AMD Radeon HD 7750 & Radeon HD 7770 GHz Edition Review: Evading The Price/Performance Curve
by Ryan Smith & Ganesh T S on February 15, 2012 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
- AMD
- HTPC
- GCN
- Radeon HD 7000
HQV 2.0 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. Over the last year or so, 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. 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 on the HQV website.
We first played back the benchmarking clips off the Blu-ray, but the scores recorded below are for standalone M2TS playback using CyberLink PowerDVD 12. Our take is that it is standalone files (such as those taken using consumer camcorders and smartphones) which require video post processing more than the already carefully transferred Blu-ray content. If certain driver post processing features are available only for Blu-ray playback, then, it is as good as not being available for consumers to take advantage.
In the table below, we indicate the maximum score possible for each test, and how much the 7750 was able to get with AMD's Catalyst 12.1-based launch drivers.
| AMD 7750 : HQV 2.0 Benchmark | ||||
| Test Class | Chapter | Tests | Max. Score | Radeon HD 7750 |
| Video Conversion | Video Resolution | Dial | 5 | 5 |
| Dial with Static Pattern | 5 | 5 | ||
| Gray Bars | 5 | 5 | ||
| Violin | 5 | 5 | ||
| Film Resolution | Stadium 2:2 | 5 | 5 | |
| Stadium 3:2 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Overlay On Film | Horizontal Text Scroll | 5 | 5 | |
| Vertical Text Scroll | 5 | 5 | ||
| Cadence Response Time | Transition to 3:2 Lock | 5 | 5 | |
| Transition to 2:2 Lock | 5 | 5 | ||
| Multi-Cadence | 2:2:2:4 24 FPS DVCam Video | 5 | 5 | |
| 2:3:3:2 24 FPS DVCam Video | 5 | 5 | ||
| 3:2:3:2:2 24 FPS Vari-Speed | 5 | 5 | ||
| 5:5 12 FPS Animation | 5 | 5 | ||
| 6:4 12 FPS Animation | 5 | 5 | ||
| 8:7 8 FPS Animation | 5 | 5 | ||
| Color Upsampling Errors | Interlace Chroma Problem (ICP) | 5 | 2 | |
| Chroma Upsampling Error (CUE) | 5 | 2 | ||
| Noise and Artifact Reduction | Random Noise | SailBoat | 5 | 5 |
| Flower | 5 | 5 | ||
| Sunrise | 5 | 5 | ||
| Harbour Night | 5 | 5 | ||
| Compression Artifacts | Scrolling Text | 5 | 5 | |
| Roller Coaster | 5 | 5 | ||
| Ferris Wheel | 5 | 5 | ||
| Bridge Traffic | 5 | 5 | ||
| Upscaled Compression Artifacts | Text Pattern | 5 | 3 | |
| Roller Coaster | 5 | 3 | ||
| Ferris Wheel | 5 | 3 | ||
| Bridge Traffic | 5 | 3 | ||
| Image Scaling and Enhancements | Scaling and Filtering | Luminance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 |
| Chrominance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 | ||
| Vanishing Text | 5 | 5 | ||
| Resolution Enhancement | Brook, Mountain, Flower, Hair, Wood | 15 | 15 | |
| Video Conversion | Contrast Enhancement | Theme Park | 5 | 5 |
| Driftwood | 5 | 5 | ||
| Beach at Dusk | 5 | 5 | ||
| White and Black Cats | 5 | 5 | ||
| Skin Tone Correction | Skin Tones | 10 | 7 | |
| Total Score | 210 | 193 | ||
We were not able to match what AMD claimed. In all probability, the difference is in the chroma upsampling scores. We already covered this in the Llano review. To recap, the image below is a screen capture while playing the HQV benchmark clip from a Blu-ray ISO on the AMD A8-3850. Note that the light red fringes along the edgs are uniform and extend to the right and the left before tapering off.
Now, let us look at the screen capture when the M2TS is played back using PowerDVD 12 on the Radeon HD 7750.
Zoom into the red stripes on the third row (in the original screenshot) and you can see for yourself that we have some ghost samples extending above and below the actual line of pixels. The screenshot is not at the exact timestamp as that of the Llano sample reproduced above, but the reader should be able to get a general idea of the problem we are hinting at. Readers interested in finding out more about the source of this problem should read up this excellent piece to get more information.
