Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Old x850xt for media center

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 28, 2010 5:38:43 PM

Ok here's the deal I built a new core i7 rig back in January and my old system is just sitting around (minus the hard drives I took) and I was wondering if my x850xt would be able to play blu-ray movies via HDMI to DVI.

The system has C2D E6550 2.33 (usually OC to 2.8ghz), GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3R mother board, the x850 i mentioned and 2 (soon to be 3 or 4) gigs of ddr 2 667 ram and an audigy 2ZS sound card.

I have watched plenty of HD rips i get from private trackers but they are re-encodes so I don't know if the system will actually play blu-ray discs. I'm seeing some posts saying the video can't be off loaded to that card some are saying it can. Some are saying it HDCP compliant others are saying its not.

Yes' I know there are newer cheap cards (3xxx, 4xxx, 5xxx) that could do audio and video with hdmi, but I don't want to spend a dime (rather make use of what I have) unless the person i'm giving the machine to physically can't watch the movies.

I have not bought a BR drive yet so I can't test it out on my own. Can anybody help me out with this so I know if i'm forced to buy a new card or not. Thanks.

More about : x850xt media center

August 28, 2010 5:56:23 PM

Also anybody know a decent tuner card that works with the free tuner software that's out there?
m
0
l
August 28, 2010 9:38:02 PM

Nobody has an idea about this topic?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2010 10:01:04 PM

The x850 was out about the time HDCP was being implemented... so it could be a toss up. I know some nvidia 7xxx cards were HDCP and some not around that same time.

You can download and run the PowerDVD BD advisor and it will tell you if the card is HDCP compliant or not.

If it's not, you can get around this by using VGA instead of HDMI/DVI, or you can purchase AnyDVD HD to circumvent HDCP (but that would cost more than an entry level HDCP compliant card).

The card definitely does not support hardware decoding as this was introduced in the HD2xxx series. So the question is: can your E6550 handle the load?

I've run without GPU assisted decoding while playing blu-ray with an Athlon X2 5200+ @2.7GHz and it was pretty much 80-100% CPU usage. Back when I was researching how much CPU muscle it takes, the consensus was 3.0GHz+ for AMD to have the CPU handle blu-ray without stutter. I ended up purchasing a cheap HD3450 and it worked great.

For intel, clock per clock a C2D is faster than AMD, so you might be OK at 2.8GHz. I know Cyberlink often has a disclaimer that BD playback requires a minimum 2.4GHz CPU, but as I said before my 2.7GHz AMD would struggle.

I say just bite the bullet and get a cheap HD5450.
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
August 28, 2010 10:06:09 PM

I have to agree with rwpritchett but give it a shot however as he/she had said that your fps isn't going to be all that great. These older R420 cards aren't all that good for such playback.
m
0
l
August 28, 2010 11:06:03 PM

rwpritchett said:
The x850 was out about the time HDCP was being implemented... so it could be a toss up. I know some nvidia 7xxx cards were HDCP and some not around that same time.

You can download and run the PowerDVD BD advisor and it will tell you if the card is HDCP compliant or not.

If it's not, you can get around this by using VGA instead of HDMI/DVI, or you can purchase AnyDVD HD to circumvent HDCP (but that would cost more than an entry level HDCP compliant card).

The card definitely does not support hardware decoding as this was introduced in the HD2xxx series. So the question is: can your E6550 handle the load?

I've run without GPU assisted decoding while playing blu-ray with an Athlon X2 5200+ @2.7GHz and it was pretty much 80-100% CPU usage. Back when I was researching how much CPU muscle it takes, the consensus was 3.0GHz+ for AMD to have the CPU handle blu-ray without stutter. I ended up purchasing a cheap HD3450 and it worked great.

For intel, clock per clock a C2D is faster than AMD, so you might be OK at 2.8GHz. I know Cyberlink often has a disclaimer that BD playback requires a minimum 2.4GHz CPU, but as I said before my 2.7GHz AMD would struggle.

I say just bite the bullet and get a cheap HD5450.



Ok i'll try the AnyDVD since I can get it for free. If the cpu struggles in my tests then i'll break down and get an HD 4350 or geforce 8400 GS since they are around $35 on newegg.

512 of ram and HDMI should be more than enough for BR playback from a card that actually does the video processing (as it seems the x850 does not). No need to spend alot on a system that will only play BR, watch tv and maybe basic household tasks if the other pc is tied up.

