I'm out on a limb here but I'm pretty sure the i3 could do what you want.

 

I am almost certain any Intel CPU with integrated GPU can do what you want. There is a bug in both the Intel processors and AMD processors that don't allow playing of 23.976 fps. AMD cpu's are better at hitting closer to the mark than Intel. Me personally, would go AMD because of that fact, and the fact that it is cheaper. But that is only my opinion. If you are just looking for Intel, like I said, and with integrated graphics will do what you want.

 

Do you need the CPU to encode to .MKV? If so, I'd say a multi-core AMD using Handbrake or MediaCoder will do

 

All the files are ripped on my desktop, and are then transferred to my media server. I just need the CPU to be able to stream uncompressed (mkv) HD content.

 

In that case, yes, any processor from Intel or AMD with integrated graphics should do what you need.

 

i3-2105 should be good enough, i currently use it for blu rays

 

Get the i3-3220 and call it a day. It's the least-expensive current-gen Intel chip that has all the bells and whistles for hardware-accelerated video.

 

I ended up picking up an i3-3220 from someone here. Not sure that it will be able to handle 40GB Blurays, but it should be okay.

 

Does anyone know the answer to this question?

Is uncompressed HD streaming limited by CPU, GPU, or hard drive speed?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by silvergoat

Does anyone know the answer to this question?

Is uncompressed HD streaming limited by CPU, GPU, or hard drive speed?

Actually neither.

Uncompressed HD (MPEG-2) can reach up to 50 megabits/sec (Mbit/s) which is nothing in terms of data throughput for a computer - a standard SATA (1) interface is capable of 1,500 MBit/s, SATA (2) 3,000 MBit/s and SATA (3) 6,000 MBit/s but the drives themselves are not that fast (unless you go with solid state). For comparison, your typical PC3-12800 (DDR3- 1600) memory is 102.4 Gbit/s. Any CPU from the last 10 years would be able to stream your content.

Since your server is simply transferring the data to your client, its graphics interface isn't used at all and a lot of servers don't even have a graphics adapter unless (as others suggested) you're compressing the data to, say H.264 in which case, it could help by offloading some of the workload.

So, the most likely bottleneck in your system will be your network - this is typically 100MBit/s which doesn't include the packet overhead in transmitting data which is about 20% or network congestion but will do it fine. If you're on wifi then this is likely not going to work well at all as typical wifi speeds are 54MBit/s and has even more overhead due to packet loss. 'N' type wifi has a theoretical speed of 104MBit/s but again, this can be affected by walls, people movement etc so isn't guaranteed.

When streaming the HD content, your client computer application should cache enough of the data from the server to handle any expected outages which depending on your playback software, should be controllable.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharcycle

Actually neither.

Uncompressed HD (MPEG-2) can reach up to 50 megabits/sec (Mbit/s) which is nothing in terms of data throughput for a computer - a standard SATA (1) interface is capable of 1,500 MBit/s, SATA (2) 3,000 MBit/s and SATA (3) 6,000 MBit/s but the drives themselves are not that fast (unless you go with solid state). For comparison, your typical PC3-12800 (DDR3- 1600) memory is 102.4 Gbit/s. Any CPU from the last 10 years would be able to stream your content.

Since your server is simply transferring the data to your client, its graphics interface isn't used at all and a lot of servers don't even have a graphics adapter unless (as others suggested) you're compressing the data to, say H.264 in which case, it could help by offloading some of the workload.

So, the most likely bottleneck in your system will be your network - this is typically 100MBit/s which doesn't include the packet overhead in transmitting data which is about 20% or network congestion but will do it fine. If you're on wifi then this is likely not going to work well at all as typical wifi speeds are 54MBit/s and has even more overhead due to packet loss. 'N' type wifi has a theoretical speed of 104MBit/s but again, this can be affected by walls, people movement etc so isn't guaranteed.

When streaming the HD content, your client computer application should cache enough of the data from the server to handle any expected outages which depending on your playback software, should be controllable.

Thanks- That helped create some new questions, but I'm in the process of googling.