DG45FC looks promising for HTPC

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:59 am

Ashex -

I could be wrong but it sounds like Intel's driver only natively supports the HDTV resolutions of 1920x1080/1280x720 and the standard 4:3 resolutions.

Your power consumption numbers are interesting. The CPU usages look like you were running without hardware acceleration turned on for h264/vc1 videos. But still, with low power consumption numbers like those, who needs h264/VC1 hardware acceleration? It almost sounds like the CPU is doing a better job in terms of lower power consumption than the IGP!

What's the max power when the CPU is pegged at 100%?

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:06 am

Muzza wrote:
I got into safe mode, installed vnc, got in and tried messing about with the settings.

I'm curious what brand of VNC or version/build you are using, and if you are running the server in service mode or user mode. The last time I tried VNC (RealVNC) it did not support service mode in Vista which defeated the whole purpose of running it in a headless server in the first place.

Muzza · Post by **Muzza** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:28 am

frank2003 wrote: I'm curious what brand of VNC or version/build you are using, and if you are running the server in service mode or user mode. The last time I tried VNC (RealVNC) it did not support service mode in Vista which defeated the whole purpose of running it in a headless server in the first place.

realvnc enterprise (not sure which version as i'm at work just now, but i think maybe 4.3.x) in service mode. i just whacked it on quickly as i was starting to get frustrated by my display problem.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:41 am

Muzza wrote: realvnc enterprise

Thanks. I was using the free edition of RealVNC 4.1.1.

I just checked and it looks like I will have to upgrade to a paying edition in order to get service mode support in Vista.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:58 am

I noticed newegg.com now has the new E5200 for $90. When I receive my replacement DG45FC I'm thinking of upgrading my Celeron to the E5200 which I find to be reasonable priced for my HTPC build.

With the Celeron 440 I know for sure it can be powered by a 60W brick even when the system is fully loaded. What I'm not sure about is whether the 60W brick will work comfortably with the E5200 as I'm seeing conflicting reports of power consumption figures (both idle and under load) of this board with E7200 which has similar specs. Another thing I'm uncertain about is whether the E5200 comes with the same low-profile HSF as the Celeron.

My thinking is this: Since my Celeron 440 was able to take on most of the tasks of HTPC except the most intense BR playback, I figure with the E5200, even if I run the OS in uni-processor mode I ought to be able to get the performance I need (@2.5ghz vs the celeron's 2ghz) and at a reduced power consumption (due to effective "single-core" load and EIST). The only unknown is whether the brick can handle the power consumption if the system is stuck in the BIOS or during the boot process. I guess I can always upgrade the brick to an 80W one which I think should be sufficient.

BTW here's the comparison between the E5200 and E7200:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productco ... 6819115052

The only differences I see are 1) FSB speed/CPU clock, and 2) L2 cache. The comparison shows that the E5200 has virtualization support whereas the E7200 does not; I think this must be a typo.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:42 am

frank2003 wrote:The comparison shows that the E5200 has virtualization support whereas the E7200 does not; I think this must be a typo.

That's no typo. The less expensive E5200 has VT support whereas the more expensive E7200 does not:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Detail ... Spec=SLAY7

Hmm, maybe it's a typo afterall. A comparison of the E8200, E7200 and E5200 shows only the higher end E8200 has VT support:
http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart. ... ture=en-US

There must be an error somewhere. But which is correct? Very confusing.

Also, the DG45FC processor support does not list the E5200 as supported:
http://processormatch.intel.com/CompDB/ ... ame=dg45fc
Maybe it needs a new BIOS update? Yet the E5200 lists the G45 as supported chipset:
http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart. ... familyID=1

Looks like the E5200 is so new it'd be best you wait until the dust settles.

Muzza · Post by **Muzza** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:40 am

Just thought I would summarise the issues i've had with this setup, looks like i've had some of the same problems as have been mentioned already.

My plan for this setup is just a general pc and test bed for my future media pc upgrade (when upgrade my tv). Therefore i've not invested in any upgraded cooling yet and I've not been extensivly monitoring temps as it's in a midi tower in my study.

