Intel's Ivy Bridge: An HTPC Perspective
by Ganesh T S on April 23, 2012 12:01 PM EST- Posted in
- Home Theater
- Intel
- HTPC
- Ivy Bridge
One of the main reasons for HTPC purists to override the Intel integrated GPUs was the lack of a proper 23.976 Hz refresh rate. Till Clarkdale, the Intel GPUs refreshed the display at 24 Hz when set to 23 Hz. When Sandy Bridge was launched, it was discovered that the 23 Hz setting could be activated and made to function as intended if UAC was disabled. With v2372 drivers, the disabling of UAC became unnecessary. While this didn't result in perfect 23.976 Hz (locked around 23.972 Hz), it was definitely much better than the earlier scenario.
How does Ivy Bridge fare? The short story is that the behaviour on the P8H77-M Pro board is very similar to Sandy Bridge. As the screenshot below shows, the refresh rate is quite stable around 23.973 Hz. This is as good as the bad AMD and NVIDIA GPU cards.
The good news is that Intel is claiming that this issue is fully resolved in the latest production BIOS on their motherboard. This means that BIOS updates to the current boards from other manufacturers should also get the fix. Hopefully, we should be able to independently test and confirm this soon.
It is not only the 23 Hz setting which is off the mark by a small amount. Other refresh rates also suffer similar problems (with videos played back at that frame rate dropping a frame every 5 minutes or so). The gallery below shows some of the other refresh rates that we tested.
Another aspect we found irritating with Intel's GPU control panel is the custom resolution section. Intel seems very reliant on EDID and doesn't allow the user to input any frequency not supported by the display. Our testbed display (a Sony Bravia KDL46EX720) doesn't indicate PAL compatibility in its EDID information. I was able to play back PAL videos with matched refresh rates using the Vision 3D (NVIDIA GT 425M) as well as the AMD 7750. However, Intel's control panel wouldn't allow me to set up 50 Hz as the display refresh rate. It is possible that an EDID override might help, but we can't help complaining about Intel's control panel not being as user friendly as NVIDIA's (despite the availability of a custom resolutions section in the control panel).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
MGSsancho - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
While I agree with most everything there is something I would like to nit pick on, While making a digital copy of old film in what ever format you use, more often than not a lot of touching up needs to be done. Wizard of OZ and all the 007 films can be an example. (I am ignoring the remastering of Star Wars and Lucas deciding to add in 'features' vs giving us a cleaned up remaster sans bonuses.) Still when your spending millions in remaster I expect at least not muddy the entire thing up.However I feel we need to bring in higher bitrates first. I will not apologize over this, yes encoders are great but a 4mbs 1080p stream still is not as good as nice as a 20mb-60mb vbr blu-ray film The feeling that a craptastic 4k or even 2k bitrate will ruin the expedience for the non informed. Also notice I am ignore an entire difference debate whether the current can candle true HD streaming to every household, at least in the US.
nathanddrews - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Higher bit rates will be inherent with 4K or 2K over 1080p, but bit rates aren't the be all end all. 4K will likely use HVEC H.265 which offers double the compression with better quality than H.264.Fixing scratches, tears, or other issues with film elements should never be a reason for mass application of filtering.
SlyNine - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - link
H.264 doesn't even offer 2x the compression over Mpeg 2. I doubt H.265 offers 2x over 264."This means that the HEVC codec can achieve the same quality as H.264 with a bitrate saving of around 39-44%."
Source http://www.vcodex.com/h265.html
Casper42 - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
I LOL'd at "Walmart Black Friday" Nathan :)And for the OP, 32", really?
Its completely understandable you don't see the difference on a screen that size.
Step up to a 60" screen and then go compare 720p to 1080p (who uses 1080i anymore, oh thats right, crappy 32" LCDs. Don't get me wrong, I own 2, but they go in the bedroom and my office, not my Family Room.)
I think 60" +/- 5" is pretty much the norm now a days for the average middle class family's main movie watching TV.
anirudhs - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Cable TV maxes out at 1080i ( I have Time Warner). My TV can do 1080P.nathanddrews - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
1080i @ 60 fields per second when deinterlaced is the same as 1080p @ 30 fields per second. The picture quality is almost entirely dependent upon your display's ability to deinterlace. However, cable TV is generally of a lower bit rate than OTA or satellite.SlyNine - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - link
Yea but because of shimmering effects progressive images almost always looks better.If the video is 2:2 or 3:2 many tv's can build the frame in to a progressive image anymore.
Exodite - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - link
In the US, possibly, but I dare say 55-60" TVs are far from the norm everywhere.peterfares - Thursday, September 27, 2012 - link
2560x 27" and 30" monitors are NOT very pixel dense. 27" is slightly more dense (~12.5% more dense) than the standard display but the 30" is only about 4% more dense than a standard displaya 1920x1080 13.3" display is 71.88% more dense than a standard display.
dcaxax - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - link
On a 32" you will certainly not see a difference between 720p and 1080p - it is barely visible on a 40". Once you go to 52"+ however the difference becomes visible.On a 61" screen as you suggest the difference will be quite visible.
Having said that I am still very happy with the Quality of properly mastered DVD's which are only 576p on my 47" TV.
It's not that I can't tell the difference, its just that it doesn't matter to me that much, which is why I also don't bother with MadVR and all that, and just stick to Windows Media Center for my HTPC.
Everyone's priorities are different.