for the black plastic case front
Tool-free design with side cover thumb screws
12cm rear fan - included
12cm front fan
7 expansion slots
Room for a standard ATX motherboard.
Plastic fan brackets for easy fan install/removal.
Washable front dust filter.
BNS - no side window, BWS - side window
The case USB, 1394 and audio ports are on the top of case front along with one 3.5" ext drive bay. The is very convenient since all of my systems sit on the floor (noise, weight, desk space, etc).
Front power and reset buttons.
No power supply so you can choose your own.
Also I think the design in Piano black is both professional and attractive.
yyrkoon - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Who says you need a 64BIT OS to use 4GB of RAM ? Until I had to RMA a pair of 1GB sticks, I was using 4GB with WinXP x32. Photoshop ran faster, applications opened and closed much faster, and my system in general operated much smoother. I tried the /3GB switch, and no joy as it would cause random BSoDs, and in the end, I just let the default /NOEXECUTE=optin switch deal with /PAE for me, and I had 3.5GB of RAM availible to applications/processes. Was it a huge performance gain ? No, but it was well worth the ~$80 usd before MiR.
Remember, your system does not operate in a vacuum, it need memory to be effective. At the same time, programs like Photoshop that can make use of up 2.5GB of RAM just for the executable can benifit from having 2GB dedicated soley for its use. With 3.5GB availible I was able to allow Photoshop to use 100% memory(~2GB without the /3GB switch in use), and had 1.5GB for the system, and anything else I wanted to run at the same time.
So in short of using a 64BIT OS, it was a perfect solution that gave me plenty of speed increase for the money spent. A much better option that spending ~110 for 2GB of RAM, that is truely too much for the given system.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Apparently there's an abundance of people that feel "think about upgrading to a 64-bit OS" means the same thing as "you absolutely MUST upgrade to a 64-bit OS". See above commentary. Personally, when I finally switch my work system to Vista, it will be for Vista 64-bit. Because if I'm going to take the Vista plunge, I'm going to take the 64-bit plunge as well and hopefully be better prepared for future applications and memory requirements.Is it 100% necessary? Nope. But if someone asked me for my opinion on the matter, I'd advise them to give some serious thought to running Vista x64. Maybe in another year or two, we'll even start to truly see a need for it in more applications.
yyrkoon - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
That really has little to do with what I was saying. Mainly, my point has to do with your choice of RAM. You will most likely see a much more noticable performance gain using 4GB of RAM in XP, than using 2GB of high performance RAM(even overclocked). For instance, overclocking my AM2 1210 CPU, and looking for noticable performance gains, I do not notice any without diving into a battery of benchmarks. This also includes having run the memory 100MHZ over spec(900MHZ DDR2). I do agree with your article comments concerning 1066DDR2 memory could help your high overclock possiblities. Since Vista is a resource hog by comparrison, I am sure it would be far more benificial to run as more memory as possible as well.
Hey, I hear nothing but good things about Vista x64, but when I upgrade to Vista, it will be to Ultimate retail, and I will most probably at least start off with x64. IF it works out good, then I will stay. The problem is not all the ordinary applications I run that I am worried about, its the games that I play in my down time. Also when I make that leap, my costs will probably be higher than the average upgrader, as I plan on running 8GB of RAM.
Anyhow, for what its worth, Photoshop CS3, Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX, and several other RAW/image editing applications are supposed to run very well, and fast on Vista x64. At least this seems to be the general consensus with every dpreview photographers/image re-touchers that I have spoken to concerning the topic.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
If there were a native 64-bit Photoshop version out, I'd already be running Vista x64 with 8GB of RAM. (Curse you Adobe....) :)Isn't what you said what I put in the article, more or less? We selected DDR2-1066, but it might not be necessary depending on what you want to do with the system. 4x1GB DDR2-800 (or 2x2GB) and x64 is a very viable alternative. Which one you take depends on your end goal. Overclockers and tweakers will likely prefer DDR2-1066; more typical users that run a lot of memory intensive apps will be well-served by running 4GB of RAM. People looking for some cost savings that don't intend to push for maximum overclocks can happily run DDR2-800.
Panther - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Great guide Jarred.I've been meaning to build a new workstation so the timing of this article is perfect!
One question though, is there any Nvidia card you'd recommend in lieu of the 2600XT which provides a similar performance profile? I'm going to run linux and would rather avoid ATi just based on my last experience (granted it's been almost three years ago) trying to use ATi's linux drivers.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
8600 GT and 8600 GTS cards are also reasonable choices. I have one that includes two dual-link DVI outputs, even. I suppose GPU choice is going to be impacted by how you're planning on using it. The 2600 XT is a pretty decent GPU, but in Linux and in games the 8600 GTS probably is a better choice. For video decoding (H.264) I think it beats the 8600 cards, but that's not really a huge concern for most workstations. The only concern is that the 512MB 8600 cards cost quite a bit more than the 512MB 2600 XT listed. So you can give up 256MB of GPU RAM or spend more money.I'm going to edit the GPU section on the workstation slightly, though, as you do make a valid point.
leexgx - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
not sure about the 8800 but the 8600 and lower cards i think have some driver supporti going to be putting k/ubuntu 7.10 onto an 80gb hdd to see if all my hardware works
Kishkumen - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
"...thinking about upgrading to a 64-bit operating system, give some serious thought to running a 4GB configuration"Um, why do you need to upgrade to a 64 bit operating system just to use 4GB of memory? Something is seriously wrong there. My 32bit operating system can use 4GB just fine. Even up 64GB I think. It is Linux... but I know a tech savvy site like Anandtech wouldn't make some sort of generalization that "operating system" automatically means some version of Microsoft's NT operating system would it? I mean we are open to different technologies around here aren't we? I wonder sometimes... Well, that's OK, I still like your hardware recommendations anyway.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
A standard desktop PC can't run let alone address 64GB of memory. Unless you're hiding the unbuffered 16GB DDR2 modules from the rest of us? I take it you're referring to 32-bit servers running PAE in order to access more than 4GB of RAM. Or are you referring to a large swap file (which isn't actually RAM)? Both are possible, but obviously for the general computing market it's not an important topic for discussion.I can't say that I run Linux on a regular basis anymore, but there are ways to work around memory limitations. Given the target audience of our Buyer's Guides, running off into tangents about various memory management theories doesn't seem to be particularly useful. For those that prefer to stick with Windows, pretty much the only way you're getting full use of 4GB of memory or more is with a 64-bit version of the OS.
Generally speaking, however, the BIOS and motherboard will limit your options. 4GB is now usually reasonable - in 32-bit Windows Vista you'll usually get access to around 3GB of memory - but while 8GB is theoretically supported on most modern motherboards, compatibility is still sketchy. I'd look up motherboard compatibility charts from the manufacturer and make sure to get approved modules if you want to do a 4x2GB setup.