HD Video Playback: HQV Blu-ray Benchmark
One of the tasks that the cards in this price segment will be expected to perform is home theater PC (HTPC) duty. To asses that, we used the HQV Blu-ray quality benchmark with the following results:
| Graphics Processor | Score |
|---|---|
| Radeon HD 4670/4650 | 100 |
| GeForce GT 220 | 100 |
| Radeon HD 4550 | 100 |
| GeForce 210 @ 720p | 100 |
| GeForce 210 @ 1080p | 75 |
First, the good news: all of these solutions are able to achieve superlative image quality enhancements, delivering HD noise reduction (25 points of the total score), video resolution interpolation (20 points), jaggy reduction (20 points), and inverse telecine (35 points).
To get these scores, we had to enable noise reduction in the Radeon drivers (at 60), and both noise reduction (at 70) and inverse telecine in the GeForce drivers. These noise-reduction settings produced similar ideal results to my admittedly subjective eye.
The only test I could discern any difference in as far as quality was the jaggy-reduction test. Both the Radeon and GeForce cards did a fine job with this task, but the GeForces seemed to do it just a bit better. I gave them both full marks because the difference didn't seem enough to warrant extra points for the GeForce cards. The point is that any of these products offer the same level of HD-video playback quality as a standalone Blu-ray player.
There was one card that did have trouble performing all of the quality enhancements at the same time if tasked to do so beyond 720p: the GeForce 210, which stuttered during playback with noise reduction enabled at 1080p. With noise reduction turned off, the GeForce 210 was able to play back video without stuttering at 1080p (or 1920x1080).
The rest of the cards, including the GeForce 210's competition, the Radeon HD 4550, were able to play back Blu-ray video with noise reduction enabled and no skipping at 1920x1080. They could even play the video smoothly when the desktop resolution was set to 2560x1600.
The only other limitation we could find was that the Radeon HD 4550 driver doesn't allow noise reduction to be enabled at the same time as the dynamic contrast feature. Since I'm not a fan of dynamic contrast, this isn't much of an issue for me, but for those of you who put it high on the list, it might be a notable limitation.
If you are wondering why I haven't tested Blu-ray playback CPU usage with these cards, it's because it has become almost completely irrelevant. As I demonstrated in the last Avivo Versus PureVideo Versus Clear Video review, even today's lowest-end CPUs can play back Blu-ray movies on a relatively weak integrated GPU utilizing 20% or less of its available resources.
LOL Nvidia Just now work at DirectX 10.1
When ATI Radeon have a New Videocard and the Best in The World with DirectX 11 
AMD-ATI Rullz
ATI rullz, they have 2. it keeps AMD alive.
I think they're both 64-bit
I don't really know what to make of these cards..two steps forwards, one step back is the closest I can come to a definitive impression.
The 210 seems like it' only good for low-spec HTPC's, or environments where minimal power draw is an absolute necessity. The features like CUDA and extended video acceleration are nice, but do they make up for that 64-bit drudgery that seems to go hand-in-hand with so many nVidia offerings? No, it doesn't..the competition in this price range is too stiff to start making those kind of cut-backs.
Just drop the junk and focus on what's good. The 220 is far superior to the 210, good enough to compete with AMD's budget offerings whilst sporting some nice new features. That 210 on the other hand is the 'MX' of modern technology..you just can't fob people off with this junk anymore, in my opinion. Roll with the technology instead of repeatedly rolling out junk that can barely compete with yesteryear's products..
Not what i was hoping for, why cant nvidia make a card that will rival the ati 4770 and the 5750, the gts 250 power consumption is way to high, i hope the GeForce GTS 340 is good
Compare these cards to say, the Geforce Geforce 2 MX 200, Geforce FX 5600 or the Geforce 7300LE - cards supported the latest features only in name, not in performance. Same thing seems to be happening again.
I reckon even onboard video would be enough to lure budget uses away from the 210. nVidia has obviously skimped, scraped and cut corners until they're left with half a decent card, resulting in a very limited life-span unless you can settle for basic of tasks, very light gaming as well as longer CUDA processing times.
Alas, nVidia obviously feels there's a market for this stuff. But I learned my lesson a long time ago not to be duped by the fancy sales talk. nVidia can make good products, but they make recycled junk, and that's what I think they've done here. The 220 seems OK but that 210..it's a lemming in my book.
*220.
now if only you could SLI these midgets and get more decent performance
which is the better ati radeon hd4350 or the geforce 8400 gs
your opinions are well needed
I have the gt 220 and i think its a very nice card
i have the asus engt 220 with 1 gb ddr3 memory. This is a low-profile card and very nice for games like call of duty 4.
It comes with a few programs (asus gamer osd, smartdoctor and some other programs)
When i play Call of Duty 4 it runs max detail very easy. And on the Nvidia site it says that the following games are viewed good on card:
- World of Warcraft
- Spore
- The Sims 3
- Fallout 3
- Left 4 Dead.
I have played left 4 dead myself on max quality, and its very nice gameplay
related links:
nvidia site: http://www.nvidia.com/object/produ [...] 20_us.html
videocard benchmark :
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ [...] rce+GT+220