ASRock's High-End Vision 3D 252B HTPC Review
by Ganesh T S on May 7, 2012 6:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Home Theater
- Sandy Bridge
- HTPC
- GT 540M
- NVIDIA
In the Intel Ivy Bridge HTPC review, we introduced our video decoding and rendering benchmarking methodology. These benchmarks provide an idea of the capabilities of the system with respect to usage of various video renderers in the Windows environment. Under Microsoft's DirectShow framework, there are a number of options for the video rendering filters. Amongst the native ones, EVR (Enhanced Video Renderer) is preferred. The native EVR mixer uses the DXVA video processing services to deinterlace and mix the video. So, this gurantees that the driver's post processing capabilities (if enabled) get utilized. Users of MPC-HC have EVR-CP (Enhanced Video Renderer - Custom Presenter) as the default. This is an open-source implementation of the interfaces provided by EVR and uses all of the driver's post processing capabilities except for the hardware scaler.
Our Ivy Bridge HTPC review presented CPU and GPU utilization during the playback of various types of clips (different codecs / resolution / interlacing characteristics etc.). We have further refined the methodology by including a 720p60 clip in the list. Also, we have changed the presentation scheme for the results. Comparing CPU usage directly has never been a fool-proof way to identify exactly how much more the system is stressed on a comparative basis (because the CPUs always tend to enter a lower clocked state under low loading conditions). Instead, the power consumed by the CPU package is a better comparison metric. In addition, we have also changed the presentation of the results. Instead of a table with numbers, we have usage graphs.
In this section, we will consider the usage of software decode as well as hardware decode when combined with EVR. As mentioned earlier, LAV Video Decoder was used. It has a native DXVA2 mode as well as a 'None' mode for hardware decoding which defaults to avcodec.
| Software Decode with EVR | Native DXVA2 with EVR |
 |
|
| Software Decode with EVR | Native DXVA2 with EVR |
Resource Usage Comparison - DXVA2 Hardware Decode vs. Software Decode with EVR
We tested a variety of clips (480i60 MPEG-2, 576i50 H.264, 720p60 H.264, 1080i60 H.264, 1080i60 MPEG-2, 1080i60 VC-1 and 1080p60 H.264) and the observed CPU package power, GPU core loading, GPU memory controller loading, GPU VPU loading and GPU memory loading are presented in the pictures above. You can roll over the mouse on the text at either the top or bottom of the picture to see how the characteristics change. In the case that you wish to download the images for further perusal, the appropriate plots are linked here [ Software Decode with EVR, Native DXVA2 with EVR ].
The results are not surprising. Playback of HD material benefits immensely from hardware decoding. With 1080p60 H.264, software decode takes up more than 50% of the CPU's allowed power consumption. (~19W, when the Core i5-2520M is rated for 35W). The GT 540M's core and memory controller loads are the same for both software and memory decode. However, the VPU gets loaded (almost 85% with the 1080p60 H.264 clip) in the DXVA decode mode. Extra memory (GPU RAM) is also taken up in the DXVA decode mode as the decoder moves frames in and out during the decode process. In the software decode mode, the GPU memory load is lesser because frames are delivered by the software decoder, get to the GPU's memory and are taken in for post processing (calls made by the EVR) and then delivered to the video output buffer. There is no need to move frames in and out for the decoding process itself. The amount of post processing done by EVR in both cases is the same, and that is the reason why there is no difference in the GPU's core load.
In the next section, we will see how the system fares under madVR, which is a much more demanding renderer compared to EVR.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
ganeshts - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
I agree that the necessary information is spread out over multiple sites / reviews. We will work towards maintaining a database for easy access to all the information from a central point.ggathagan - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
There's already an extensive guide:http://imouto.my/watching-h264-videos-using-dxva/
http://imouto.my/watching-h264-videos-using-dxva-c...
An alternative to MPC-HC is a Korean product called Pot player:
http://imouto.my/configuring-potplayer-for-gpu-acc...
I've used both players with a GTS 450, an AMD 6950 and an AMD 5670 without issue after following the guides.
aliasfox - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
First off, I skimmed the article, so forgive me if this is really obvious. Second, I have an admitted Mac bias, so that's where this is coming from. So here goes:With the exception of the Blu-Ray drive and USB3, is there really much that makes this worth so much more than a Mac Mini? I'm thinking the $799, i7, Radeon 6670m equipped model.
$100 to load Windows onto it (if that's your flavor), and $200 should get you a blu-ray player - that leaves that set up $100 cheaper than the ASRock...
The Mac mini does dual display, has HDMI out, and has an optical audio output as well. Admittedly, the SD Card reader on the back is less easy to get to than a reader on the front, and the base HDD is smaller (500 GB).
Different strokes for different folks?
lenkiatleong - Tuesday, May 8, 2012 - link
But Mac mini does not bitstream HD audio to AV as far as i know. And this is the most critical point in my opinion for HTPC.philipma1957 - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
1.2k for 1.2 k I can have a 2500k cpu a crucial 256gb ssd a 2tb hdd a blu ray from asus 8gb ram a mobo from asus the catch is I need a 14 by 14 by 7 inch case.Any real hi end ht has amps, larger speakers ,large tv. Some subs not one sub.
A gear rack and hiding a case the size of 14 by 14 by 7 on a gear rack is easy.
This is for a design freak with tiny little bose speakers and a wall mount led flat screen.
while that ht is costly ie hi end it makes poor quality sound.
ganeshts - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
This is a HTPC for the high end home theater. Nothing prevents you from routing the HDMI output from the Vision 3D 252B to an amp / pre-amps and use that to drive the large speakers.aliasfox - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
Or potentially it's for people who are limited on storage rack space. My five level rack currently houses my blu-ray player, receiver, and dedicated stereo amp, as well as my cable modem and router which live on one shelf.If I were to replace my receiver (currently acting as my pre/pro) with a dedicated pre/pro and another amp to do surround duties, I wouldn't have another entire shelf for a big box htpc - I'd only have the space next to the modem and router to share.
zerorift - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
Maybe I'm just not seeing this in the review, but what software did you use to record the graphs of power usage?ganeshts - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
The graphs are from HWInfo. The software is capable of much more than just simple graphing. Here is another screenshot (and the link to the software):http://www.hwinfo.com/images/HWiNFO32_1.png
www.hwinfo.com
nsparadox - Monday, May 7, 2012 - link
I used to build HTPCs back in the day to record shows as a glorified DVR. There's no bundled tuner. What's the point of HTPCs nowadays, assuming you're not using them as a DVR?I can do pretty much all of these things this machine can do with a Blu-Ray player, Google TV, integrated TV software, a Roku box, or just an HDMI out to an existing tablet or laptop PC. And the prices for these approaches ranges from free to $200 depending on what equipment you already have?
Even for massive movie hoarders who want to stream their collection, you can do that with most of these devices.