Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

Video Quality Tested: GeForce Vs. Radeon In HQV 2.0

by

We’ve used the HQV benchmark version 1.0 for a few years now, and have only recently adopted the newer 2.0 version for some of our reviews. The latest build is far more complex and demanding than the original benchmark, but the raw scores don’t mean much unless you understand how to interpret them. Because of this, we’re taking our readers through a step-by-step explanation of the HD HQV Benchmark, version 2.0.

We don’t just explain the significance of the individual tests, but we also test a broad cross-section of relevant graphics cards out there today. By the end of this article. you will understand the significance of the individual HQV 2.0 scores and know which graphics cards excel when it comes to HD video-playback quality.

We’re not going to waste a lot of time with preliminaries, so let’s jump straight in to driver settings.

Driver Settings Test Methodology

The graphics card manufacturers prefer that we change the driver settings for each test to achieve the best result and the highest overall score. We don’t feel this method produces a realistic result because users wouldn’t tweak their driver settings each time a movie scene changes. We prefer to lock the driver settings for each graphics card across the entire benchmark for a real-world score.

Even the lowest-end graphics cards can have the same driver quality options as their higher-end counterparts. But in some cases, bottom-rung hardware will stutter when tasked with more demanding video enhancements, such as de-noise or dynamic contrast. Our goal is to find the best settings that each graphics card can handle without dropping frames. This should provide the realistic overall score for which we’re looking.

Share:
6
Comments
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
mi1ez 02/02/2011 12:46
Hide
-2+

Quote :Arguably, the 2:2 cadence is somewhat less important than 3:2. Most films are recorded at 24 FPS and this is converted with the 3:2 pulldown cadence, while the 2:2 cadence is only used in countries following the PAL and SECAM standards that shoot film destined for television at 25 FPS. As such, I question the wisdom of assigning these two cadences the same point value. The 3:2 cadence should be worth more points.

There are people live in these PAL and SECAM regions you obnoxious tosser!

mi1ez 02/02/2011 12:53
Hide
-1+

Quote :It’s arguable that these cadences should be assigned far fewer points than 3:2 and 2:2 film cadences. There are some relatively obscure ratios here that many viewers will never see. So, in our opinion, the weighting of these tests on the final score (30 points out of 210) may unrealistically indicate all-around video performance.


Actually, I quite liking watching animation, so they're NOT obscure, and SHOULD receive the weighting.

mi1ez 02/02/2011 13:16
Hide
-0+

Interesting results, pity it's so American and narrow minded.

gdilord 02/02/2011 13:17
Hide
-1+

mi1ez :
There are people live in these PAL and SECAM regions

Thanks for mentioning us mi1ez!

mi1ez 02/02/2011 14:01
Hide
-1+

gdilord wrote :

Thanks for mentioning us mi1ez!



That really pissed me off when I read it!

dazzaling69 02/02/2011 15:54
Hide
-3+

NTSC is the minority TV system in the world regardless of whether you measure it by viewers or countries.

Check out this for a pictorial representation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg

Depending on how you count it:

45 - Number of countries that use 60i system
131 - Number of countries that use 50i system

You need to acknowledge that America is not the world!!!

Best offers

Newsletters


OK