AMD A8-3850 : An HTPC Perspectiveby Ganesh T S on June 30, 2011 6:20 AM EST
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. We have been using the HQV 2.0 benchmark in our HTPC reviews to identify the GPUs' video post processing capabilities. The HQV benchmarking procedure has been heavily promoted by AMD, and Intel also seems to be putting its weight behind that. The control panel for the Sandy Bridge GPU has an additional skin tone enhancement option which the Clarkdale drivers used to lack.
HQV scores need to be taken with a grain of salt. In particular, one must check the tests where the GPU lost out points. In case those tests don't reflect the reader's usage scenario, the handicap can probably be ignored. So, it is essential that the scores for each test be compared, rather than just the total value.
The HQV 2.0 test suite consists of 39 different streams divided into 4 different classes. In our HTPC(s), we use Cyberlink PowerDVD 11 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.
Blu-rays are usually mastered very carefully. Any video post processing (other than deinterlacing) which needs to be done is handled before burning it in. In this context, we don't think it is a great idea to run the HQV benchmark videos off the disc. Instead, we play the streams after copying them over to the hard disk. As we noted in the previous section, the capabilities of the APU vary between Blu-ray and local file playback. How much difference does that cause in the HQV scores? How do the scores look when compared to the HD3000?
In the table below, we indicate the maximum score possible for each test, and how much each GPU was able to get. The HD3000 is from the Core i5-2520M with the Intel 18.104.22.168.2372 drivers. The Lynx was tested with Catalyst 11.6, driver version 8.862 RC1
|HQV 2.0 Benchmark|
|Test Class||Chapter||Tests||Max. Score||Intel HD3000||AMD 6550D (Blu-ray)||AMD 6550D (Local file)||Sapphire 6570|
|Video Conversion||Video Resolution||Dial||5||5||4||4||5|
|Dial with Static Pattern||5||5||5||5||5|
|Film Resolution||Stadium 2:2||5||5||5||5||5|
|Overlay On Film||Horizontal Text Scroll||5||3||5||5||5|
|Vertical Text Scroll||5||5||5||5||5|
|Cadence Response Time||Transition to 3:2 Lock||5||5||5||5||5|
|Transition to 2:2 Lock||5||5||5||5||5|
|Multi-Cadence||2:2:2:4 24 FPS DVCam Video||5||5||5||5||5|
|2:3:3:2 24 FPS DVCam Video||5||5||5||5||5|
|3:2:3:2:2 24 FPS Vari-Speed||5||5||5||5||5|
|5:5 12 FPS Animation||5||5||5||5||5|
|6:4 12 FPS Animation||5||5||5||5||5|
|8:7 8 FPS Animation||5||5||5||5||5|
|Color Upsampling Errors||Interlace Chroma Problem (ICP)||5||2||5||2||5|
|Chroma Upsampling Error (CUE)||5||2||5||2||5|
|Noise and Artifact Reduction||Random Noise||SailBoat||5||5||5||5||5|
|Compression Artifacts||Scrolling Text||5||3||3||3||5|
|Upscaled Compression Artifacts||Text Pattern||5||3||3||3||3|
|Image Scaling and Enhancements||Scaling and Filtering||Luminance Frequency Bands||5||5||5||5||5|
|Chrominance Frequency Bands||5||5||5||5||5|
|Resolution Enhancement||Brook, Mountain, Flower, Hair, Wood||15||15||15||15||15|
|Video Conversion||Contrast Enhancement||Theme Park||5||5||5||5||5|
|Beach at Dusk||5||2||5||5||5|
|White and Black Cats||5||5||5||5||5|
|Skin Tone Correction||Skin Tones||10||0||7||7||7|
A look at the above table reveals that Intel has caught up with the competition in terms of HQV scores. There is not much to choose betwee 173 and 184. But, does it pass the video quality stress streams? How does the Llano fare in that? We will see in the next few sections. But, first, we will look at the discrepancy between the Blu-ray and local file playback with respect to chroma upsampling.