ASRock CoreHT 252B Review
by Ganesh T S on September 2, 2011 3:45 AM EST- Posted in
- HTPC
- Intel
- ASRock
- Media Streamer
Video post processing aspects such as skin tone correction and denoising are part of the HQV 2.0 benchmark. However, it is cadence detection which forms a major part of the tested aspects. Deinterlacing is closely tied with cadence detection. Although deinterlacing, by itself, is not stressed in the HQV 2.0 benchmark, it is very important for the end users.
In contrast to the performance of the Core 100, the CoreHT 252B manages to ace all the HQV 2.0 cadence detection tests.
Film Mode Detection Off | Film Mode Detection On |
2:2 Cadence Detection Test Stream from the HQV 2.0 Benchmark
Film Mode Detection Off | Film Mode Detection On |
2:3:2:3 Cadence Detection Test Stream from the Spears & Munsil Test Disc
Despite handling these test streams properly, the GPU fails at localized cadence detection for scrolling text on the video. This is reflected in the HQV benchmark score also. As the GPU takes its time to lock on to the local cadence (the scrolling text and the video do not have the same cadence), the text appears shredded for quite some time at the start.
Scrolling Text Shredding (HQV 2.0 Benchmark Clip)
In order to determine the deinterlacing capabilities, we took the standard Cheese Slices clip and put it through the CoreHT 252B. The interlaced H.264 version was played back using DXVA (MPC-HC / EVR-CP / Microsoft DTV-DVD Decoder). For this clip, we compare the quality of deinterlacing with the Core 100 and Vision 3D. The Zino 410 would made a good comparison point. Unfortunately, the Zino review unit is longer in our hands.
Deinterlacing - Video Reference
CoreHT 252B | Core 100 | Vision 3D |
Deinterlacing - Cheese Slice Ticker
CoreHT 252B | Core 100 | Vision 3D |
Deinterlacing - Noise Response
CoreHT 252B | Core 100 | Vision 3D |
Deinterlacing - Algorithm Type
CoreHT 252B | Core 100 | Vision 3D |
Deinterlacing - Disc Test
CoreHT 252B | Core 100 | Vision 3D |
It is quite clear that the deinterlacing quality of Intel HD Graphics 3000 is not as good as the GT 425M in Vision 3D. However, it does show some improvement over the Intel HD Graphics in the Core 100.
Moving on to real life streams, we compare the CoreHT 252B and the Vision 3D with respect to the playback of the boat sequence from the Spears & Munsil test disc.
CoreHT 252B | Vision 3D |
Edge Adaptive Deinterlacing Test Stream from the Spears & Munsil Test Disc
In this stream which tests edge adaptive deinterlacing, there is actually nothing to choose inbetween the GT 425M and the Intel HD Graphics 3000. The nature of the ropes around the sail is almost exactly the same. Before moving on to the next section, we have to note that the AMD Radeons remain the GPUs to beat when it comes to deinterlacing quality.
54 Comments
View All Comments
Death666Angel - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
<<Well, the reviewer only used Windows, hence assuming that one pays for it.>>That would be true, except for the part where in the table on the first page, he writes:
"Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (Retail unit is barebones)"
I agree, however, that he could have stated it clearer in the text when he mentioned the software being shipped with the system ("Our review unit shipped with Windows 7 x64 Ultimate and a OEM version of Cyberlink PowerDVD for Blu-Ray playback.").
ganeshts - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Guys, I am keeping track of the developments in the Linux HTPC space.As soon as we can get to a point where it is possible to play Blu-rays with menus (we can already playback encrypted Blu-rays with MakeMKV installed, just not with menus -- this was the state when I last looked at it), we will carry out a detailed Linux HTPC article.
Rick83 - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Thanks, looking forward to that!bobbozzo - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Hi Ganesh,I don't care about BD so I'd like to see a review even if BD menus don't work.
Thanks for all the HTPC articles!
Miles Prower - Saturday, September 3, 2011 - link
I'm considering buying this machine too, as both a lightweight desktop PC (hey, why not) and a HTPC. Both solutions running Linux.I'd llove to see a review considering XBMC performance and hardware support!
cjs150 - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
"The unit has a noise level of less than 36 dB at full load "Not good enough. The system needs to be much better 30dB or less. Then there is the issue of how noisy is the Blu-ray drive. In my AV rack the one aspect which really annoys me is the Sony Blu ray player which is clearly audible at quiet points in movies. So would really like to know how loud the optical drive is (why do case manufacturers no include some dampening?)
Having said that it is clearly a very good system . Problem is that Zotac have just announced their AD10 nano system. Whilst it is over priced and lacks an optical drive (not a problem for me as store movies to NAS), in a main room it just looks a far better piece of kit, and a lot smaller (and allegedly quieter)
pvdw - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
"27 dB during Disc Playback"cjs150 - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Oops missed that in the charts.Much better, but I do wonder how much of that noise is due to the Blu ray drive - 22.4 dB on idle and 27 dB on Blu ray playback does not really help me - was this playback from HD or from the optical drive. I can believe the number if from HD, I do not believe the number if from optical drive, but if it is correct then I am impressed. Maybe it is just me, but case manufacturers have spent some time putting vibration dampening grommets for hard disks but never for the optical drives - why? A bit of care might reduce the noise considerably.
The problem is that we keep getting quoted dB and how something is so quiet it is effectively silent when clearly it is not. The standard I work to is very simple. If I can hear a computer during a quiet section of a movie or a song, than it is too loud.
ganeshts - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
Disc = optical drive. The extra noise is due to the operation of the ODD. Yes, I agree with your metric that if people hear it, it is noisy. However, different people have different tolerance / hearing levels. So, you do need to have some sort of base metric to compare against. For example, at 2 ft, I find 36 dB quite audible. But, only during quiet scenes in the video.Rick83 - Friday, September 2, 2011 - link
note that the measurements were done at 2 feet and not the more or less standardized meter. I'm not going to make the transformation now, as I'm not to keen to get into exponential scaling at this time of day, but it's always important to keep the context of db(A) measures in mind when comparing values.