My setup:
E8500
4Gb Ram
LG monitor tv with D-sub and HDMI/DVI connection
Vista 64 premium

Memory timings are wrong, mine is set to 667mhz instead of 800mhz (Kingston Hyperx ram), not tried changing it after what happened to frank2003

DVI - VGA works fine (1680x1050 for my monitor)
HDMI - HDMI fine until the drivers go on, afterwards i get a display until windows start or it doesn't display at the right res.
DVI - HDMI - nothing at all, not even a bios screen.

Fans frequently spin up to full for a few secs, reduced this by changing a bios setting, needs further investigation.

I have tested some 1080p videos i downloaded, played using a trial of the latest powerdvd, all seemed to play back fine with no stuttering that i noticed.

Ashex · Post by **Ashex** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:43 am

try the tweak i used to get all capable resolutions (disable hardware accel in graphics, change res, then reboot and turn it back up then reboot again).

Muzza · Post by **Muzza** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:34 am

magho wrote:But my problem is that I hear a high-pitch noise from the DC/DC-converters on the board. First I thought it was from the new picopsu but it was the same when I changed to my old picopsu-80. The sound changes pitch with cpu load and is audible from over 10 feet.
Anyone else having this problem?
/Magnus

I also have this very same problem, I thought it was the hard disk until i completely isolated it. I've tried two power supplies to be sure and still get the same thing. I'm thinking I might RMA this board if i can't find a solution/cause

Ashex · Post by **Ashex** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:40 pm

frank2003 wrote:Ashex -

I could be wrong but it sounds like Intel's driver only natively supports the HDTV resolutions of 1920x1080/1280x720 and the standard 4:3 resolutions.

Your power consumption numbers are interesting. The CPU usages look like you were running without hardware acceleration turned on for h264/vc1 videos. But still, with low power consumption numbers like those, who needs h264/VC1 hardware acceleration? It almost sounds like the CPU is doing a better job in terms of lower power consumption than the IGP!

What's the max power when the CPU is pegged at 100%?

I missed your post by accident. Your correct about the resolutions, there's a registry hack you can do to enable custom resolutions in the Intel Graphics utility. I haven't had any luck getting hardware acceleration, I spent a couple days on it and had no luck. It's more a convenience thing I'd like, since eventually I'd like to load my usenet server onto the machine too along with potentially a Mysql server.

I'll test the cpu load tonight, but I imagine it's around 45W.

Can you guys check if the high-pitched sound is coming from the speaker?

Edit: Ran Prime95 stress test, Power consumption was at 51W

Muzza · Post by **Muzza** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:51 am

Ashex wrote: Can you guys check if the high-pitched sound is coming from the speaker?

I'll have a listen tonight when I'm home and see if i can tell.

I see your also posting on avsforum as well. i logged a ticket with intel the other day about it. Hopefully we'll get a response.

Ashex · Post by **Ashex** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:23 am

Muzza wrote:
Ashex wrote: Can you guys check if the high-pitched sound is coming from the speaker?
I'll have a listen tonight when I'm home and see if i can tell.

I see your also posting on avsforum as well. i logged a ticket with intel the other day about it. Hopefully we'll get a response.

Ah, that's good. Intel wants to RMA mine, so I'm sending mine out tomorrow for them to poke at.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:40 pm

Intel just posted a new BIOS on their website for the DG45FC and DG45ID.

The release note mentions the following fix:

Updated the NVRAM module.

I bet any amount of money the bug was the cause of my board dying after I changed the memory settings which presumably were stored in non-volatile memory that could not be cleared by removing the CMOS battery.

Other changes include memory voltage control.

Just be aware of the warning in the Known Errata section that you can't flash back to the previous version after this upgrade.

Ashex · Post by **Ashex** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:56 pm

frank2003 wrote:Intel just posted a new BIOS on their website for the DG45FC and DG45ID.

The release note mentions the following fix:
Updated the NVRAM module.
I bet any amount of money the bug was the cause of my board dying after I changed the memory settings which presumably were stored in non-volatile memory that could not be cleared by removing the CMOS battery.

