NVIDIA's GeForce GT 430: The Next HTPC King?
by Ryan Smith & Ganesh T S on October 11, 2010 9:00 AM ESTGT 430 For the HTPC: HQV 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. Starting with our HTPC reviews, 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. In our HTPC(s), we use Cyberlink PowerDVD build 2113 with TrueTheater disabled and hardware acceleration enabled for playing back the HQV streams. 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 from HQV.
Given the price point and the power consumption profile of the GT 430, it is evident that it is going to compete with the Radeon HD 5570. In the table below, we indicate the maximum score possible for each test, and how much the GT 430 (with driver version 260.77) and the Radeon HD 5570 (with Catalyst 10.9) were able to get.
| GT 430 vs. HD 5570 : HQV 2.0 Benchmark | |||||
| Test Class | Chapter | Tests | Max. Score | GT 430 | HD 5570 |
| Video Conversion | Video Resolution | Dial | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Dial with Static Pattern | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Gray Bars | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Violin | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Film Resolution | Stadium 2:2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| Stadium 3:2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Overlay On Film | Horizontal Text Scroll | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Vertical Text Scroll | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Cadence Response Time | Transition to 3:2 Lock | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Transition to 2:2 Lock | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Multi-Cadence | 2:2:2:4 24 FPS DVCam Video | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| 2:3:3:2 24 FPS DVCam Video | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 3:2:3:2:2 24 FPS Vari-Speed | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 5:5 12 FPS Animation | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 6:4 12 FPS Animation | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| 8:7 8 FPS Animation | 5 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Color Upsampling Errors | Interlace Chroma Problem (ICP) | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Chroma Upsampling Error (CUE) | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Noise and Artifact Reduction | Random Noise | SailBoat | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Flower | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Sunrise | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Harbour Night | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Compression Artifacts | Scrolling Text | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| Roller Coaster | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Ferris Wheel | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Bridge Traffic | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Upscaled Compression Artifacts | Text Pattern | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| Roller Coaster | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Ferris Wheel | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Bridge Traffic | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Image Scaling and Enhancements | Scaling and Filtering | Luminance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Chrominance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Vanishing Text | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Resolution Enhancement | Brook, Mountain, Flower, Hair, Wood | 15 | 15 | 15 | |
| Video Conversion | Contrast Enhancement | Theme Park | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Driftwood | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Beach at Dusk | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| White and Black Cats | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Skin Tone Correction | Skin Tones | 10 | 7 | 7 | |
| Total Score | 210 | 148 | 189 | ||
We find that the GT 430 scores the same as the GT 425M in the ASRock Vision 3D. It is also better than the Intel HD Graphics (which scored 133) with respect to this metric, but comes up short against the HD 5570.
A look at the above table reveals that there is not much to differentiate between the GT 430 and HD 5570 except for the bulk of the cadence detection tests. The all-important 3:2 pulldown is performed correctly. However, none of the other cadence detection tests passed. Getting those cadence detection features implemented in the drivers has the potential to increase the HQV score by 35 points, bringing it much closer to the 5570's score. Till then, it is hard for us to recommend the GT 430 with respect to picture quality for the average user.
Power users can always get past the cadence issues by setting up custom resolutions and refresh rates depending on the video being played back, but this not a solution for the average consumer. More concerning is the fact that many digital camcorders record at 30 fps, making it necessary to have proper cadence detection set up for 2:2 pulldown. nVidia says that this issue is being looked into, but not as a top priority feature to implement. Eventually, we should see scores similar to the 5570 a couple of driver releases down the line. For now, the Radeon HD 5570 is a clear winner from the picture quality standpoint.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
esc923 - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
Well you answered which means you do care, which is why I fully agree when you say that you could care less how smart anyone thinks you are.I'm not going to bother with reasoning out your obsession with video game FPS as the main 'objective' measure of an HTPC card while dismissing all else, as it's lost on you. Instead, let's try it the man no way instead: your argument is not correct because I say so.
manno - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
Don't take this the wrong way, but just because someone responds to a forum post does not mean they care what anybody thinks of them.From the article:
"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."
again for all intents and purposes the 430 and the 5570 are the same card. Same performance same price-point one is not superior to the other. Of course the 5670 is better, it's aimed at a different segment. My issue with the article isn't with you it's with "Ryan Smith & Ganesh T S" who draw the wrong conclusion. From the article:
"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."
This is wrong to test image quality the best test they could use is a subjective one ie: a double blind test where they play the same clip on the two different platforms to random test subjects. Using AMD's IQ benchmarks to judge any card is inherently biased I don't care what AMD says. Just like using Nvidia's CUDA benchmarks.
The article's conclusion regarding the 430 vs 5770 is wrong for the time being do a double-blind test and revisit it. Regarding then430 vs 5770 in gaming performance conclusion, well that's just plain wrong.
ganeshts - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
I am not sure where you got the idea that HQV is an AMD benchmark.HQV is an independent company and has their own video processing chip. They are not related in any way to AMD or nVidia.
manno - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
My mistake and thank you for the correction.geok1ng - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link
well manno, that is the trollest behavior i have ever witnessed on the subject of $79 video cards.assuming you are NOT a troll, then TomsHardware and HardOCP are also wrong in the comparison with the 5570. Hardly.
Since AMDs 785G there is no need for a VGA in order to play blurays , except for 2 situations:
The very few that own a high end sound system ( $1500+) and swear that they can hear the "gap" in quality when going from 7.1 bitstreaming to lossless HD audio. These buyers do NOT pick a $79 VGA, they build a custom PC-based digital audio system to work with theirs bitperfect setup. If you dont know what bitperfect is, then dont bother trolling that the 430 is better than the 5570.
The not so very few that own a 3D TV: in 3D playback since it is lost half the resolution and/or half the brigthness image quality becomes even more important. After spending 3k+ on the TV i fail to see the reasoning on choosing the 430 over the 450, or the 460, that at least can game.
I say that HTPCs cards are a thing of the past since the 785G, HD audio is a much hyped and rarely used feature and 3D Bluray is a niche.
And the fair competitor for the 430 in 3D Bluray comes from the PS3, hence the need to compare this card image quality with the PS3, with camera pictures to silence the trolls.
8steve8 - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
the next htpc king is sandy bridge graphics.i mean even westmere is good enough for most.
Lolimaster - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
You mean Fusion Llano?SB is on par with the low end IGP Fusion Ontario.
8steve8 - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
no i didn't mean llano, but any integrated graphics solution in 2011 will be fine for most people's HTPC needshmcindie - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
I don't get the point of HQV? PowerDVD and WinDVD do all the processing themselves so the drivers shouldn't have anything to do with it.HQV also has a couple of completely ridiculous tests and hasn't been used seriously to gauge image quality in DVD's for a long while now.
hmcindie - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
And why don't you guys tell what software you were even using? Wtf?