We notified AMD about this issue during the Llano review, but action doesn't seem to have been taken even after 6 months on what is clearly a driver issue. Note that we are not using MPC-HC (which might introduce its own errors in the renderer) in this case, but a standard off-the-shelf commercial player in CyberLink PowerDVD 12. Hopefully, AMD wakes up to this issue soon.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
155 Comments
View All Comments
PatrickSteamboat - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link
Will there be any testing on Cape Verde's Crossfire scalability in the near future? I'm really interested to see if dual 7750s can fill the gap between it and the 6950. Unlocking a hidden, low power 6900 variant, the missing 6930, without having to match and compare more than three SKUs sounds too good to be true.Roland00Address - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - link
7750s can't do crossfire since they do not have a crossfire bridge.7770s can do crossfire since they have a single crossfire bridge (can't do trifire though).
PatrickSteamboat - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link
Can't believe I missed... anyways, thanks for that.
I found a preliminary benchmark with dual 7770s. Numbers look great so far, but at $318 for two, I'll be waiting until I can have both for less than $279. One now @MSRP, the second discounted once Kepler is out.
mczak - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link
That isn't true. 7750 don't have a crossfire connector but they can do crossfire just fine, by transferring the data over the pcie bus.According to techpowerup benchmarks which tested that there's not even really a performance hit due to that (though they used a board with 2x16 pcie lanes, albeit only pcie 2.0, so should be similar to ivy bridge lga1155 which will have 2x8 pcie 3.0, and it might be worse on sandy bridge lga1155 which only has 2x8 pcie 2.0), though they say there were some stability issues, which certainly are driver fixable.
I usually question the viability of low-end CF setups however, I think you'd be far better off with one HD7800 card instead (you shouldn't need to wait that long for it after all).
Belard - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link
Its been almost 4 years since the ATI 4850 was released. Within about 6~8 months of being on the market, it became a $100~110 card.The NEW 7750 is also a $100~110 and from looking at these reviews, it performs no better than a four year old gaming card that sold for $100.
Menoetios - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link
Nvidia is as much to blame for the lack of shift in the price/performance curve as AMD. That's just the nature of competition. If you look at the 7770 and 7750 pricing compared to what Nvidia currently has available, it falls right in line. AMD doesn't care that you buy a 7770 or a 6850; with the former they'll make a nice margin, with the latter it'll help clear out the channel. They only care that you buy one of their products, and their products are priced just fine to that end. With only 123 mm2 die size (it's quite tiny), the 77** cards have a lot of room to get cheaper when Kepler is released. And I hope Kepler is REALLY good, because that's when we'll see the true price/performance shift.chizow - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link
How so? Nvidia is not the one pricing their next-gen parts based on last-gen performance and pricing, AMD is. If Nvidia does that with Kepler, then you they share in equal blame. But AMD had the chance to fire the first salvo this generation and they whiffed, badly, on all 3 volleys now (7970, 7950 and now 7770).Menoetios - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link
AMD have set their prices according to what's available on the market from Nvidia.chizow - Friday, February 17, 2012 - link
And that's exactly the problem! They're pricing new 28nm next-gen parts based on old 40nm last-gen price and performance levels. Nvidia's pricing was justified 14 months ago because the performance was there. It would not be satisfactory if they came out with a "new" part tomorrow and priced it the same as their old parts, would it?Blame lies squarely on AMD for this because they set the pricing on their parts and they were first to market. Look at it historically over the last 2-3 major generations, never once has Nvidia done this with a new architecture (not refresh) in terms of moving the performance bar so little while expecting the same top of the line premium pricing.
Hellbinder - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - link
Ok, Anand continues to amaze.. he/they are either dumber than a box of rocks or intentionally biased against AMD and simply looking for any excuse to skewer them. Personally i lean towards option number 1.The author of this review has completely buffooned the entire thing by getting the basic workings of AMD numbering & performance scaling WRONG.
yes the naming convention changed. but not in the way anand seems to think. This should be no brainier information for a site like this.
Top 7900 next 7800 next 7700 next 7500 next 7400 and so on.
The 6000 series was identical
Top 6800 next 6800 next 6700 next 6500 next 6400 and so on
the older models were different.
IF you want to compare apples to apples you compare the 6700 series to this series. The 6800 series is an entire tier above this card and should outperform it.
This site needs to get its crap together because nearly every other tech site makes this one look foolish, because they are foolish. or fire this reviewer and the editor and get some people who know what the hell they are talking about.