Other changes include memory voltage control.

Just be aware of the warning in the Known Errata section that you can't flash back to the previous version after this upgrade.

About damn time, I just mailed mine out, so when I get mine back in a week I'll test it out. Have you gotten your replacement yet?

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:36 am

I'm expecting my replacement this Friday. Unless there's a good reason to upgrade, after my bad experience with Intel's BIOS I'll probably just stay with the factory BIOS (version 077, unless it ships with the latest 079).

It's probably a good thing for Intel to remove the ability to roll back to an earlier version after this upgrade since the older version of the BIOS contained a very serious bug (i.e. can't POST after changing memory settings) that could render the board useless. In my opinion Intel should have shipped their board with this bug fix when they launched the board. Oh well, I guess we are the beta testers.

Kosta · Post by **Kosta** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:54 pm

I already exchanged two of these boards. Both had the same annoying whine/high pitched noise coming from one of the components. I'm thinking it's a design flaw that all of them carry

Muzza · Post by **Muzza** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:43 pm

i've updated to the 79 bios, as i fully expect intel to tell me to do it before they agreee to an RMA.

I've also changed my memory timings to 800mhz 5-5-5-15 succesfully. Thats what my ram is rated it, turns out that kingston hyperx ram has the spd set to 667mhz 5-5-5-15 by default though so it was the rams fault not the boards.

I already exchanged two of these boards. Both had the same issue. I'm thinking it's a design flaw that all of them carry

I fully expect that to be the case, but you never know.

Ashex · Post by **Ashex** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:34 am

Muzza wrote:i've updated to the 79 bios, as i fully expect intel to tell me to do it before they agreee to an RMA.

I've also changed my memory timings to 800mhz 5-5-5-15 succesfully. Thats what my ram is rated it, turns out that kingston hyperx ram has the spd set to 667mhz 5-5-5-15 by default though so it was the rams fault not the boards.

I already exchanged two of these boards. Both had the same issue. I'm thinking it's a design flaw that all of them carry
I fully expect that to be the case, but you never know.

Is that a 2GB kit? what's the model of it?

Muzza · Post by **Muzza** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:17 pm

Ashex wrote:
Is that a 2GB kit? what's the model of it?

It's the 4gb kit KHX6400D2K2/4G

I also noticed after i set the timings up, vista thinks there is only 3gb, changed it back to 667, 4gb appears. bit wierd.

havent heard a thing from intel for 2 days, makes me think they are stuck for things to try now and they know replacement boards will still show the problem.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:40 am

frank2003 wrote:
frank2003 wrote:The comparison shows that the E5200 has virtualization support whereas the E7200 does not; I think this must be a typo.
That's no typo. The less expensive E5200 has VT support whereas the more expensive E7200 does not:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Detail ... Spec=SLAY7

Hmm, maybe it's a typo afterall. A comparison of the E8200, E7200 and E5200 shows only the higher end E8200 has VT support:
http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart. ... ture=en-US

There must be an error somewhere. But which is correct? Very confusing.

Looks like the E5200 is so new it'd be best you wait until the dust settles.

All the sources (Intel and Newegg) mentioned in my links have corrected the specs for the E5200. So it's official: the E5200 does not have virtualization support.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:04 am

lowpowercomputing -

Now that I have received my replacement board, I wanted get back your questions regarding DVI output: Yes, with a working DVI-DVI cable, I can confirm the board can output to a computer monitor at 1600x1200 (4:3 screen aspect ratio) without any issue (i.e. no over/underscanning).

I read somewhere that the Intel driver pops up a nagging screen complaining about resolution for some odd resolution. As I mentioned in another post, I suspected the driver probably does this for what it thinks is a "non-standard" resolution (i.e. a resolution that's not exactly 4:3 or 16:9).

