NVIDIA's GeForce GT 430: The Next HTPC King?
by Ryan Smith & Ganesh T S on October 11, 2010 9:00 AM ESTGT 430 For the HTPC: HQV Benchmarking
HTPC enthusiasts are often concerned about the quality of pictures output by the system. While this is a very subjective metric, we have decided to take as much of an objective approach as possible. Starting with our HTPC reviews, we have been using the HQV 2.0 benchmark for this purpose. The HQV 2.0 test suite consists of 39 different streams divided into 4 different classes. In our HTPC(s), we use Cyberlink PowerDVD build 2113 with TrueTheater disabled and hardware acceleration enabled for playing back the HQV streams. The playback device is assigned scores for each, depending on how well it plays the stream. Each test was repeated multiple times to ensure that the correct score was assigned. The scoring details are available in the testing guide from HQV.
Given the price point and the power consumption profile of the GT 430, it is evident that it is going to compete with the Radeon HD 5570. In the table below, we indicate the maximum score possible for each test, and how much the GT 430 (with driver version 260.77) and the Radeon HD 5570 (with Catalyst 10.9) were able to get.
| GT 430 vs. HD 5570 : HQV 2.0 Benchmark | |||||
| Test Class | Chapter | Tests | Max. Score | GT 430 | HD 5570 |
| Video Conversion | Video Resolution | Dial | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Dial with Static Pattern | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Gray Bars | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Violin | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Film Resolution | Stadium 2:2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| Stadium 3:2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Overlay On Film | Horizontal Text Scroll | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Vertical Text Scroll | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Cadence Response Time | Transition to 3:2 Lock | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Transition to 2:2 Lock | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Multi-Cadence | 2:2:2:4 24 FPS DVCam Video | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| 2:3:3:2 24 FPS DVCam Video | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 3:2:3:2:2 24 FPS Vari-Speed | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 5:5 12 FPS Animation | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 6:4 12 FPS Animation | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 8:7 8 FPS Animation | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Color Upsampling Errors | Interlace Chroma Problem (ICP) | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Chroma Upsampling Error (CUE) | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Noise and Artifact Reduction | Random Noise | SailBoat | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Flower | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Sunrise | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Harbour Night | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Compression Artifacts | Scrolling Text | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| Roller Coaster | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Ferris Wheel | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Bridge Traffic | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Upscaled Compression Artifacts | Text Pattern | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| Roller Coaster | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Ferris Wheel | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Bridge Traffic | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Image Scaling and Enhancements | Scaling and Filtering | Luminance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Chrominance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Vanishing Text | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Resolution Enhancement | Brook, Mountain, Flower, Hair, Wood | 15 | 15 | 15 | |
| Video Conversion | Contrast Enhancement | Theme Park | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Driftwood | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Beach at Dusk | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| White and Black Cats | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Skin Tone Correction | Skin Tones | 10 | 7 | 7 | |
| Total Score | 210 | 148 | 189 | ||
We find that the GT 430 scores the same as the GT 425M in the ASRock Vision 3D. It is also better than the Intel HD Graphics (which scored 133) with respect to this metric, but comes up short against the HD 5570.
A look at the above table reveals that there is not much to differentiate between the GT 430 and HD 5570 except for the bulk of the cadence detection tests. The all-important 3:2 pulldown is performed correctly. However, none of the other cadence detection tests passed. Getting those cadence detection features implemented in the drivers has the potential to increase the HQV score by 35 points, bringing it much closer to the 5570's score. Till then, it is hard for us to recommend the GT 430 with respect to picture quality for the average user.
Power users can always get past the cadence issues by setting up custom resolutions and refresh rates depending on the video being played back, but this not a solution for the average consumer. More concerning is the fact that many digital camcorders record at 30 fps, making it necessary to have proper cadence detection set up for 2:2 pulldown. nVidia says that this issue is being looked into, but not as a top priority feature to implement. Eventually, we should see scores similar to the 5570 a couple of driver releases down the line. For now, the Radeon HD 5570 is a clear winner from the picture quality standpoint.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
heflys - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
Seriously?Belard - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
Overall, this card isn't impressive at all... the PRO's are there, and AMD does need 3D and physics abilities.But at $80, it goes against the 5650 cards and easily loses.
About HDMI 1.4b... it doesn't really matter. HDMI is dead... faster than it should be, but there is no future in it. CAT6-A/V will start replacing HDMI in 2011.... all the big TV players are on board - they don't have to pay licensing fees or use special expensive connectors or cabling of HDMI.
And HTPC's will not get very popular until the Cable companies loosen up about people access channels like HBO, SHO, etc. Windows7 Media player is nice, but the interface is still rather weak for power users compare to some of the others out there. For example, the program grid is HORRIBLE... when others allow 2~4hours of blocks and around 20 channels at a time... none of this 1.5hr / 6 channel junk. Oh, and the DRM of Media player makes archiving your shows near impossible. Like if you have to reinstall the OS or do a system upgrade.
heflys - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
According to most review sites, things like PhysX and 3d vision are nothing but gimmicks that contribute little to actual performance. Instead, most view them as pointless system hogs.Belard - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
er... PhysX and 3D has never been about improving performance. It was about adding to the visual experience. Like Avatar looks great in 2D and 3D... but 3D sucks you in a bit more.Games like Mirror's Edge come more realistic with PhysX, even thou it doesn't improve game play one bit.
