NVIDIA's GeForce GT 430: The Next HTPC King?
by Ryan Smith & Ganesh T S on October 11, 2010 9:00 AM ESTFinal Words
We opened up this article talking about how NVIDIA is foregoing performance in the name of digital media and HTPCs with the GT 430. Whether it’s by NVIDIA’s design or matters out of their hands, GT 430 simply isn’t competitive with AMD’s 5570 and 5670 in gaming performance, with the latter cleaning the GT 430’s clock every single time. NVIDIA isn’t pushing the GT 430 as a gaming performance card so we aren’t going to recommend it as one. If you need budget gaming, then the only choice to make is to go AMD.
With that out of the way we can get in to the meat of the issue: HTPCs. Asus is rightly pitching the ENGT430 at HTPC users, as this is the scenario most enthusiasts are even going to look at this card. So whether we can recommend the GT 430 at all is going to hinge on the GT 430’s capabilities in an HTPC environment.
Rarely are we afforded the opportunity to give a straightforward answer, and this is not one of those opportunities. NVIDIA does some things well here while stumbling in other areas. So let’s start where they stumble: image quality. In the quest for the more perfect HTPC card we found the Radeon HD 5570 earlier this year, and it was good. In more recent times AMD has put a lot of effort in to stepping up their game on image quality with the release of the HQV 2 benchmark and it shows in our results.
We always hate to rely so much on a single benchmark, but at this point HQV 2 provides the best tests we can get our hands on, so we can’t ignore the results. Certainly the GT 430 is a step up from the likes of Intel’s GMA, however the Radeon 5570 has an even bigger advantage over the GT 430. If image quality absolutely matters to you, then the Radeon 5570 is definitely the card to get for the time being until NVIDIA can spend more time on improving the video capabilities of their drivers.
So if NVIDIA stumbles on image quality, where do they excel? 3D stereoscopy. The only rational conclusion that we can draw from these results is that NVIDIA is banking hard on 3D this Christmas, like so much of the consumer electronics industry. They have HDMI 1.4a and they have 3D Vision, and as a result they’re in a position where they can offer a 3D experience that AMD cannot match. If you believe that 3D is king like NVIDIA does and you’ll be using an HTPC to experience it, then clearly there’s no other option than an NVIDIA GT 430.
NVIDIA and Asus also deserve a nod here for noise, and a weak smile for power consumption. The acoustics of the ENGT430 are fantastic, and while load power consumption runs high, idle power consumption looks good. If you’re indifferent about 3D and about picture quality, then perhaps acoustics and power consumption are worth considering? Just bear in mind that with so many vendor designs for both the AMD and NVIDIA cards, what we’re looking at today is only a small sample of what else is out there.
Finally, taking all of this in to account, we’re left with little choice but to offer a tepid reception to the GT 430. As enthusiasts, we can accept the ultimate HTPC card even if it doesn’t deliver on gaming performance, but what NVIDIA has given us is not the ultimate HTPC card. 3D and HDMI 1.4a are good, but 2nd place image quality is not. Since image quality is directly a product of driver development, there’s a great deal of hope for the future and at some point we hope we’ll be able to revisit things and to find a different conclusion.
But for the time being, NVIDIA has delivered an $80 card that is slower and offers inferior image quality compared to its competition – an unenviable position indeed. Only by 3D stereoscopy is it saved from being a flop, making the GT 430 a very significant gamble for NVIDIA. If it turns out that this isn’t a 3D Christmas then it’s not just going to be the CE companies that would be hurting.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
heflys - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
Seriously?Belard - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
Overall, this card isn't impressive at all... the PRO's are there, and AMD does need 3D and physics abilities.But at $80, it goes against the 5650 cards and easily loses.
About HDMI 1.4b... it doesn't really matter. HDMI is dead... faster than it should be, but there is no future in it. CAT6-A/V will start replacing HDMI in 2011.... all the big TV players are on board - they don't have to pay licensing fees or use special expensive connectors or cabling of HDMI.
And HTPC's will not get very popular until the Cable companies loosen up about people access channels like HBO, SHO, etc. Windows7 Media player is nice, but the interface is still rather weak for power users compare to some of the others out there. For example, the program grid is HORRIBLE... when others allow 2~4hours of blocks and around 20 channels at a time... none of this 1.5hr / 6 channel junk. Oh, and the DRM of Media player makes archiving your shows near impossible. Like if you have to reinstall the OS or do a system upgrade.
heflys - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
According to most review sites, things like PhysX and 3d vision are nothing but gimmicks that contribute little to actual performance. Instead, most view them as pointless system hogs.Belard - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
er... PhysX and 3D has never been about improving performance. It was about adding to the visual experience. Like Avatar looks great in 2D and 3D... but 3D sucks you in a bit more.Games like Mirror's Edge come more realistic with PhysX, even thou it doesn't improve game play one bit.
