Junior Member
Suits me just fine.
Exactly. I've recently bought an Zotac 520 zone fanless card and am very happy with it. The MythTV site listed the Asus 520 card as being capable of hardware decoding of all the media that I own and advanced interlace so I knew it would do what I wanted.Originally Posted by DanL
My MythTV based media centre now plays video without dropping any frames which used to spoil my viewing pleasure.
I don't really do much gaming anymore, so I have a faster PC upstairs and a Wii...
Next upgrade: more than 1TB storage and a DVB-T2 decoder...
Tim
Phoronix Member
-the 520GT scrap is great for a cheap MythTV/Linux HTPC and/or desktop.
But For Windows ? -pffft, get a RadeonHD 567*,..., oe almost any comparable AMD/ATI, they are basically the same price, but with twice as much preformance in every field.
case CLOSED !
Junior Member
The GT 520 just shows Nvidia is unwilling and incapable to top AMD in the low end. That 64 bit memory bus is joke, a bad one if you ask.
If you're exclusively looking for a low profile card, the Radeon HD 6570 performs way better overall, but it may lack video acceleration capabilities. In that aspect, the GT 430 is not quite old and has a good performance and a respectable video acceleration that is characteristic in Nvidia cards. The Radeon HD 5570 seems good for an HTPC environment, too.
Last edited by Richard Wolf VI; 09-20-2011 at 12:25 AM.
Senior Member
Again, apples and oranges for the price and class of cards you're talking about..
The competitor for the GT520 is the RadeonHD 6450 (also with a 64-bit bus). Considering that no AMD cards do full VDPAU in Linux (yet), there's no competition at all if that's what the card is intended for.
Junior Member
The three cards mentioned are around the same price as the GT 520 and are available as half height cards, am I missing something? The HD 6450 is cheaper than the GT 520 yet it has a superior performance. I said the bus on the GT 520 was a joke because cards in the same price are better in practically every aspect. If you dislike AMD, there's the GT 430, which may not be a very powerful card yet it is a better investment than this poor excuse of a budget card.
Phoronix Member
ati was the first to have full hardware for mpeg2 , it was before geforce was born . with hd6k it has the DIVX in hardware .
for the 2d and 3d , ati is largely better than nv .
if "nouveau" drivers are not good enough to use full potential , that does not mean card is badly made .
Kanotix Developer
you can decode mpeg4 simple profile (aka divx) via vdpau since g210 on linux. it does did not always work perfectly but it was implemented long ago. do you really think ati invented this? it is not possible to do that with linux via the xvba-video wrapper. so the cheapest card for htpc is definitely g210 with full vdpau support. only for full hd h264 with > 50 fps progressive a newer modell with gt4xx would be better, but no gt405 as this like g210 just rebranded. bd content is never in that range - when there is 50/60 fps content it is always interlaced, but there are cameras out there that could use those maximum settings.
Last edited by Kano; 09-21-2011 at 05:19 AM.
Senior Member
You keep missing the part where I agree with that with the exception of doing VDPAU in Linux...
Junior Member
If VDPAU is a big issue, I don't see why a GT 520 is still a good buy when the GT 430 exists in the same factor and price.
Phoronix Member
nv or older than hd6k have some hardware for mpeg2 that is used by xvid/divx codecs for the rendering , like " motion compensation " with ati rage pro was with dvd at the time of w98 - half-life .
but hd6k is able to render the divx without any help from cpus
nv made the hit with its 3d support while ati always do the best in 2d . now ati does some good 3d for a cheaper price than nv . by the way gpu market is 50-50 .
i do not have a hd6k but that should be cool to know if ati-drivers are installing codec for divx with linux or windows
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote