Part 4: Avivo HD Vs. PureVideo HD
Table of contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. HDCP, HDMI, DVI, 1080p, And Other Definitions
- 3. Test System Components And Software
- 4. Quirks, Frustrations, And Compliance Woes
- 5. HQV’s High Definition Video Quality Benchmark
- 6. HQV’s High Definition Video Quality Benchmark, Cont'd
- 7. CPU Usage Benchmarks: Radeon 3200 vs. GeForce 8200
- 8. Resolution Benchmarks: 1080p vs. 780p
- 9. CPU Benchmarks: Dual-Core Athlon 4800+ Vs. Single-Core Sempron 3200+
- 10. Graphics Memory Benchmarks: 256MB Vs. 128MB
- 11. Decryption Benchmarks: Hardware Vs. Software Decryption
- 12. Discrete Vs. Integrated Graphics Benchmarks
- 13. Conclusion
In part one of our Avivo vs. PureVideo comparison, we concentrated on DVD playback. In our second article in this series, we focused on high definition video formats—HD DVD in particular—and we dug in to what it takes to get them to work on the PC. In the third article, we evaluated the end-user experience with low-end video accelerators.
In this article, we will be digging deep into the performance of the first integrated high-def video accelerators—the Radeon HD 3200 (used in AMD’s 780G chipset) and the GeForce 8200 (used in Nvidia’s MCP78S chipset). Both chipsets are for AMD socket AM2+ CPUs, so we can perform a real apples-to-apples comparison here.
Will these solutions perform similarly, or will a true leader emerge? How well will these solutions work with slower single-core budget CPUs? What amount of memory needs to be allocated to the onboard graphics for Blu-ray playback? How do they compare to discrete video cards? We will answer all of these questions and more.
The Competitors
Let’s begin by having a closer look at the technical differences between the integrated Radeon HD 3200 and GeForce 8200 graphics processors.
| Codename: | 780G |
| Process: | 55nm |
| Universal Shaders: | 40 |
| Texture Units: | 4 |
| ROPs: | 4 |
| Memory Bus: | 64-bit |
| Core Speed MHz: | 500 |
| Memory Speed MHz: | 400 (800 effective) |
| DirectX / Shader Model | DX 10 / SM 4.0 |
In terms of hardware, the integrated Radeon HD 3200 is a carbon copy of the discrete Radeon HD 3450 (and the previous 2400 series as well), with the same number of shaders, texture units, and ROPs. I can’t recall another instance where a contemporary discrete desktop video card shared exact specifications with an integrated part; usually integrated motherboard graphics are a generation behind even the low end discrete cards. In this respect, the 780G is special. Of course, it still suffers from the plague of sharing system memory over a 64-bit bus, but out of the gate, the 3200 shows promise.
| Codename: | 7CP78S |
| Process: | 80nm |
| Universal Shaders: | 16 |
| Texture Units: | 4 |
| ROPs: | 4 |
| Memory Bus: | 64-bit |
| Core Speed MHz: | 500 |
| Memory Speed MHz: | 400 (800 effective) |
| DirectX / Shader Model | DX 10 / SM 4.0 |
The GeForce 8200 is a very close relative to the discrete 8400 GS, based on the older 80nm process and sporting the same 16 universal shaders. However, the number of texture units and ROPs have been cut in half compared to the 8400.
The specs look incredibly close between these two competitors, with near-identical clock speeds, texture units, and ROPs, but the GeForce 8200’s 16 universal shaders look a bit weak in comparison to the Radeon 3200’s 40 universal shaders. Consider, however, that the GeForce and Radeon architectures are vastly different, and that this is not an accurate measure of performance between the two architectures—GeForce cards have done more with fewer shaders since the GeForce 8000 series. So it’s still a good match-up.
It would have been nice to see a 780G board with sideport memory in this test (e.g. GA-MA78GPM-DS2H) as this is meant to improve performance.
Im shocked that they have chosen to use 1 dimm configuration.
both motherboards, due to the nature of the AMD platform, support dualo channel configuration to increase memory bandwidth, which would also have been enjoyed by the intergrated GPU's.
I know toms argue that the likly configuration in this set up would be 1GB, but if u were a self builder you would choose 2x512 to maximise the platforms abilitys.
not good imho.
^^
Or alternatively this was a test to see how well everything runs without dual channel support. You'd be surprised at the number of shop-bought systems that only have 1 RAM chip in them.
Nice article, I had been looking into using PureVideo with the GFX card I just bought.
Just one criticism: Using red and green lines for the charts on page 7 made it nearly impossible for me to tell which line was for which card, as I have deuteranomaly, which is a mild form of red-green color blindness. You should use slightly different colors for charts like that.