ASRock Vision HT: Ivy Bridge Carries the SFF HTPC Forward
by Ganesh T S on November 12, 2012 3:30 PM EST- Posted in
- Home Theater
- ASRock
- HTPC
- Ivy Bridge
HTPC Decoding and Rendering Benchmarks
In our Ivy Bridge HTPC review, we had covered the CPU / GPU utilization during playback of various types of clips. In the Vision3D 252B review, we had graphs of CPU and GPU loading with various renderers and codecs. Unfortunately, AMD doesn't provide similar data / sensors for use with their APUs. Hence, we had to resort to power consumed at the wall along with GPU loading in the Trinity HTPC review. In order to keep benchmarking consistent across all HTPC reviews, we will be adopting the Trinity HTPC review methodology in our future HTPC articles.
The tables below present the results of running our HTPC rendering benchmark samples through various decoder and renderer combinations. Entries in bold indicate that there were dropped frames which indicate that the unit wasn't up to the task for those types of streams. The recorded values include the GPU loading and power consumed by the system at the wall. An important point to note here is that the system was set to defaults in the BIOS, but Windows power settings were set for maximum performance instead of the default balanced profile.
madVR
madVR was configured with settings similar to what we used for the Ivy Bridge HTPC review. Full screen windowed mode gaved the best performance in terms of avoiding dropped frames. In our first trial, we configured LAV Video Decoder to use avcodec (software decode). As expected, Intel's GPU / memory bandwidth is not enough for madVR processing of some types of content (namely, 720p60 H.264 and 1080p60 H.264).
| LAV Video Decoder Software Fallback + madVR | ||
| Stream | GPU Usage % | Power Consumption |
| 480i60 MPEG-2 | 78 | 35.46 W |
| 576i50 H.264 | 64 | 25.92 W |
| 720p60 H.264** | 98 | 44.52 W |
| 1080i60 H.264 | 86 | 47.40 W |
| 1080i60 MPEG-2 | 84 | 42.55 W |
| 1080i60 VC-1 | 86 | 47.10 W |
| 1080p60 H.264** | 98 | 48.81 W |
madVR takes up more than 80% of GPU resources while processing 1080i60 material. However, the unit is quite power efficient on the whole, consuming less than 50 W for 1080i60 material using software decode. In the next trial, we configured LAV Video Decoder to use hawrdware decoding in the form of Quick Sync. Unfortunately, the results are quite similar to what we obtained with software decode (just that the power consumption is slightly lesser than software decode for the HD streams).
| LAV Video Decoder QuickSync + madVR | ||
| Stream | GPU Usage % | Power Consumption |
| 480i60 MPEG-2 | 79 | 36.16 W |
| 576i50 H.264 | 64 | 27.45 W |
| 720p60 H.264** | 96 | 43.17 W |
| 1080i60 H.264 | 90 | 45.23 W |
| 1080i60 MPEG-2 | 87 | 42.86 W |
| 1080i60 VC-1 | 88 | 44.66 W |
| 1080p60 H.264** | 94 | 46.32 W |
EVR-CP and EVR
With the Enhanced Video Renderer (Custom Presenter) and Enhanced Video Renderer, native DXVA2 acceleration can be used. Here, we are able to process all our test streams without dropped frames. EVR is very efficient in terms of power consumption also.
| LAV Video Decoder DXVA2 Native + EVR-CP | ||
| Stream | GPU Usage % | Power Consumption |
| 480i60 MPEG-2 | 32 | 22.28 W |
| 576i50 H.264 | 29 | 21.74 W |
| 720p60 H.264 | 45 | 26.01 W |
| 1080i60 H.264 | 47 | 26.87 W |
| 1080i60 MPEG-2 | 47 | 25.48 W |
| 1080i60 VC-1 | 43 | 33.46 W |
| 1080p60 H.264 | 62 | 29.42 W |
| LAV Video Decoder Software Fallback + EVR | ||
| Stream | GPU Usage % | Power Consumption |
| 480i60 MPEG-2 | 27 | 20.75 W |
| 576i50 H.264 | 24 | 20.56 W |
| 720p60 H.264 | 49 | 25.23 W |
| 1080i60 H.264 | 35 | 23.44 W |
| 1080i60 MPEG-2 | 35 | 22.23 W |
| 1080i60 VC-1 | 33 | 30.45 W |
| 1080p60 H.264 | 58 | 27.04 W |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
Guspaz - Monday, November 12, 2012 - link
The lack of DisplayPort video output is kind of a big deal... DisplayPort is the only output that the Intel HD 4000 supports high resolution (like 2560x1440 or 2560x1600) over. It will not output these resolutions over HDMI or DVI, as the Intel HD 4000 does not support dual-link DVI.As this is a rather severe shortcoming to a user with a 27" or larger monitor, and users may expect support for this resolution since the chip itself does support it, it should be mentioned in the review. Otherwise, a user might buy this computer only to find out that it doesn't support any 27" monitors...
