[obohn]

Hi!
I am building a new HTPC.
I will be using the new Geforce 8200 mainboard: http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_8200mgpu.html

Which AMD cpu will give me the best performance?
Does XBMC support more than dualcore (quad, tri)?
Clockspeeds for smooth 1080p playback?

[marlboroman1]

6000+ would be the one I Would go for anything less and you might find it dropping frames on hight bit rate material what ever cpu you get xbmc will only use two cores for video.

[shadowdragon]

I just built a xbmc pc and I used a 6000+ and I put on Stardust (1080p version) and it played fine.

[x5nder]

For a energy efficient HTPC you definitely don't need to go as high as a 6000+. I currently use an Athlon 4450E-processor and that works smoothly with whatever I throw at it (1080p mkv/wmv and even M2TS-streams, XBMC running on top of Vista w/2 GB of memory). Even if I downclock it to the level of a 4050E it works fine. If you do want to be on the safe side, the 4850E has a little bit more horsepower but the same thermal envelope & energy usage.

[supernoman]

Only time I have gotten slowdown is with the Planet Earth MKVs. Everything else so far is fine. AMD BE2400 45W CPU.

[logopolis]

I have an Athlon 5200+ in my HTPC, any I haven't noticed any slowdown with playing high-def video on my machine.

[direstrates]

Saying that your system plays HD smoothly is pretty much useless unless you state the video details (saying you play mkv says nothing about the video details). HD resolution does not necessarily make it HD in terms of PQ....bitrate is really the key. True HD has a bitrate > 15Mb/sec with most of it around 18-21Mb/sec at 60fps (OTA HD ts for example).

IMHO I would always go with as much cpu as you can afford. It certainly can not hurt to have more than you need at the moment and who knows maybe you will not have to upgrade again in the near future!

[obohn]

So the most expensive is the best?
Will the quadcore Phenom 9950 (2,6ghz) perform better than a X2 6000+ (3,1ghz)?

[mitul103]

XBMC currently can only utilize 2 cores, so the X2 would be the better option at the moment.

[NiggyG]

So the most expensive is the best?
Will the quadcore Phenom 9950 (2,6ghz) perform better than a X2 6000+ (3,1ghz)?

No, XBMC does not use utilise quads so the higher clock speed of the 6000+ would be better.

[direstrates]

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-c...9,369.html

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

There is more to it than just cpu speed. FSB and DRAM matter as well. Also, even though XBMC may only utilize 1 or 2 cores there may be other things going on that can utilize the other cores.

[brulsmurf]

Please forgive me my ignorance, but wouldn't the 8200's MPEG2 and H.264 hardware acceleration ensure fluid 1080p playback - regardless of the CPU power?

[mitul103]

XBMC does not yet take advantage of GPU acceleration so no it would not.

[chepnut]

I built this before XBMC was a viable option, and had mediaportal in mind. Using avccore as my codec it can play the "killa sample" perfect and any of the planet earth 1080p mkvs without a hitch. I ditched mediaportal but have suffered a bit with some video files, but for the most part it plays 90% of my HD content smooth like butter.

Here are the specs of my machine.

MOBO - GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H
CPU - AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Brisbane 2.6GHz
RAM - G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) (just upgraded to 4 GB)
OS - Vista ultimate x64

Running any video in KM Player or media player with AVCcore as my codec, I have zero problems. But its only a matter of time that the problems in XBMC are ironed out even if that means letting us tell XBMC to use another codec or getting ffmpeg dialed in.

[smalls]

I am running a Sempron 3400 with a ATI 3650HD card and 1gig of ram. I am able to play 1080P *with* some dropped frames and about 70% processor usage.