Before proceeding to the conclusions, let us deal with a couple of topics which didn't fit into any of the preceding sections.

First off, we have some power consumption numbers. In addition to idle power, we also measure the average power consumption of the testbed over a 15 minute interval when playing back a 1080p24 MKV file in MPC-HC.

 
HTPC Testbed Power Consumption
  Idle Power Consumption (W) Playback Power Consumption (W)
HTPC Testbed (Core i5-680) 56.6 67.7
AMD 6450 66.4 84.9
MSI 6450 66.2 78.4
Sapphire 6570 66.7 79.6
NVIDIA GT 430 65.7 76
MSI GT 520 67 73.4

There is not much to infer from the above power consumption numbers except that the GDDR5 based AMD 6450 needs to be avoided. All the cards idle around the same value. The AMD cards consume slightly more power when playing back the video.

I am sure many readers are also interested in the performance of the GPUs for 3D videos. With the latest PowerDVD and Total Media Theater builds, all the 3D Blu-rays we tried played back OK. Beyond this, we did't feel it necessary to devote time to develop a benchmarking methodology for 3D videos. There is no standardized way to store and transfer 3D videos. 3D Blu-ray ISOs are different from the 3D MKV standard, which, in turn are different from the standards adopted by some of the camcorder manufacturers. In our personal opinion, the 3D ecosystem for HTPCs is still in a mess. It is no secret that NVIDIA has invested heavily in the 3D ecosystem. In addition to the support for 3D movies, they also supply software to view stereoscopic photographs. If you plan on connecting your HTPC to a 3D TV and also plan to invest in 3D cameras or camcorders, the NVIDIA GPUs are a better choice (purely from a support viewpoint). If all you want to do is to play back your 3D Blu-rays any current GPU solution (Intel or AMD or NVIDIA) should be fine. Note that SBS/TAB (side-by-side/Top-and-Bottom) 3D streams (as used in TV broadcasts) are likely to have performance similar to that of the 2D 720p/1080i content.

From a broadcast perspective, MPEG-2 is a mature codec, but it is not very efficient at HD resolutions. H.264 is widely preferred. Current H.264 broadcast encoders take in the raw 4:2:2 10-bit data, but compress them using 8-bit 4:2:0 encoders. Recently, companies have put forward 10-bit 4:2:2 encoding [PDF] as a way to boost the efficiency of H.264 encoding. Unfortunately, none of the GPUs have support for decoding such streams (encoded with profile level High10). Considering that 10-bit 4:2:2 is finding acceptance within the professional community only now, we wouldn't fault the GPU vendors too much. However, x264 has started implementing 10-bit support now, making it possible for users to generate / back-up videos in the new profile. We would like GPU vendors to provide decode support for the High10 AVC profile as soon as possible in their mainstream consumer offerings.

Benchmarking LAV CUVID with madVR Final Words
Comments Locked

70 Comments

View All Comments

  • SouthPaw42 - Sunday, June 12, 2011 - link

    To be a HTPC card it has to be passively cooled. Those a mini pc video cards.
  • Spivonious - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link

    Agreed. HTPC should be as quiet as possible. Passively-cooled video is the only choice.
  • Mels - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link

    Some of us have equipment closets dedicated to equipment using RF to communicate. Noise is definitely something most want to keep reduced but not a deal breaker for every person with a HTPC.
  • nevcairiel - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link

    Not necessarily, there are air coolers that are absolutely quiet. Only the very low-end is available with passive, which might be fine for many people, but if you want the "best" out of your HTPC, that cards won't do anymore.

    Look at the Gigabyte cards with the Windforce coolers, i don't hear a thing.
  • buzznut - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link

    HIS has a passively cooled HD6570 at newegg.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

    Low profile too.
  • jigglywiggly - Sunday, June 12, 2011 - link

    Now that the swatsitka is removed, I feel like something is missing from this review and I can no longer read it ;'(
  • jwilliams4200 - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link

    If I add up the string of numbers for the 6570, I get 193, not 197 like you have in the table. Then I see that the 430 also scores 193, and I compared the string of numbers for the 403 and the 6570, and they are identical. So why does it add up to 193 for the 430, but 197 for the 6570?
  • ganeshts - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link

    Sorry for the slip-up.

    The 'Ferris Wheel' and 'Roller Coaster' Compression Artifacts scores were wrong in the table under the 6570. I have updated them (no change to the total score).
  • jwilliams4200 - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link

    Also, AMD 6450 adds up to 193, not 189.
  • ganeshts - Monday, June 13, 2011 - link

    Made a big mess copying over the values from the spreadsheet I made.. I hope everything is fixed now. Really regret the errors.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now