HQV 2.0 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. Over the last year or so, 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.

We first played back the benchmarking clips off the Blu-ray, but the scores recorded below are for standalone M2TS playback using CyberLink PowerDVD 12. Our take is that it is standalone files (such as those taken using consumer camcorders and smartphones) which require video post processing more than the already carefully transferred Blu-ray content. If certain driver post processing features are available only for Blu-ray playback, then, it is as good as not being available for consumers to take advantage.

In the table below, we indicate the maximum score possible for each test, and how much the 7750 was able to get with AMD's Catalyst 12.1-based launch drivers.

 
AMD 7750 : HQV 2.0 Benchmark
Test Class Chapter Tests Max. Score Radeon HD 7750
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 5
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 5
Roller Coaster 5 5
Ferris Wheel 5 5
Bridge Traffic 5 5
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 5
White and Black Cats 5 5
Skin Tone Correction Skin Tones 10 7
         
    Total Score 210 193

We were not able to match what AMD claimed. In all probability, the difference is in the chroma upsampling scores. We already covered this in the Llano review. To recap, the image below is a screen capture while playing the HQV benchmark clip from a Blu-ray ISO on the AMD A8-3850. Note that the light red fringes along the edgs are uniform and extend to the right and the left before tapering off.

Now, let us look at the screen capture when the M2TS is played back using PowerDVD 12 on the Radeon HD 7750.

Zoom into the red stripes on the third row (in the original screenshot) and you can see for yourself that we have some ghost samples extending above and below the actual line of pixels. The screenshot is not at the exact timestamp as that of the Llano sample reproduced above, but the reader should be able to get a general idea of the problem we are hinting at. Readers interested in finding out more about the source of this problem should read up this excellent piece to get more information.

We notified AMD about this issue during the Llano review, but action doesn't seem to have been taken even after 6 months on what is clearly a driver issue. Note that we are not using MPC-HC (which might introduce its own errors in the renderer) in this case, but a standard off-the-shelf commercial player in CyberLink PowerDVD 12. Hopefully, AMD wakes up to this issue soon.

HTPC Testbed & Software Configuration Custom Refresh Rates
Comments Locked

155 Comments

View All Comments

  • Articuno - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    Kepler really, really needs to come out soon, and I'm saying this as an AMD fan.
  • Malih - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    Exactly, I'm a fan of AMD myself, and I can't wait for Kepler, AMD needs a kick in the (you know what)
  • DimeDeviL - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    "Theoretically the 5770 has a 5% compute performance advantage over the 5770."
  • eminus - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    uhhh really? same card performs better hehehehe
  • tynopik - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    lobbing off -> lopping off
  • mattgmann - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    I feel like reviewers were blinded by performance with the 7970/7950 cards. They offer the same lack of competitive pricing as these lower end cards. The 7950 can be compared directly (in price and performance) to the Nvidia GTX 580, a card that was available a year ago.

    I'm still rocking a pair of 4870s that set me back ~$400 a few years back. To get a substantial performance upgrade, I'd have to spend $450 on a 7950 today. Where is the value in that? Yes, power consumption and features are important but are tertiary to raw performance in almost every user scenario when it comes to gaming.

    To say the least, the lack of competitive pricing between nvidia and amd currently smells a little fishy.....it wouldn't be the first time there was price fixing in the graphics card industry.
  • maniac5999 - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    I'm convinced that the pricing for 4870s in late 2008/early 2009 was the sweet point to buy. Yes, power consumption sucks, but other than that, a card that cost me $160 then, is pretty competitive with a card that costs $120 today. I think we may have just lucked out with the 4870s, and may need to wait until at least Kepler, if not 8XXX to upgrade.
  • chizow - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    Just be careful not to set expectations on the 4870's pricing for 2 reasons:

    1) 4870 pricing was a mistake imo. AMD will say it was a calculated one in fluff pieces like the RV770 story and it was true in some degree that AMD needed to recover mindshare/marketshare and consumer confidence after the R600 debacle and a weak performing RV670. Still, when you set your single-GPU flagship at $300 and your second SKU at $200, there's not much room to go down on pricing.

    2) Late 2008 early 2009 was the height of the recession. Wall Street, Real Estate, Auto Industry, all that. Nvidia and AMD were feeling it too and got involved in a highly publicized price war. That's why you saw "new" high-end performance parts like the 4890 and GTX 275 launching for $230-$250 that occupy the $350+ market today, with cards like the 4870 and GTX 260c216 selling at tremendous value for $150 or less.

    Its obvious AMD is doing its best to correct their 4870 price mistake over the last few years, but with the overall performance of Southern Islands stack, the 7-series was the wrong time to do it. They should've just stuck to their old pricing scheme or at worst, matched Nvidia's pricing ($500, $380) with their Tahiti parts. Then you might see the rest of the stack priced reasonably.
  • Zoomer - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    Yeah, at this point of the business cycle, it sucks to have to buy anything. Everything is expensive due to all the capacity cuts.

    Recessions are good (for buying things, cars, houses, whatever). Btw: Housing is an anomaly due to efforts to stop/slow the process.
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link

    Recessions are good for the rich... not so good for everyone else.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now