Shotty,

Thanks for all the advice so far. It's been very helpful.

Tell me... what's the advantage of going with the i3 over a cheaper and ultimately more powerful AMD X4 like this one?

(I've got an identical thread going on the XBMC forums and the guy in your position over there is campaigning hard for the AMD solution.)

power consumption mostly
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/15
the intel solution is 32nm the amd one 45 so you have a fundamental advantage in terms of power
keep in mind that those figures are kinda on the high end of the spectrum with clarkdale builds that are well thought out you commonly see idle consumption of about 20w and down as low as about 15
http://www.computerbase.de/forum/showthread.php?t=685231

also my personal choice when it comes to clarkdale would be an i5 since i have all of my drives crypted these days and the aes acceleration makes a huge difference in terms of cpu load and thus ultimately power (although i have to admit its a ridiculous choice considering the lowest 2nd gen core-i with aes-ni costs the same and has 2 more cores... which coincidentally is the reason why a clarkdale system isnt already in my posession)

also id like to point out that im currently using an athlon x2 (soon to be replaced by a second gen cor i once intel gets their chipsets sorted out) and in terms of low power cheap htpcs id currently choose amds fusion over atom so its not like im fanboying

Yeah, I get it.

I think 1156 is definitely the way to go for futureproofing, but the cost/performance metric of going with AMD at this point seems pretty strong. A 65W X2 245 would be about $70 cheaper and in the same ballpark in terms of power consumption, I think. But then again it doesn't have on-chip GPU capability (add another $70-100 for a vid card) and it's not nearly as powerful. So...

What do you know about this Intel 24fps bug?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

What do you know about this Intel 24fps bug?

you mean the one about them not being able to run at 23.976hz? well yeah that is a bit of an issue
that said it depends rather a lot on your setup eg does your tv and or projector support 23.976hz? does it actually support it properly instead of merely accepting the input and running the lcd at 60hz regardless

and then theres the issue of files you watch on it
im not aware of any player that automatically adjusts the graphics card according to the file thats being played back (although there might of course be one that does) and i peronsally would not bother with manually adjusting the refresh rate every time i open up a different video
most movies are shot in 23.976 but eg top gear is 25fps and i have a whole bunch of other files that run at refresh rates other than that

and on top of all that my eyes dont register minor frame rate sync issues all that much
seeing as youre american and probably used to the horrid 3:2 pulldown non stuttering pans might look wrong to your eyes anyway

Shortglass,

I dont think its fundamental in terms of power because Athlon II X4 635 seems to be on pair with i3 550 while the energy consumation is almost same in idle. Different reviews...different results unfortunately.

I really dont know what that guy had to make to his system but what he shows there as 20 W is hard to trust. Just try to count what motherboard, chipset, CPU, power supply and memory takes while being idle. He had to underclock and undervolt system a lot because even at usual know IT website the i3 idle vary from 60-80Watts. He also use special Pico power supply. I would like to see such a test with AMD.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl ... verclocking_13.html#sect0

Here is idle almost same for AMD and i3 simillar solutions.

The X4 might be more future proof because of 4 core and more and more programs will be much better written to take advantage for 2+ and more cores. Most program nowdays utilize 2 cores very efficiently while with 3 and more cores its not so good as it should be probably.

I think the view may vary. I am not funboy of anything as I run also notebook on Intel (except my desktop) which is much better then any AMD solution.

The APU from AMD seems to be really nice solution and the total power system consumation will be real deal. I really dont know what DeadWolfBones will do on his system. If its really just watching films, browsing net and some semi power hungry work then AMD APU might be better in terms of electric bills and initial system investemens.

If there are other purposes then i3 from Intel might be better.

DeadWolfBones,
wait a couple of days for that official AMD APU platform reviews. It should pop-up in few days so I would make the decision after that. I dont think you are in needs to hurry somewhere at the moment, do you?

"divx/xvid" is called MPEG-4, and it can be decoded by most modern GPUs.

And, talking about "increasingly popular".. what the **** are you smoking?! Only popular codecs for HD content are H.264 and SMPTE VC-1, and MPEG-4 is way less efficient than them both -> it WON'T become more popular.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

I really dont know what that guy had to make to his system but what he shows there as 20 W is hard to trust.

it is trustworths and that simply is the power consumption of a clarkdale build with a good h55 mobo without discrete graphics on it

Quote :

He had to underclock and undervolt system a lot

theres no underlocking or undervolting other than what intel cpus do by themself

Quote :

wait a couple of days for that official AMD APU platform reviews. It should pop-up in few days so I would make the decision after that.

uhm anandtech (pretty much the only tech site worth reading) already did a full review of brazos

Quote from E.Reiljans :

And, talking about "increasingly popular".. what the **** are you smoking?!

youve been living under a rock apparently

Quote :

Only popular codecs for HD content are H.264 and SMPTE VC-1, and MPEG-4 is way less efficient than them both -> it WON'T become more popular.

h264 is mpeg4

Quote from Shotglass :

youve been living under a rock apparently

MPEG-4 is not even a BluRay standard, so either German movie studios have invented their own disk standard or...

Quote from Shotglass :

h264 is mpeg4

Apparently MPEG-4 is MPEG-4, and H.264 is MPEG-4 AVC, and it has nothing to do in common with "just" MPEG-4.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

MPEG-4 is not even a BluRay standard, so either German movie studios have invented their own disk standard or...

MPEG-4 AVC is an officially supported BR standard as long as certain encoder parameters are set.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

Apparently MPEG-4 is MPEG-4, and H.264 is MPEG-4 AVC, and it has nothing to do in common with "just" MPEG-4.

If you refer to "just" MPEG-4, than even XviD isn't an MPEG-4 by your standards, as it's actually MPEG-4 ASP.

Quote from MadCatX :

MPEG-4 AVC is an officially supported BR standard as long as certain encoder parameters are set.

Yeah, while he (Shotglass) was talking about HD content encoded with MPEG-4, not MPEG-4 AVC.

Quote from MadCatX :

If you refer to "just" MPEG-4, than even XviD isn't an MPEG-4 by your standards, as it's actually MPEG-4 ASP.

Xvid can encode to "just" MPEG-4 with a few tweaks.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

Apparently MPEG-4 is MPEG-4, and H.264 is MPEG-4 AVC, and it has nothing to do in common with "just" MPEG-4.

your grasp on how standards work is shockingly bad

Quote from Shotglass :

your grasp on how standards work is shockingly bad

Um actually no it's not, I even took a tiny part in x264's development.

right youve been part of the development of a codec apparently without ever reading the mpeg4 standard its based on... very believeable

Cause 100% of x264's code is related to actual MPEG-4 AVC standard.

Also, if you don't understand that MPEG-4 ASP and MPEG-4 AVC are not compatible at all, be it backwards or forwards compatibility - well, that's not my problem.

of course they differ quite a lot
however that doesnt change the simple fact that both are mpeg4

Both BMW F800S and BMW M3 E36 are BMW.
But do they have something in common?..

Your case calls for Dunning–Kruger effect.

Quote from E.Reiljans :

And, talking about "increasingly popular".. what the **** are you smoking?! Only popular codecs for HD content are H.264 and SMPTE VC-1, and MPEG-4 is way less efficient than them both -> it WON'T become more popular.

Divx,Xvid are very popular for non HD content and it is used a loooooot. Simple fact. Look around torrents

Quote from Shotglass :

it is trustworths and that simply is the power consumption of a clarkdale build with a good h55 mobo without discrete graphics on it

Then the X4 635 would be around same if it would be on mobo with discrete graphic. I posted link with i3 and X4 635 was atound the same at idle.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Divx,Xvid are very popular for non HD content and it is used a loooooot. Simple fact. Look around torrents

Cough cough I said "HD content", not "non HD content". Also, LEGIT non-HD content is MPEG-2. ;p

Quote from E.Reiljans :

Your case calls for Dunning–Kruger effect.

you state something that is flat out wrong then try to point an accusing finger at me and eventually dont even have the balls to properly tell me you think im talking shit?
im done with this

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Then the X4 635 would be around same if it would be on mobo with discrete graphic. I posted link with i3 and X4 635 was atound the same at idle.

in your link the difference was about 10w at idle most of which would be the cpu
put in perspective with a build that consumes some 15-20w of power that difference is a 50%+ increase in energy consumption

Quote from E.Reiljans :

Cough cough I said "HD content", not "non HD content". Also, LEGIT non-HD content is MPEG-2. ;p

Torrents are used now also for distribuation of legit content icluding xvid
You should look around better...

Y'all having fun in here?

Well, I dont have to be honest when I have to argue with someone...

Just being curious....have you made decison already?

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

Torrents are used now also for distribuation of legit content icluding xvid
You should look around better...

0.01% doesn't counts, does it?