Thanks for the info
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
August 28, 2010 11:41:52 PM

tical2399 said:
Ok i'll try the AnyDVD since I can get it for free. If the cpu struggles in my tests then i'll break down and get an HD 4350 or geforce 8400 GS since they are around $35 on newegg.

512 of ram and HDMI should be more than enough for BR playback from a card that actually does the video processing (as it seems the x850 does not). No need to spend alot on a system that will only play BR, watch tv and maybe basic household tasks if the other pc is tied up.

Thanks for the info


Do not get a 8400gs, I used to own one and they are horrible for HTPC as well every thing else. It was slower than a 2400 pro. I suggest that you buy the 4350 instead. This is from someone who has already owned a 8400gs. ATI is better for such use and run cooler. The only inconvenience is drivers and codecs but the same applies to Nvidia. S3 and SIS is shaky at best while Intel is only woe on to those who are stuck with it.
m
0
l
August 28, 2010 11:57:20 PM

nforce4max said:
Do not get a 8400gs, I used to own one and they are horrible for HTPC as well every thing else. It was slower than a 2400 pro. I suggest that you buy the 4350 instead. This is from someone who has already owned a 8400gs. ATI is better for such use and run cooler. The only inconvenience is drivers and codecs but the same applies to Nvidia. S3 and SIS is shaky at best while Intel is only woe on to those who are stuck with it.



Ok i'll get the 4350 if my test with cpu alone doesnt work. Also i've never had any issues with ati drivers. My x850 worked great and my HD5770 works great so far. My only beef with ati is they dont support physix (which forces me to get an nvidia card to go with the hacked drivers I found) and they gave up on havok for their own cards.
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
August 29, 2010 12:16:54 AM

tical2399 said:
Ok i'll get the 4350 if my test with cpu alone doesnt work. Also i've never had any issues with ati drivers. My x850 worked great and my HD5770 works great so far. My only beef with ati is they dont support physix (which forces me to get an nvidia card to go with the hacked drivers I found) and they gave up on havok for their own cards.



Would you like to know an little known but interesting fact. The first gpu to support physics and folding home was the x1900xt/x through a all but forgotten feature called compute to shader. There are still videos on youtube of the demo in action. The code however wasn't released to the public nor can it be found. this was before nvidia had bought Agia and the card was new back then with little support except through a few mods. ATI has for years had physics support but either lacked proper coding or there was a hidden expense to the gpu. The 2k series on up has had an integrated tessellation unit but wasn't very programmable. The Geforce7 also has a few unusual features such as picture in picture support and a few others that didn't make it in later generations. The R580 had 512 threads while the G70/G71 had 800 and was terrible when the coding diverged at the driver level. Aside from that you can do multi card for phsyx but a 8400gs will reduce performance trust me I have tried even with 1.8ghz shader oc. You need at the least a 9600gt or a 9800gt (sweet spot) for proper physx support. 512mb is more than enough all it needs is speed.
m
0
l
August 29, 2010 1:43:14 AM

nforce4max said:
Would you like to know an little known but interesting fact. The first gpu to support physics and folding home was the x1900xt/x through a all but forgotten feature called compute to shader. There are still videos on youtube of the demo in action. The code however wasn't released to the public nor can it be found. this was before nvidia had bought Agia and the card was new back then with little support except through a few mods. ATI has for years had physics support but either lacked proper coding or there was a hidden expense to the gpu. The 2k series on up has had an integrated tessellation unit but wasn't very programmable. The Geforce7 also has a few unusual features such as picture in picture support and a few others that didn't make it in later generations. The R580 had 512 threads while the G70/G71 had 800 and was terrible when the coding diverged at the driver level. Aside from that you can do multi card for phsyx but a 8400gs will reduce performance trust me I have tried even with 1.8ghz shader oc. You need at the least a 9600gt or a 9800gt (sweet spot) for proper physx support. 512mb is more than enough all it needs is speed.


I wasn't considering the 8400 for physx as I knew it was too weak for that. I was gonna go with a 8800gt if one was real cheap or a GT 220. I'f the price of the 9600 or 9800 GT is lower than a 220GT and performs more less the same they i'll consider it. I've seen a few posts that say the 220 is just fine for physx.

As you can see price is always my deciding factor. I got a 5770 over a 5850 because the extra frames were not worth the extra $150 bucks. Although when I build my next machine with a 6 core (maybe 8 core by then) in about a year and a half i'll go hard on the gpu
m
0
l
!