Those technologies are new, and until PhysX becomes shared/standard on all video cards - it will be more gimmick then a standard. But who knows...
Hmmm... back around 1988 when computers were 8~16mhz, only Mac and Amigas pretty much had a native GUI OS, MS was horrible MS-DOS with 8.3 file names, no multi-tasking, horrible graphics and forget about sound. Someone from the DOS camp said "Who needs graphics and sound, those are for toys. PC are REAL Computers".
Uh huh. And now we have 1000Mhz cell phones with 16GB of RAM.
The 1986 vintage Amiga had Graphics, sound and Multi-tasking... was it a gimmick?
heflys - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
"Performance" was a typo on my part, since I clearly indicated that it was a system hogs. Physx, in most cases-as displayed titles such as Mafia II- contribute little to nothing (in some games) towards graphics. Most players won't even notice such things as enhanced physics or improved decals. In fact, the most noticeable thing displayed in Mafia II was the presence of debris. Players will, however, notice the impressive amount of lag brought on by such features.3d Vision, as displayed in one review, rendered the GPU (a gtx 460 1gb) to unplayable frame-rates. It essentially required the player go to SLI. Which brings me to another point.....Why are you bringing up Physx or 3d vision in regards to this product? You seriously think this cheap HTPC card could handle any of the above features, particularly when a 1gb 460 struggles to?
And are we seriously comparing the Amiga to such an insignificant thing as cheesy video game effects? You can't be serious. Particularly when there are other physics engines (Havok being one of the most prominent) doing some of the same things.
However, please tell me how Physx made Mirror's Edge a more realistic experience. Particularly since that game, like Mafia II, only added physics to debris.
Belard - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
I agree with you on the first paragraph. We want constant visual abilities, but without the cost of general performance.This was one of the arguments of 3Dfx's Voodoo3 vs TNT cards -
Performance with 16bit graphics vs nVidia's 24bit.
When I played the JSF game around 1999-2000, the 16bit limitation was noticed BIG time on my Voodoo1, but the frame rate murdered the ATI I had. It was a trade off. This is always a constant battle with out GPUs... remember when AA was added? Even today, AA effects the performance of every single video card - but unlike 8 years ago, it no longer renders most cards useless.
Yeah, 3d Vision & PhysX is useless on the GF430... pretty much like the ATI Eyefinity's tech doesn't belong on every ATI card (reduce the cost by $10, improve airflow) - especially for the low-end, but its very handy for business users.
You said: "And are we seriously comparing the Amiga to such an insignificant thing as cheesy video game effects?"
Yes, in that PhysX and 3D tech is still baby tech. In a few years, we'll be start seeing 3D TV's that don't require glasses. PhysX or Havok or other becomes more standard - or perhaps MS adds it to DX12. It's going to be years before we see results of the latest technology. Just like the PC folk's of the 80's who said the Amiga was a toy and computers didn't need graphics and sound. And yes, my Amigas still work.
"please tell me how Physx made Mirror's Edge a more realistic experience." Look up the various side-by side videos. It adds cloth effects, broken glass and yes, debris. A side by same example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xRJt8rcmY and check out batman too.
Of course, that didn't help to actually POPULATE the city of Mirror's edge with people... funny, a huge modern city with only a few people and police, with all that construction - where are the workers? Another example. A burger that is just meat and bread is bland... but add some tomatoes, lettuce, cheese and it becomes a better meal.
heflys - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
Thanks for the civil discussion....I half expected you to call me an idiot for some reason......Don't know why.....I think ATI's just going to bide its time with the 3d/Physics display, since at this point, they don't really need to invest in that platform. Maybe in the future.
Belard - Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - link
Would it make you feel better if I did? :)I've been into computers for a long long time - and I do my best to NOT be a fanboy. Give credit where credit is due... Apple, Intel, MS, AMD, Nvidia, Opera, FireFox, etc.
What gives me/us the best deal at the time of purchase.
In 2015, our graphics on consoles (don't know about computers) will make todays GPUs look like GeForce 5900/ATI 9700 in terms of performance and abilities.
We'll see. Perhaps Archive this page?
drjonz - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
Why no comparison to integrated Intel Clarksdale? Many of us with HTPC went with that since we're not gamers. I've been really happy with it. Maybe once per Blu-Ray watching, I'll get a stutter. Not sure if it's because I'm underpowered or what. Would be cool to see what more I'd get for $100.ganeshts - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
We have mentioned the HQV score for Clarkdale (Intel HD Graphics) as 133, much lower than 5570 and slightly lower than the 430.Please take a look at the Core 100 review we carried a few months back. It reviewed the Arrandale platform for HTPCs and it is quite good for casual HTPC users.