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:25 am

I upgraded the processor from a single-core Celeron 440 to the new Pentium Dual Core E5200. Here are some observations:

The E5200 comes with an HSF that's almost identical to the one that came with the Celeron except for the fan. The fan on the E5200 has 4 pins; the fan on the Celeron has only 3 pins and cannot be speed-controls by the BIOS. I thought the Celeron HSF was cheap looking. The E5200's HSF is just as cheap looking and behaves just like a cheap product. I had a very tough time mounting both HSFs on this board. My thumb is still sore from pushing those damn nylon push-pins down the mobo.

Even though the E5200's fan has speed control, in operation it behaves as if it has only two modes: silent mode and tornado mode. When the system is idle, the fan sometimes spontaneously goes into full blast mode for a few seconds, creating unbearable noise in the process.

With the Celeron, the vcore was fixed and could not be changed by software like CrystalCPUID. I didn't give it much thought since I learned that the Celeron didn't have EIST. With the E5200, I could change the voltage and frequency. However, it appears the voltage is limited to a range between 1.15v and 1.212v. I don't known where the limited factor lies. Is it the BIOS, VRM, the processor Vid or CCPUID? According to Intel specs, the processor's vcore range is 0.85-1.3625v. I'm weighing my option of upgrading the BIOS from 0077 to 0079 and see if the latest version supports the vcore range of the E5200. Since the E5200 is almost identical to the E7200, if you have either processor what is the lowest vcore you can obtain?

Using CCPUID, I have been able to run Orthos stable at the stock speed of 2.5ghz @ 1.15v. In other words, you can run the E5200 at highest multipler while setting the vcore to the lowest supported voltage. Still, I would like to see it run at 6x @ the rated 0.85v if it is at all possible.

I will post some power consumption results later.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:24 pm

Some power figures to report when this board is paired with the E5200:

Setup:
CPU: E5200 (2.5ghz; official vcore range: 0.85-1.3625v; settable range in DG45FC: 1.15v-1.21v)
RAM: 2x1GB 800Mhz
HDD: 2.5" notebook drive
Case: Casetronic/Morex 2699 with built-in DC/DC converter; 80W external brick
NIC: not connected
ODD: external Blu-Ray drive
BD players: PDVD7, TMT

Power consumption:
Idle: 32W (1.2ghz @ 1.15v); no discernable difference when compared with idle @ [email protected];
load, Orthos: 44W (Vista "Power Saver" power scheme, or 1.2ghz @ 1.15v)
load, orthos: 60W (2.5ghz @ 1.15v under CCPUID; about the same under Vista "Performance" power scheme @ [email protected])
BD movies - VC1 titles: 42W @ 1.2ghz/1.15v @ 65% CPU usage; 45W @ 2.5ghz @ 1.15v @ 35% CPU usage
BD movies - MPEG4/AVC titles: 55W @ 2.5ghz/1.15v @ 75%-95% CPU usage; confirmed that there's NO hardware acceleration.

On MPEG4/AVC title playback: Both PDVD7 and TMT showed high CPU usage. I turned off hardware acceleration in both programs and the CPU usage did not change. This essentially confirmed that there's no HA acceleration when playing back these titles. I'm not sure where the problem lies but I suspect it's in the Intel driver.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:35 am

I upgraded to the latest BIOS (0079) hoping that it would recognize the full supported voltage range of the E5200 (0.85v-1.3625) and was disappointed that it didn't. The BIOS still only allows me to set the vcore from 1.15v to 1.212v using CCPUID.

I could be wrong, but this new BIOS appears to power off the IGP when Vista turns off the display, something I hadn't observed in the previous BIOS. With the IGP powered down, I have seen the idle power consumption as low as 24W. That's incredible!! This is good news for those who want to build a PVR or server that's on 24/7. However, with this new low in power consumption a new problem emerges (actually a known problem that gets more severe): The fan now gets into this bi-modal cycle (i.e. silent->full blast->silent->full blast...) almost continuously.

