ASRock CoreHT 252B Review
by Ganesh T S on September 2, 2011 3:45 AM EST- Posted in
- HTPC
- Intel
- ASRock
- Media Streamer
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 the Core 100 review last year, 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. 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 on the HQV website.
In the table below, we indicate the maximum score possible for each test, and how much the ASRock CoreHT 252B was able to get. As mentioned in the previous section, we used Intel Graphics Driver v2372 for the benchmarking.
| HQV 2.0 Benchmark | ||||
| Test Class | Chapter | Tests | Max. Score | ASRock CoreHT 252B (Intel HD3000) |
| Video Conversion | Video Resolution | Dial | 5 | 5 |
| Dial with Static Pattern | 5 | 5 | ||
| Gray Bars | 5 | 5 | ||
| Violin | 5 | 5 | ||
| Film Resolution | Stadium 2:2 | 5 | 5 | |
| Stadium 3:2 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Overlay On Film | Horizontal Text Scroll | 5 | 3 | |
| Vertical Text Scroll | 5 | 5 | ||
| Cadence Response Time | Transition to 3:2 Lock | 5 | 5 | |
| Transition to 2:2 Lock | 5 | 5 | ||
| Multi-Cadence | 2:2:2:4 24 FPS DVCam Video | 5 | 5 | |
| 2:3:3:2 24 FPS DVCam Video | 5 | 5 | ||
| 3:2:3:2:2 24 FPS Vari-Speed | 5 | 5 | ||
| 5:5 12 FPS Animation | 5 | 5 | ||
| 6:4 12 FPS Animation | 5 | 5 | ||
| 8:7 8 FPS Animation | 5 | 5 | ||
| Color Upsampling Errors | Interlace Chroma Problem (ICP) | 5 | 2 | |
| Chroma Upsampling Error (CUE) | 5 | 2 | ||
| Noise and Artifact Reduction | Random Noise | SailBoat | 5 | 5 |
| Flower | 5 | 5 | ||
| Sunrise | 5 | 5 | ||
| Harbour Night | 5 | 5 | ||
| Compression Artifacts | Scrolling Text | 5 | 3 | |
| Roller Coaster | 5 | 3 | ||
| Ferris Wheel | 5 | 3 | ||
| Bridge Traffic | 5 | 3 | ||
| Upscaled Compression Artifacts | Text Pattern | 5 | 3 | |
| Roller Coaster | 5 | 3 | ||
| Ferris Wheel | 5 | 3 | ||
| Bridge Traffic | 5 | 3 | ||
| Image Scaling and Enhancements | Scaling and Filtering | Luminance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 |
| Chrominance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 | ||
| Vanishing Text | 5 | 5 | ||
| Resolution Enhancement | Brook, Mountain, Flower, Hair, Wood | 15 | 15 | |
| Video Conversion | Contrast Enhancement | Theme Park | 5 | 5 |
| Driftwood | 5 | 5 | ||
| Beach at Dusk | 5 | 2 | ||
| White and Black Cats | 5 | 5 | ||
| Skin Tone Correction | Skin Tones | 10 | 3 | |
| Total Score | 210 | 176 | ||
This table is almost the same as the one we presented in the Llano review. The only difference is that the HD 3000 now gets some points for skin tone correction. While AMD and NVIDIA tend to correct the skin tones and make the picture appear better as the strength of the correction is increased (move away from default), Intel seems to work best at the default setting. Experimenting with the strength of the skin tone correction makes the image quality much worse than either AMD's or NVIDIA's at any setting.
It is heartening to see that there is a big jump in performance for Intel's integrated graphics with respect to the HQV scores. While the Core 100 turned up with a sub-140 score last year, we see the CoreHT 252B rising above what AMD and NVIDIA's entry level GPUs achieve.
Does this improved HQV score actually lead to better picture quality in general? What about other HTPC video aspects? We will cover these in the next two sections.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
DocJones - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
I've been wanting to put together a media server with an i5 CPU just about down this line. I currently run Mezzmo as the server software since it does a pretty good job at transcribing video on the fly based on what device is requesting it.I wonder if this has enough juice to transcribe 1080p and send it over the wire to our media players, and if so... can it do more than one?
ganeshts - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
For a server type situation, I would recommend a desktop chipset.However, the i5-2520M is very very capable.. Maybe you should ask Mezzmo whether they can take advantage of QuickSync?
DocJones - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
i5 2405S better?http://ark.intel.com/products/55446/...he-2_50-GHz...
Something this form factor would be nice if it worked. Mezzmo folks pretty much say I need a true 4 core 8 thread CPU to perform transcoding on the fly. I find that hard to believe. Others have noted that a Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 LGA775 'Yorkfield' 2.66GHz 4MB-cache while hot handles the job just fine.
They use ffmpeg so I don't think they support QuickSync right now.
ganeshts - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Being paid software, I think Mezzmo needs to pull up its socks and adopt QuickSync for its transcoding operations. I think they can afford to sign whatever NDAs are required for this purpose (Actually, I don't think they need any because Andrew Van Til (www.babgvant.com) has actually implemented QuickSync support in his DVRMSToolBox program).Please hound them about this. I am also personally interested in finding out whether QuickSync is flexible enough for media server software to take advantage of.
blckgrffn - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
I would hope that this guy starts under $500, but seeing the prices on the Core HT100 at greater than $700, my enthusiasm is tempered a bit.icrf - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Agreed, for $500, I'd buy one.Since this is mostly laptop parts, what does a similarly spec'd laptop cost? No keyboard, touchpad, or screen saves some costs. What does this add that a laptop doesn't? A token remote control?
ganeshts - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Remote control + IR receiver and form factor combined with scale of manufacturing mean that the cost almost works out to be the same as that of a laptop.For many, a laptop can double up as a HTPC (even I used my notebook as a HTPC between 2005 and 2007), but PCs like these cater to those who need a quiet unobtrusive unit as part of the living room cabinet. Plus, this is a desktop replacement, i.e, you can schedule recordings with an external TV tuner when you are away from the home (or any other such usage scenario).
In the end, it is about horses for courses :)
cknobman - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
ZBOX nano AD10cjs150 - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Initial reviews look very promising although probably best to get the bare bones version and kit out with own memory and an SSD.When available I am going to get one and play with it to see how well it works
icrf - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Agreed. It's likely less than half the price, and I can do without an optical drive. I plan to run Windows, so the Linux driver situation around AMD's video decoding hardware don't apply, either (assuming that hasn't been straightened out since I last read about it).Still, it is nice to have all that extra CPU power available for whatever the future brings. I'm just not sure it's going to be worth the several hundred dollars more they're likely going to be asking for it.
In any case, I'd still love to see a review here on the unit, comparing it to this one as a budget alternative. I am a big XBMC proponent (and Hulu Desktop), so I really liked seeing the detailed focus on it, something I'd like to see carried forward in future HTPC reviews.