nVidia 8600 vs 9600 for HTPC.

[DigitalDeviant]

I have a quick question. I'm updating my graphics card to accommodate DVD, Blue-ray and HDDVD playback and was wondering if there was any benifit to the nVidia 9600GT over an 8600GT? For that matter would an 8400 or 8500 do just as well?

[jshumate]

My experience, which is NOT (I must strongly emphasize that) on cutting edge hardware, is that the reality is that you need the fastest multi-core CPUs you can get for adequate high def playback and that is significantly more important than your video card. My experience is that despite claims to the contrary by nVidia, the reality is that the GPU will offload almost none of the video processing off of the CPU and you really need the most powerful CPU set up you can get (at least 2 cores - more and faster is better) for this.

If anyone has any experience to the contrary about actually being able to offload BluRay and HD-DVD processing to an nVidia card and reduce the load on the CPU, I'd love to hear about it.
I'm talking real experience where you know it works, not theoretical "nVidia says it works so it must" stuff.

So my advice to you would be to bump up the CPU and not worry as much about the video card. On some systems, bumping up the video card gains you nothing because of the inability to actually offload the video processing to the GPU as claimed to be theoretically possible.

[Doom9]

Recent versions of HD software players actually do make good use of GFX cards. Even though I have a quad core CPU (QX6700), PowerDVD struggled with 1080p AVC content but moving up to a 8600GT from a 7600GS did wonders.
I'm not aware that the 9600GT adds anything over the 8600GT in terms of video acceleration (check the Anandtech review (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3234) for details.
And you can find a bunch of single slot passively cooled 8600GT cards - something that's not widely available for the 9600GT at this point (I placed an order for the Asus 9600GT Silent which is a two-slotter but appears to fit into a barebone while the "single slot" versions actually need additional space on both sides of the card and a barebone only offers space on one side unless you have one with two x16 PCIx slots.

I don't recall the reviews on the 8x00 series cards so you might want to look that up on your favorite hardware review site to see if there's any difference in video acceleration between the midrange and low range cards. There's one thing I do recall though.. HDCP isn't on all cards and that's definitely something you'd want for a HTPC - you better go for a card that also has an HDMI output while at it.

I'd get a decent dual core chip as well though.. it doesn't have to be a 3GHz chip, but something like an E8200.

[DigitalDeviant]

Thanks for the replies. This all stems from building a HTPC on a limited budget with as much on-hand material as I have. The cpu now is a modest Athlon 64 2.0 GHz dual core. I'm hoping not to have to change that since with a new GPU, which I need regardless, I'll be straining the power supply. I've been advised elsewhere to avoid the 9xxx series cards as they tend to use more power anyway. If I have to I suppose I'll upgrade the power supply and processor later but this chip has proved me wrong on what it'll play a few times. With CoreAVC I've managed to play almost all 1080p AVC content I've come across already.

HDCP isn't a big concern of mine since there are software solutions to that problem, although I suppose it's probably best to just get a card that supports it anyway. Doom9's warning about card size is another big reason why I think I'll go with an 8600. It's half the price too :p

This is really my first stab at a HTPC so any more advise is appreciated.

[Blue_MiSfit]

If you're buying a card for an HTPC, I would recommend one of AMD's. They are honestly much better and consistent at HD decoding (full VC1 support is a freebie). Even an old 2400 / 2600s series card can handle it.

I watched an HD-DVD on a Sempron 3000+ with a 2400 pro card and it was _perfect_. I didnt look at the CPU utilization, but the playback was flawless. With the acceleration disabled it managed about 5fps :)

~MiSfit

[DigitalDeviant]

I had problems with ATI cards before but would be willing to give 'em another shot. I have one problem though, I've heard they don't support some odd 16:9 resolutions like my 1366x768. Full VC1 would be nice, is that really an issue with nVidia cards?

[Blue_MiSfit]

Yes, the 8600 doesn't decode VC1 in hardware. Not sure if the 9 series can either.

~MiSfit

[DigitalDeviant]

Yeah, I'm looking at some slighlty old comparisons and it does look like ATI might win there, but will it give me 1366x768?

[Dixxhead]

Yeah, I'm looking at some slighlty old comparisons and it does look like ATI might win there, but will it give me 1366x768?

If my Mobility HD2600 does, I'm sure it is safe to say that a Desktop HD2600 will do so aswell. All you need is the newest driver, I only had a restricted resolution-range up until Catalyst 7.9.

[DigitalDeviant]

Thanks, I may be sold :)

I'm checking out This nice Sapphire (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102728) That seems to have everything I need, including a nice assortment of adapters (+1 for both DVI to HDMI and VGA).

[saint-francis]

I recently traded in my Asus 8600 GTS silent for a Sapphire 3870 because the hardware acceleration on the Asus card was only for limited AVC, it didn't work with Vista and Asus tech support treated me worse than any other corporate organization I have ever dealt with. I only have a handful of HD movies that are AVC so the hardware acceleration on the NVIDIA card was next to useless for me.The new card works wonders for decoding H.264 and VC-1.