Those technologies are new, and until PhysX becomes shared/standard on all video cards - it will be more gimmick then a standard. But who knows...
Hmmm... back around 1988 when computers were 8~16mhz, only Mac and Amigas pretty much had a native GUI OS, MS was horrible MS-DOS with 8.3 file names, no multi-tasking, horrible graphics and forget about sound. Someone from the DOS camp said "Who needs graphics and sound, those are for toys. PC are REAL Computers".
Uh huh. And now we have 1000Mhz cell phones with 16GB of RAM.
The 1986 vintage Amiga had Graphics, sound and Multi-tasking... was it a gimmick?
heflys - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
"Performance" was a typo on my part, since I clearly indicated that it was a system hogs. Physx, in most cases-as displayed titles such as Mafia II- contribute little to nothing (in some games) towards graphics. Most players won't even notice such things as enhanced physics or improved decals. In fact, the most noticeable thing displayed in Mafia II was the presence of debris. Players will, however, notice the impressive amount of lag brought on by such features.3d Vision, as displayed in one review, rendered the GPU (a gtx 460 1gb) to unplayable frame-rates. It essentially required the player go to SLI. Which brings me to another point.....Why are you bringing up Physx or 3d vision in regards to this product? You seriously think this cheap HTPC card could handle any of the above features, particularly when a 1gb 460 struggles to?
And are we seriously comparing the Amiga to such an insignificant thing as cheesy video game effects? You can't be serious. Particularly when there are other physics engines (Havok being one of the most prominent) doing some of the same things.
However, please tell me how Physx made Mirror's Edge a more realistic experience. Particularly since that game, like Mafia II, only added physics to debris.
Belard - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
I agree with you on the first paragraph. We want constant visual abilities, but without the cost of general performance.This was one of the arguments of 3Dfx's Voodoo3 vs TNT cards -
Performance with 16bit graphics vs nVidia's 24bit.
When I played the JSF game around 1999-2000, the 16bit limitation was noticed BIG time on my Voodoo1, but the frame rate murdered the ATI I had. It was a trade off. This is always a constant battle with out GPUs... remember when AA was added? Even today, AA effects the performance of every single video card - but unlike 8 years ago, it no longer renders most cards useless.
Yeah, 3d Vision & PhysX is useless on the GF430... pretty much like the ATI Eyefinity's tech doesn't belong on every ATI card (reduce the cost by $10, improve airflow) - especially for the low-end, but its very handy for business users.
You said: "And are we seriously comparing the Amiga to such an insignificant thing as cheesy video game effects?"
Yes, in that PhysX and 3D tech is still baby tech. In a few years, we'll be start seeing 3D TV's that don't require glasses. PhysX or Havok or other becomes more standard - or perhaps MS adds it to DX12. It's going to be years before we see results of the latest technology. Just like the PC folk's of the 80's who said the Amiga was a toy and computers didn't need graphics and sound. And yes, my Amigas still work.
"please tell me how Physx made Mirror's Edge a more realistic experience." Look up the various side-by side videos. It adds cloth effects, broken glass and yes, debris. A side by same example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xRJt8rcmY and check out batman too.
Of course, that didn't help to actually POPULATE the city of Mirror's edge with people... funny, a huge modern city with only a few people and police, with all that construction - where are the workers? Another example. A burger that is just meat and bread is bland... but add some tomatoes, lettuce, cheese and it becomes a better meal.
heflys - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
Thanks for the civil discussion....I half expected you to call me an idiot for some reason......Don't know why.....I think ATI's just going to bide its time with the 3d/Physics display, since at this point, they don't really need to invest in that platform. Maybe in the future.
Belard - Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - link
Would it make you feel better if I did? :)I've been into computers for a long long time - and I do my best to NOT be a fanboy. Give credit where credit is due... Apple, Intel, MS, AMD, Nvidia, Opera, FireFox, etc.
What gives me/us the best deal at the time of purchase.
In 2015, our graphics on consoles (don't know about computers) will make todays GPUs look like GeForce 5900/ATI 9700 in terms of performance and abilities.
We'll see. Perhaps Archive this page?
drjonz - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
Why no comparison to integrated Intel Clarksdale? Many of us with HTPC went with that since we're not gamers. I've been really happy with it. Maybe once per Blu-Ray watching, I'll get a stutter. Not sure if it's because I'm underpowered or what. Would be cool to see what more I'd get for $100.ganeshts - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
We have mentioned the HQV score for Clarkdale (Intel HD Graphics) as 133, much lower than 5570 and slightly lower than the 430.Please take a look at the Core 100 review we carried a few months back. It reviewed the Arrandale platform for HTPCs and it is quite good for casual HTPC users.