A better approach would have been for Asrock to include a DisplayPort instead of DVI, and then include a cheap passive DP->DVI adapter in the box. Such adapters are very cheap (under $7 from monoprice), so this would have been an enormously more flexible option.
As the system stands, with no option for a videocard slot, this system can never support large displays.
hughlle - Monday, November 12, 2012 - link
The vast majority of users will be using an HTPC with their HDTV, not a "small" high end moniter, so for the majority of users wanting an HTPC, 1920x1080, as in HD resolutions, is what they will be looking for.methudman6 - Monday, November 12, 2012 - link
It could've been marketed as a "PC-Mini" too if it had display port. I find it strange that they market it so strongly as an HTPC when it looks like it'd make a very nice small computer for casual use.Guspaz - Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - link
There is nothing about this system that makes it an "HTPC" except the cheap remote they include with it, and that's something you can add to any computer for a few dollars. It's just as well suited as a general SFF computer except for this issue. Previous Asrock systems in this identical form factor (and I've used a few of the ION ones for media playback at a large convention) didn't even have a remote.Death666Angel - Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - link
But it also seems like an oversight for Intel to not have DVI 2560 output. What did they gain by that omission?Guspaz - Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - link
Pin count, perhaps? Take a look at the respective pin counts, and I'll exclude hotplug, power, shield, ground, reserved, analog (except on VGA), or optional pins, since none of those would have to be routed to the CPU AFAIK.:DVI: 10 pins
DisplayPort: 10 pins
HDMI: 11 pins
VGA: 12 pins
DVI Dual-Link: 16 pins
I may be excluding some pins that do in fact have to be routed to the CPU, but my basic point is that adding dual-link DVI support would have required adding more pins/traces to the processor, socket, motherboard, etc. That's a non-trivial thing, and from Intel's perspective you can use an adapter to get dual-link DVI anyhow (although at $69 from monoprice, the adapter isn't cheap like the $8 single-link DVI adapter is)
deadlockedworld - Monday, November 12, 2012 - link
Apple should sue!! (seriously though, the shape is almost exactly the same as the previous generation mini)Guspaz - Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - link
The Asrock machines are waaay bigger than the Mini, and the Mini wasn't the first to use that form factor (mini ITX boxes predate it). It was the thinnest of them, to be sure, but not the first.IlllI - Monday, November 12, 2012 - link
wonder what ever happened to those. looks like they dont sell them anymoreGrok42 - Monday, November 12, 2012 - link
I cut the cord/dish 6 years ago. My kids have all grown up not having access to normal television programming. I have a WD-Live x2, Roku x3, iPodses, iPads and iPhones all which can basically access the same media including a 6TB NAS drive. I rip all the kids movies to the NAS drive as soon as we buy them which is 90% of what is on the NAS drive other than home movies and photos. I watch movies from NetFlix, Hulu or rent them on Amazon. I love browsing YouTube from the WD-Live for most of the misc stuff.What else does a HTPC bring to the table that the ~$99 WD-Live doesn't do better and for less? The WD-Live is tiny, has no fans and is Velcroed to the back of my entertainment system. It is plugged into a Wireless N router and can stream 1080P movies with ease. The only thing I can think of is that I can't play PC games or Surf; is there something else?
Not a troll, I sort of feel like I'm making this huge mistake not having an HTPC given my setup but I can never figure out why I would want one.