All about Graphics Cards
 Latest Graphics Cards articles
All Graphics Cards articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

crazy : PC Breakdown What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
adventure : Scoobydoo: Episode 2 The sequel of Scooby and Sammy's adventures. Same principle as in the previous episode (available on this website). Click on "Instructions" to see...
Ads

Sponsored links

Let’s Pull Some Shots!

Previous Next
2:00 AM - 06/15/2009 by William Van Winkle

All right, now that you’re thirsty for more performance numbers, let’s see dig into our Espresso results. For a test bed, we used a Phenom II X4 955 (3.2 GHz) running at stock speeds running on an MSI DKA790GX Platinum motherboard with 2 x 1 GB of Corsair 6400C3 memory and a PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 860 PSU. With the AMD ATI Radeon HD 4890 we used the Catalyst 9.5 hotfix driver, and with the GeForce GTX 280, we used the GeForce 185.85 driver.

You’ve already had a preview of the first test, going from high-def to low-def MPEG-4. Here’s you can see the results more plainly. This marks a pretty obvious win for AMD, especially if you factor in the CPU usage numbers.

We ran a similar second test, increasing both the file size of the source video (another YouTube HD file) as well as the resolution of the MPEG-4 target (720x480). With the larger numbers, we have more chance for test factors to even out. Sure enough, we see AMD breezing past Nvidia again, although not by quite such a large amount this time. Our CPU-only tests confirm the level playing field. Adding in GPU acceleration, we get a 91% improvement with CUDA but a 142% improvement in Stream—a narrower gap than the first test but still a fair drubbing for Nvidia.

And the CPU numbers? Same story. I saw sustained processor utilization above 90% on both sides of the fence when running CPU-only. With CUDA enabled, sustained usage fell to the 80% to 90% range across all four cores while Stream usage plummeted to around 40%, putting most of the load on core 2 and the GPU (20-24%).

Score: AMD 2, Nvidia 0.

Talkback
radiowars 06/15/2009 8:11 AM
Hide
-0+

So..... TBH they both work pretty well, I hope that we don't start a whole competition over this.

falchard 06/15/2009 8:16 AM
Show
cl_spdhax1 06/15/2009 8:46 AM
Hide
-0+

arcsoft simhd plugin is currently only enabled for n- cuda graphic cards.

Andraxxus 06/15/2009 9:34 AM
Hide
-2+

They're good but hopefully they will manage to improve them more. Competition is good for business.

DjEaZy 06/15/2009 10:38 AM
Show
IzzyCraft 06/15/2009 10:43 AM
Hide
-1+

Stream is old but not nearly as old and compatible as CUDA I'd get it a year or two more when more capable cards circulate the market and trickle down to the people before i would call it competition.

Well it's good to see more then just 1 app that supports it.

ThisIsMe 06/15/2009 11:11 AM
Hide
-7+

Just for the sake of it, and the fact that many pros would like to know the result, it would be nice to see comparisons like this using nVidia's Quadro cards vs. ATI's FirePro cards.

ohim 06/15/2009 11:25 AM
Show
Anonymous 06/15/2009 1:09 PM
Hide
-0+

I think the second graph on the "Mixed Messages" page isn't the right graph.

It's the same graph from the following "Heavier Lifting" page instead of a graph for the 298MB VOB file that should be shown?

Spanky Deluxe 06/15/2009 1:21 PM
Hide
-12+

Stream and CUDA are likely to go the way of the dodo soon though. OpenCL's where its at. Unfortunately its a tad hard to get programming with it right now since you need to be a registered developer on nVidia's Early Access Program or you have to be a registered developer with Apple's developer program with access to pre-release copies of Snow Leopard.
Virtually no one will bother using CUDA or Steam after OpenCL's out - why limit yourself to one hardware base after all? It'd be like writing Windows software that only ran on AMD processors and not Intel. Developers will not bother writing for both when they can just use one language that can run on both hardware platforms.

wasteoftime 06/15/2009 1:28 PM
Hide
--2+

How come Folding is not something you guys ever cover in your CUDA comparisons. The main reason I left an ati card and bought an nvidia was the huge increase in my ppd.

armistitiu 06/15/2009 1:52 PM
Hide
-5+

wasteoftime :
How come Folding is not something you guys ever cover in your CUDA comparisons. The main reason I left an ati card and bought an nvidia was the huge increase in my ppd.


Yeah...that's just what i want from a GPU : Folding@Home. I find video transcoding to be a more 'useful' way of using you GPU.
Nice article. Haven't seen one in a long time.

thejerk 06/15/2009 2:52 PM
Hide
--1+

why did i feel the expresso "overview" page was an embedded advertisement?

