Part 4: Avivo HD vs. PureVideo HD

Features
By Don Woligroski
published

CPU Usage Benchmarks: Radeon 3200 vs. GeForce 8200

Now that we’ve examined the image quality, let’s have a close look at raw playback performance. Are these integrated solutions fast enough at the 1920x1080 progressive resolution with a dual-core 4800+ CPU?

We’ll test these motherboards with three different Blu-ray disks, each one created with a different video codec: “The Fifth Element: Remastered” is our H.264 title, “300” is our VC-1 title, and “Tomb Raider” is our MPEG2 title.

First, we’ll examine the toughest codec to play back, which is the one that requires the most processing resources and is therefore the most difficult on the hardware: H.264.

At first look, it seems the GeForce 8200 is breathing a little easier than the Radeon 3200, but first looks can be deceiving. See how the Radeon delivers more consistent performance and the GeForce fluctuates wildly? What this reflects—and what you can’t see from this chart—is that even though CPU usage is below 100%, the GeForce 8200 has trouble playing at this resolution and is dropping frames.

This frame dropping is obvious during playback on the 8200, but playback on the Radeon 3200 appears totally smooth. The frame dropping on the GeForce 8200 appears linked to the resolution — it does a much smoother job at 1280x720 progressive resolution (more on that later). But let’s finish looking at the CPU benchmarks using the other, easier codecs before digging deeper into this issue.

The old MPEG2 codec is clearly taking a much smaller toll on our graphics processors. Both solutions are playing back smoothly in this title. While the GeForce has a slight CPU usage advantage, it’s hardly worth mentioning. Finally, the VC-1 codec:

The VC-1 codec shows us similar results to MPEG-2, with the GeForce and Radeon providing nearly identical CPU utilization performance.

Frankly, while the CPU utilization numbers are showing a close race, we’re still concerned with the GeForce 8200’s frame skipping behavior we saw using the demanding H.264 codec. Let’s dig a little deeper into that specific issue by concentrating on the H.264 codec and seeing what happens at different resolutions.

Don Woligroski
58 Comments Comment from the forums
  • abzillah
    Don't the 780G chips have hybrid technology? It would have been great to see what kind of performance difference it would make to add a discrete card with a 780G chip. Motherboards with integrated graphics cost about the same as those without integrated graphics, and so I would choose an integrated graphics + a discrete graphic card for hybrid performance.
    Reply
  • liemfukliang
    Wao, you should update this article part 5 in tuesday when NDA 9300 lift out. 9300 vs 790GX. Does this NVidia VGA also defect?
    Reply
  • TheGreatGrapeApe
    Nice job Don !
    Interesting seeing the theoretical HQV difference being a realistic nil due to playability (does image enhancement of a skipping image matter?)

    I'll be linking to this one again.

    Next round HD4K vs GTX vs GF9 integrated, complete with dual view decoding. >B~)
    Reply
  • kingraven
    Great article, specially liked the decrypted video benchmarks as I was indeed expecting a much higher difference.

    Also was expecting that the single core handled it better as I use a old laptop with pentium M 1500mhz & ATI 9600 as a HTPC and it plays nearly all HD media I trow at it smoothly (Including 1080P) trough ffdshow. Notice the files are usually Matroska or AVI and the codecs vary but usually are H264.

    I admit since its an old PC without blueray or HD-DVD I have no idea how the "real deal" would perform, probably as bad or worse as the article says :P
    Reply
  • modtech
    A refreshingly informative article. Well done.
    Reply
  • I have a gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H m/b (780G)
    I just bought a Samsung LE46A656 TV and I have the following problem:

    When I connect the TV with standard VGA (D-SUB) cable,
    I can use Full HD (1920 X 1080) correctly.

    If I use the HDMI or DVI (with DVI-> HDMI adaptor) I can not use 1920 X 1080 correctly.
    The screen has black borders on all sides (about 3cm) and the picture is weird, like the monitor was not driven in its native resolution, but the 1920 X 1080 signal was compressed to the resolution that was visible on my TV.

    I also tried my old laptop (also ATI, x700) and had the same problem.
    I thought that my TV was defective but then I tried an old NVIDIA card I had and everything worked perfect!!!
    Full 1920 X 1080 with my HDMI input (with DVI-> HDMI adaptor).

    I don't know if this is a ATI driver problem or a general ATI hardware limitation,
    but I WILL NEVER BUY ATI AGAIN.
    They claim HDMI with full HD support. Well they are lying!
    Reply
  • That's funny, bit-tech had some rather different numbers for HQV tests for the 780g board.

    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/03/04/amd_780g_integrated_graphics_chipset/10

    What's going on here? I assume bit-tech tweaked player settings to improve results, and you guys left everything at default?
    Reply
  • puet
    What about the image enhacements in the HQV test posible with a 780G and a Phenom procesor?, would this mix stand up in front of the discrete solution chosen?.
    This one could be an interesting part V in the articles series.
    Reply
  • genored
    azraelI have a gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H m/b (780G)I just bought a Samsung LE46A656 TV and I have the following problem:When I connect the TV with standard VGA (D-SUB) cable, I can use Full HD (1920 X 1080) correctly.If I use the HDMI or DVI (with DVI-> HDMI adaptor) I can not use 1920 X 1080 correctly. The screen has black borders on all sides (about 3cm) and the picture is weird, like the monitor was not driven in its native resolution, but the 1920 X 1080 signal was compressed to the resolution that was visible on my TV.I also tried my old laptop (also ATI, x700) and had the same problem.I thought that my TV was defective but then I tried an old NVIDIA card I had and everything worked perfect!!!Full 1920 X 1080 with my HDMI input (with DVI-> HDMI adaptor).I don't know if this is a ATI driver problem or a general ATI hardware limitation, but I WILL NEVER BUY ATI AGAIN.They claim HDMI with full HD support. Well they are lying!
    LEARN TO DOWNLOAD DRIVERS
    Reply
  • Guys...I own this Gigabyte board. HDCP works over DVI because that's what I use at home. Albeit I go from DVI from the motherboard to HDMI on the TV (don't ask why, it's just the cable I had). I don't have ANYDVD so, I know that it works.

    As for the guy having issues with HDMI with the ATI 3200 onboard, dude, there were some problems with the initial BIOS. Update them, update your drivers and you won't have a problem. My brother has the same board too and he uses HDMI and it works just fine. Noob...
    Reply