(sorry if this is the wrong forum -- hard to figure out which is the right one for HTPC)
TV: Regular standard definition 27" CRT by Philips (using svideo input)
Software:
Problem with this setup was that it was too noisy and too hot. I couldn't comfortably put it into my NSK2400 case so it sat open in a cheap case for too long. It worked fairly well but on 720p content (like the Harry Potter broadcast on ABC) it was very borderline -- it could play it but just barely.
2nd version - I decided to upgrade with key ideas of low heat, low watts, and low $$$:
Short summary: Wahoo!
This works great. I haven't BSEL moded the Celeron 420 (Conroe-L) but it clearly does a lot more work than the Celeron D 340 at a much lower temperature and wattage. When both CPUs are at full power the 420 is consuming 35w max while the 340 is around twice that amount. I throttled the standard Intel heatsink fan down to lowest possible with a Zalman Fanmate and the two 120mm side fans of the NSK2400 are at the lowest settings. At idle, the CPU temp is ~23c or 73.4f! When playing HD content, the temperature budges up to around 28c. It plays 720p content without issue at around 53% CPU usage. For 1080p content (using Elephant Dreams from http://orange.blender.org/download ), it hits 28-30% CPU but X cpu usage goes up to 6% most likely due to resizing the resolution partially in software instead of totally in hardware.
The best part is that with a BSEL mod this Celeron 420 can be run at 2128 Mhz (200 Mhz FSB -> 266 Mhz FSB if I've got it right). This is just like the old days with the Celeron 366 Mhz -> 550 Mhz overclocks and my favorite -- the Celeron 566 Mhz -> 850 Mhz. The only part I worry about is increased heat/power consumption so if anyone has done the mod or has any input on it that would be great.
It was a hard choice between the Celeron 420 and the Celeron e1200 (dual core, 1.6 Ghz too). I went with the 420 due to a NewEgg combo deal and I regretted it at first but now that I've tested it, I'm very happy. The e1200 would be more flexable for running more background processes (transcoding video, commercial flagging, etc) but the 420 has an idle/HALT state consumption of 8w -- I suspect the e1200 is higher.
Finally, this PCChips P53G motherboard is impressive. For good reason they have a really bad reputation. I had one of their early Pentium boards (or might have been for my AMD 386 DX/40) and it warped like crazy and wasn't very stable. But times have changed. Sure, they are low end but look at what you get! 1 x PCIe 16x, 1 x PCIe 1x, 2 x PCI and onboard SPDIF (but without a bracket unfortunately). For a budget build it would be hard to beat this board assuming you don't get a DOA one. I tend to prefer Intel chipsets as Via chipsets have been buggy in the past but so far there have been no problems.
edit: Update on 1080p content test:
1st test: ed_hv.avi - 800+ MB file from orange.blender.org/download that is 1920x1080 but uses MPEG4 video codec
Result: 28% CPU for player plus additional 7% for X (graphics system) probably due to resizing == 35%
2nd test: ed24p_00.ts - 314 MB file from www.w6rz.net - choose "Segment 1 (240,687,537 bytes)" which unzips to 314 MB - is 1920x180 with MPEG2 video codec
Result: 55-64% CPU for player (X at normal which is < 1%)
TV: Regular standard definition 27" CRT by Philips (using svideo input)
Software:
My original HTPC:
Problem with this setup was that it was too noisy and too hot. I couldn't comfortably put it into my NSK2400 case so it sat open in a cheap case for too long. It worked fairly well but on 720p content (like the Harry Potter broadcast on ABC) it was very borderline -- it could play it but just barely.
2nd version - I decided to upgrade with key ideas of low heat, low watts, and low $$$:
Short summary: Wahoo!
This works great. I haven't BSEL moded the Celeron 420 (Conroe-L) but it clearly does a lot more work than the Celeron D 340 at a much lower temperature and wattage. When both CPUs are at full power the 420 is consuming 35w max while the 340 is around twice that amount. I throttled the standard Intel heatsink fan down to lowest possible with a Zalman Fanmate and the two 120mm side fans of the NSK2400 are at the lowest settings. At idle, the CPU temp is ~23c or 73.4f! When playing HD content, the temperature budges up to around 28c. It plays 720p content without issue at around 53% CPU usage. For 1080p content (using Elephant Dreams from http://orange.blender.org/download ), it hits 28-30% CPU but X cpu usage goes up to 6% most likely due to resizing the resolution partially in software instead of totally in hardware.
The best part is that with a BSEL mod this Celeron 420 can be run at 2128 Mhz (200 Mhz FSB -> 266 Mhz FSB if I've got it right). This is just like the old days with the Celeron 366 Mhz -> 550 Mhz overclocks and my favorite -- the Celeron 566 Mhz -> 850 Mhz. The only part I worry about is increased heat/power consumption so if anyone has done the mod or has any input on it that would be great.
It was a hard choice between the Celeron 420 and the Celeron e1200 (dual core, 1.6 Ghz too). I went with the 420 due to a NewEgg combo deal and I regretted it at first but now that I've tested it, I'm very happy. The e1200 would be more flexable for running more background processes (transcoding video, commercial flagging, etc) but the 420 has an idle/HALT state consumption of 8w -- I suspect the e1200 is higher.
Finally, this PCChips P53G motherboard is impressive. For good reason they have a really bad reputation. I had one of their early Pentium boards (or might have been for my AMD 386 DX/40) and it warped like crazy and wasn't very stable. But times have changed. Sure, they are low end but look at what you get! 1 x PCIe 16x, 1 x PCIe 1x, 2 x PCI and onboard SPDIF (but without a bracket unfortunately). For a budget build it would be hard to beat this board assuming you don't get a DOA one. I tend to prefer Intel chipsets as Via chipsets have been buggy in the past but so far there have been no problems.
edit: Update on 1080p content test:
1st test: ed_hv.avi - 800+ MB file from orange.blender.org/download that is 1920x1080 but uses MPEG4 video codec
Result: 28% CPU for player plus additional 7% for X (graphics system) probably due to resizing == 35%
2nd test: ed24p_00.ts - 314 MB file from www.w6rz.net - choose "Segment 1 (240,687,537 bytes)" which unzips to 314 MB - is 1920x180 with MPEG2 video codec
Result: 55-64% CPU for player (X at normal which is < 1%)
Facebook
Twitter