Sailer 06/15/2009 2:54 PM
Hide
-1+

wasteoftime :
How come Folding is not something you guys ever cover in your CUDA comparisons. The main reason I left an ati card and bought an nvidia was the huge increase in my ppd.



I agree. The last three cards that I bought were Nvidia cards, based solely on their folding performance. When gaming, I prefer an ATI card. Oh yeah, I have four computers, three using Nvidia cards for folding and one with an ATI card for gaming. I think it would be great if the reviews included Folding@Home performance. It might also encourage ATI to make cards that did better for folding.

astrotrain1000 06/15/2009 2:58 PM
Hide
-0+

Anandtech was saying that the output quality from ATI wasn't very good, but I didn't see any mention of it here. Can anyone confirm or deny, I have a 4870 but I'd like to know how the output quality is before I buy Expresso.

nickcardwell 06/15/2009 2:59 PM
Hide
-0+

I have used newer cards from both Nvidia and ATI, I also love my Mac. I would really like to see OpenCL take off. It's cross platform with Nvidia and ATI on both Mac and PC. That to me would end the CUDA / Stream war and bring it back to simply who builds the better GPU.

thejerk 06/15/2009 3:01 PM
Hide
-0+

"Final score: AMD 3, Nvidia 4. However, I’m going to call this a tie..."

It actually IS a tie. You awarded NVidia a point for not offering an option for WMV encoding,
even though performance showed a very slight, but measurable, increase with Stream enabled.

You didn't give credit where credit was due. Do it right the next time.

lire210 06/15/2009 3:28 PM
Hide
--1+

the gpu looks a bit weak on the ati side. when was the gtx 280 ever ment to go head to head with a hd4870. i would like to suggest a hd4890 for da job bit more even. that is if we are going on who drivers are better which seems to be more of the focus considering the lack of hardware evenness.

JPForums 06/15/2009 3:57 PM
Hide
--1+

There is no mention of how good the output quality is. How does it compare to the source? How does it compare to nVidia?

williamvw 06/15/2009 6:37 PM
Hide
-3+

Hey, all. Many thanks for the initial feedback. A few notes:

1. I would have loved to test with the Folding@home app. I actually tried to when doing the former CUDA-on-a-budget article. However, I quickly discovered that the results were meaningless because the work loads varied too much. NVIDIA helped solve this problem by creating a series of batch files for SETI@home that used a common work load, and that's what you see in the article. However, there is no such tool that I know of for Folding@home and AMD/ATI has not released an equivalent set of testing tools for SETI@home.

2. I count seven charts -- 4 to 3. I did give the better coding point to NVIDIA on page 7. NVIDIA has 0 points on page 6 and two points by the end of page 7. :-)

3. The side-by-side captures you see in the later article pages show samples of Stream vs. CUDA output. These are taken from GPU-accelerated output files. To my eye, they look almost identical, but I offer them up for you to make your own judgments. I would say that the output quality issues that plagued Stream's initial launch have been remedied.

4. Yes, I agree that, ultimately, OpenCL and DirectX 11 will lay the entire Stream/CUDA issue to rest. But that's someday. For now, this article's purpose was to take a look at today's technology.

5. I tested with an HD 4890, not a 4870. Apologies if there are any typos to the contrary.

6. There is no behind-the-scenes money changing hands that resulted in my page detailing CyberLink Espresso. I developed that page for two reasons. First, as I mentioned, Espresso is the ONLY application today with even support for both Stream and CUDA, so it made sense to me that many people might want to buy it because of its agnostic support -- and it's a great tool. Second, in part because of this agnosticism, CyberLink has been immensely helpful to me in writing this article in a fair, even-minded, and accurate manner. The company helped me through many nights, often maintaining email dialogues well past midnight. So forgive me for being enthusiastic about the product. If CyberLink's customer support is even half its press support, I think you'll be pleased.


Sponsored links

Related articles

  • ATI Stream: Finally, CUDA Has Competition

    You've already seen our coverage of apps optimized for Nvidia's CUDA technology. Now we're taking a look at the performance of AMD's Stream framework, which was recently revamped in a Catalyst 9.5 driver hotfix. We even sneak in an interview with ATI.

  • CUDA-Enabled Apps: Measuring Mainstream GPU Performance

    You've heard all about CUDA and speeding up general-purpose apps using graphics horsepower. The time has finally come to put the pedal to the metal and benchmark two mainstream GPUs, while exploring how these applications are really used!

  • AMD's Super Bypass - AMD Improves their 750 Chipset

    AMD quietly enables a new feature in their recent Northbridge. This new enhancement reduces some of their memory bottlenecks within their 750 chipset.