USB2 vs. PCI tuner?

[pkimelman]

I could not find an answer to this question in the forums or FAQ, but apologies if I missed it somewhere.
My ATI display+tuner card has had the tuner stop working (analog via cable). I need to get a new tuner (they only seem to last about 2 years, my old Hauppage also died after 2 years, the Pinnacle one died after 2 years, etc). I note that the ATI one was junk because the image quality was never great and the recording system often crashed.
Anyway, I wanted to know if a USB2 card works as well as a PCI? The CPU is a 2GHz AMD part (single core) on a 3 year old PC. It seems to me that the USB host devices on the PC's motherboard should add no more load than the PCI slots, but I am not sure. Since these are still MPEG2 vs. MPEG4, the data rate will be higher, but well below the USB2 capability. Since I have to buy a new tuner, I figured I would ask before choosing one. The real point is picking which tuner puts the least load on the CPU and software.
Thoughts?
P.S. I think you should put this kind of info in the FAQ or the Wiki's "Card compatibility" page.

[K.S.]

my advice: pick whatever suits you best. there is even one PCI device which emulates an USB device to make use of the built on tuner, was some hauppauge model if i remember right. with digital broadcast i guess the difference is cosmetical, both are more than capable to handle the data rate, i had one pinnacle usb tuner in an almost 5 year old machine (1,8Ghz Athlon) with no problem & almost no CPU load during recordings. its not really a CPU thing, it's more of a "hey, HDD, i gotta some data you'll need to keep, write this"-stuff. playback & UI is where the CPU is needed. hmmm, dunno, there's almost no point to write that into the wiki, if it would be relevant (i.e. USB not up to that task) you would not see that kind of tuners on the wild

[cdldt]

USB will use marginally more CPU than a comparable PCI device (I measured usage in the order of 1.5%-2.0% higher on my Athlon BE-2350) but this is insignificant unless you're using an array of say 6 DVB-T USB tuners. I think the CPU usage is used by the USB controller or its driver rather than the TV tuner itself. I'm using an AMD SB600 and perhaps other USB controllers have lower CPU usage.

In terms of reception quality, it is a common misconception that internal tuners will give worse reception than an external one. This was true for old TV card designs with crappy tuners but not anymore. If you have a strong enough interference source that it affects a silicon tuner underneath a shield then it will surely be strong enough to get outside the PC case and be picked up by either the aerial or coaxial cable when connected to an external tuner.

Personally, I prefer internal cards, because it's one less thing to find a position for outside the case.

[martint123]

I have both a PCI PVR150 and a USB PVR form Hauppauge. They both produce identical results. Also in the box is a Nova-t-500 PCI card - although this twin tuner device has USB chips on it as I think the tuner chip expects it.

I'm swings and roundabout with internal vs external devices.
Internal - neat, less wires to trip over.
USB - versatile, I could bring up a standby server in a much shorter time. Some motherboards are limited in PCI slots and/or height.

I have to add though that the only devices that I have had problems with when coming out of standby/hibernate are USB ones - the pvr150 has never let me down in this respect.