PS: Also in this BIOS, the PAVP setting is gone (it's now hardcoded to "Lite", according to the release notes). There's also a new setting that allows you to turn off one core in a dual core processor. This is a feature I have never seen on AMD based mobos.

loimlo · Post by **loimlo** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:49 am

frank2003 wrote:Some power figures to report when this board is paired with the E5200:

Setup:
CPU: E5200 (2.5ghz; official vcore range: 0.85-1.3625v; settable range in DG45FC: 1.15v-1.21v)
RAM: 2x1GB 800Mhz
HDD: 2.5" notebook drive
Case: Casetronic/Morex 2699 with built-in DC/DC converter; 80W external brick
NIC: not connected
ODD: external Blu-Ray drive
BD players: PDVD7, TMT

Power consumption:
Idle: 32W (1.2ghz @ 1.15v); no discernable difference when compared with idle @ [email protected];
load, Orthos: 44W (Vista "Power Saver" power scheme, or 1.2ghz @ 1.15v)
load, orthos: 60W (2.5ghz @ 1.15v under CCPUID; about the same under Vista "Performance" power scheme @ [email protected])
BD movies - VC1 titles: 42W @ 1.2ghz/1.15v @ 65% CPU usage; 45W @ 2.5ghz @ 1.15v @ 35% CPU usage
BD movies - MPEG4/AVC titles: 55W @ 2.5ghz/1.15v @ 75%-95% CPU usage; confirmed that there's NO hardware acceleration.

On MPEG4/AVC title playback: Both PDVD7 and TMT showed high CPU usage. I turned off hardware acceleration in both programs and the CPU usage did not change. This essentially confirmed that there's no HA acceleration when playing back these titles. I'm not sure where the problem lies but I suspect it's in the Intel driver.

Intel is cooperating with Cyberlink to incorporate BD accration to G45 variants; just be patient for future Intel driver and PowerDVD releases. Btw, WinDVD is under the same situation at this moment.

Muzza · Post by **Muzza** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:46 am

Just wondering if anyone who's had a board rma'd for the noise issue and received the replacement found their new board any better?

I'm getting the usual "we cant replicate the problem" line from intel.

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:34 am

Intel posted new versions of the video driver for Vista and XP.

I upgraded to the new versions. In XP I still cannot get ANY hardware acceleration for h.264 and VC-1 videos. In Vista I am also not seeing HW acceleration for MPEG4/AVC (aka h.264) Blu-Ray titles.

Ashex · Post by **Ashex** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:09 am

Muzza wrote:Just wondering if anyone who's had a board rma'd for the noise issue and received the replacement found their new board any better?

I'm getting the usual "we cant replicate the problem" line from intel.

I'm going to receive my replacement today, so I'll know later.

jessekopelman · Post by **jessekopelman** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:15 am

frank2003 wrote:Intel posted new versions of the video driver for Vista and XP.

I upgraded to the new versions. In XP I still cannot get ANY hardware acceleration for h.264 and VC-1 videos. In Vista I am also not seeing HW acceleration for MPEG4/AVC (aka h.264) Blu-Ray titles.

AnandTech got this to work. See page 5 in particular. They claim the 15.11.2.1554 driver works. Maybe it is still a question of what playback software one uses. I think they have PowerDVD 9(?!?). Have you tried updating your playback software to the newest build?

frank2003 · Post by **frank2003** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:10 am

I was running 7.3 OEM version of PowerDVD, and trial version of TMT, both with latest updates, and with latest Intel driver. Both showed HW accelerations for VC1 and MPEG2 encoded Blu-Ray movies as well as AVCHD (h.264) HD camcorder recordings. Both did not show HD acceleration for h.264 Blu-Ray movies.

I then tried PDVD8 trial. Same results as above. Maybe the latest PDVD8 update will fix the problem, but I am skeptical of that since the common link between the two pieces of software is the driver. Also PDVD8 update requires a paid version and not a trial version in order to install. I'm not about to blow $100 to find out the answer. If someone has luck getting HD acceleration to work for h.264 movies (not rips) please post.

It's pssible there might be some digital rights issues with the driver when dealing with h.264 movies, as evidenced by the fact that HA worked for AVCHD videos.

DG45FC looks promising for HTPC

Re: Noise from DC/DC-converters

new E5200

E5200 power consumption

Re: E5200 power consumption