I'd like to rebuild/upgrade my media server. It is connected to my HDTV.

Where should I put the cash to make it work smoothly?

Fast processor for DVD rips? Lots o' memory? Super duper video card?

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:26:16 +0000 (UTC),
EskWIRED (AT) spamblock (DOT) panix.com wrote:

Why isn't it working smoothly right now?


In general no, a media server in a generic sense has no
particluar needs. Very old Pentium I CPU and 32MB of memory
would do the job (I kid you not).

If you want faster LAN, what's in it now? Same for other
areas, your post is quite light on details of what you
currently have and what it won't do acceptibly.

In alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt, kony <spam (AT) spam (DOT) com> wrote:
Long story. Suffice it to say I need a new processor.


But it needs to more than just be a server - I need it to rip DVDs.


I want it to be my living room computer, hooked up to my HDTV, and to my
sound system. My receiver has a digital input/DAC which works well. I
want it to be useful for web surfing, but primarily, I want to use it to
rip/store/play video and audio locally, as well as serve it over my LAN.

I plan to replace the Mobo, CPU and Memory. The new mobo will need a SATA
HD, so a new HD is in the picture too. Current video card is an ATI
All-In-Wonder with HDTV output. I think it is AGP. I have a couple of
old 2-chanell sound cards, but I've just been using the digital output
from the mobo and letting the receiver do the DAC.

Suggestions? RAM? MOBO? CPU? Video Card?

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:50:01 +0000 (UTC),
EskWIRED (AT) spamblock (DOT) panix.com wrote:

Since fileserving is not demanding, presuming this is a home
server, you ought to momentarily forget the server function
and list the other more demanding uses.

Assign a budget. As any benchmark will show, pay for high
performance CPU and (in same family of CPU) the rip goes
faster but there is probably a reasonable limit to the
budget, and perhaps other factors like size and noise versus
the heat that would be generated to build for ultimate
performance.



Based on this, just about any system with a large storage
capacity will suffice.


"A" drive? I recommend you put most of the budget into
several drives, video eats up drive space like crazy.



Yes, use some. There's no particular amount of memory
needed, actually less than a winxp multitasking desktop
would be required and yet if trying to cache entire movies
you'd need more than reasonable for the budget. Say 512MB
if for no other reason than that one low cost module comes
in this size. Mobo - you know the requirements there. CPU
- budget dicates it. You already have the video card, if
you "need" to change it you need to focus on exactly why you
would want to do that. Maybe HDMI output, maybe hardware
MPEG2 capture card seperate from video card. Maybe not.

You aren't describing anything a random desktop with a
TV/capture card can't do. So more specifics will be needed
to weed through all alternatives. Maybe you should pick the
case you want, if it's a small form factor that already
limits the choices in motherboard.

In alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt, kony <spam (AT) spam (DOT) com> wrote:

How about this:

I'd love to play an .mp3 or a CD while at the same time recording myself
playing along on my guitar, using something like Audigy, while in the
background, I download from LimeWire and rip DVDs to the HD. It coudn't
hurt if I was displaying the music on the monitor, using Word, or Acrobat,
or whatever, or alternatively, watching a slideshow of "My Pictures".



That is what I am currenty working on. I'd rather build an adequete
machine than reach a certain price point.



As any benchmark will show, pay for high
Do the new dual core CPUs reduce rip time? Is there significant RAM used
during ripping?



I'm looking not for "sufficient", but rather, I'm looking at bang for the
buck.


These days, big drives are cheap. Not only that, but they can be added
later as needed. Any specific suggestions as to what to look for in a
drive for this application? RPM? Cache? Are either of them bottlenecks?



Are there good Mobo choices with an AGP bus?


--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:59:42 +0000 (UTC),
EskWIRED (AT) spamblock (DOT) panix.com wrote:


Ok, that's a start. Ideally you want at least two hard
drives, and "IF" your ripping software isn't set to run at
lower priority than your other apps, you might consider a
dual core CPU. Yeah "dual core" is vague, because you have
nothing in particular requiring high realtime performance.
You should be fine making a budget with the understanding
that paying more for the faster CPU will speed up the
ripping, as web benchmarks with the _same_application_ used
to rip will show.



A Pentium 600 will do what you've mentioned. There isn't
any certain modern performance level required, it's not as
though it won't work if you don't spend "X" dollars. I
mentioned budget because you asked, and it is a good
starting point among other factors mentioned.




Question is too vague, you have to look at benchmarks of the
particular app used. A generic answer would be, a Core 2
Duo is a good modern CPU to use, but you could spend less
and still get the job done, ripping a DVD is not a time
sensitive operation. There is not significant ram used,
(considering typical systems with 512+MB and this box has no
large jobs nor heavy multitasking. The most significant
need for more ram would be moving from Win2k/XP to Vista.




That would be spending the least amount possible, focusing
on components that have long lifespan like fans and PSU, and
multiple large hard drives. Again, your described uses
don't "need" any modern system, so it's still back to how
fast you want to go - speed costs. We have no idea if you
were thinking about $400 system or $1200, I had mentioned
budget because it would have helped you to provide
information but you seem to be fighting against getting this
done.

I could just make up something, would you prefer that?
If you want a generic answer, buy the fastest Core 2 Duo
that will fit in the budget, but buying into the mid or
higher end CPUs are never good bang for the buck, for any
use, unless you somehow had (work related) profits tied to
system performance.





Ok, but I was not suggesting only when you run out of room,
rather to have more than one NOW for performance benefit.


None of your uses will be significantly bottlenecked by the
hard drive, except maybe if you use gigabit lan for large
file transfers. This is still assuming a home server with
limited # of users. A typical 400+MB, 7K2 RPM, 8MB cache
drive from one of the popular manufacturers should suffice.
Then add a 2nd one.



Not as many today, I'd probably get a socket 754 with as
many SATA ports as you can find, and Gigabit lan, in one of
the major brands like Gigabyte, Abit, MSI or Asus. As
already mentioned, it would have to be a size compatible
with your preferred case. Often such systems are built in
smaller cases, and SATA or GbE can be cards if not built
into the motherboard.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:26:16 +0000 (UTC), EskWIRED (AT) spamblock (DOT) panix.com
wrote:

If I was building a system, noise and power consumption would be
extremely important. Therefore I would probably go for a uATX AM2
board with a X2 64 EE/SFF CPU. Combine with a samsung spinpoint 250G
drive and passive-cooled graphics card. I would get a quiet &
efficient PSU e.g. seasonic 430W.

M