backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by elgoliath.. on Sep 10 at 3:23 PM

AMD compares noise reduction between its ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT and NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT  (Source: AMD)

Visible ghosting on the NVIDIA offering with the noise reduction slider at 75%  (Source: AMD)
NVIDIA PureVideo HD causes ghosting in noise reduction tests, AMD alleges

Last week, AMD briefed members of the press regarding Silicon Optix’s HD HQV benchmark. AMD alleged its competitor, NVIDIA, cheated in the benchmark’s noise reduction section. The noise reduction test accounted for 25% of the overall score in HD HQV.

Avivo HD and PureVideo HD equipped offerings from both camps deliver perfect scores of 100 in the HD HQV benchmark. However, AMD alleges NVIDIA optimizes its drivers with an aggressive noise reduction algorithm that causes visible ghosting. AMD also claims its noise reduction algorithm reduces noise but does not leave any visible ghosting, preserving picture detail.

AMD’s internal testing with NVIDIA ForceWare 163.11 beta drivers revealed the ghosting in both noise reduction test scenes. AMD provided a side-by-side comparison showing the visual ghosting.

DailyTech contacted NVIDIA for an official response. The company denies the alleged cheating optimizations, citing the ForceWare 163.11 drivers are old and had a aggressive default driver setting that causes the ghosting, according to Rick Allen, Notebook and Multimedia PR manager, NVIDIA.

The latest ForceWare 163.44 beta drivers have a less agressive default setting. Users can also adjust the amount of noise reduction applied during post processing with the 0-100-percent noise reduction slider, he added.

“As we openly told reviewers, using aggressive noise reduction settings may cause ghosting depending on the content played so we recommend using moderate settings. We also recommend the improved 163.44 drivers release a few weeks ago which reduce this effect,” Allen said.

NVIDIA also fights back at the allegations, highlighting that the ForceWare driver allows users to adjust the noise reduction levels on their own, and even completely disable the feature. AMD’s noise reduction implementation is adaptive and applies varying levels of noise reduction, depending on the situation and what the driver deems necessary.

However, users cannot turn off AMD's noise reduction feature, which may be an issue in intentionally grainy movies such as 300, according to Allen.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
So whats the conclusion?
By SilthDraeth on 9/4/2007 6:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
And the last sentence was sort of vague.
quote:
However, users cannot turn off the noise reduction feature, which may be an issue in intentionally grainy movies such as 300, according to Allen.


Above that sentence it states users can disable the feature all together for NVidia. So was that statement meant for AMD, or NVidia?

And what is the conclusion, was the test where AMD and NVidia received 100 score ran with the .11 drivers or the .44, and are the .44 actually available, etc, etc.




RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Makaveli on 9/4/2007 6:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
User can disable it on Nvidia's card not ATI. Yes that statement was prooly worded. i'm not sure about your other question tho.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Khato on 9/4/2007 6:58:20 PM , Rating: 1
Well, just read the paragraph above the last sentence and you have your answer.

As for a conclusion... Grats AMD, you can make your competitor's product look worse by messing with settings that you don't even give your customers. Why do they feel the need to do this? Well, just search for a review that uses Silicon Optix’s HD HQV benchmark and you'll have your answer.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Zstream on 9/4/2007 9:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? You have no frigging idea of what the setup was. So please spare me the drama....


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Lightning III on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: So whats the conclusion?
By abhaxus on 9/4/2007 11:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you get that this is the 3rd generation of AMD cards with mandated hdcp? When I bought my 8800 GTS in March, a large part of my reason for going with that card was that finding a card from either brand with HDCP support was a chore. A few 1900GT cards had it and a few 1950 cards, and a few 7900GS and higher nvidia cards had it. But ALL of the 8800s had it at the time. So I went with an 8800.

I love my 8800 but the drivers drive me crazy (sorry for the pun). Flat panel scaling is still broken and some older games simply don't work. I've heard that AMD has similar issues with flat panel scaling but it will be at least a year before I buy a new video card so I will have to wait and see.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Lightning III on 9/5/2007 8:38:31 AM , Rating: 1
Lets see it was all the way back with my X1600 or what was really the X1800 family. The next revision was the X1650 or the X1950 family of cards and we are not counting the X1950PRO which was really a whole new chip in between.

So yeah depending how you count em, three generations. I think my X850PRO had it as well but I don't think it was AIB mandatory till the X1800 line.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Anh Huynh on 9/5/2007 10:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
The first AMD cards to support HDCP was the X1950XTX, X1900XT 256MB, X1950 Pro and X1650 XT. That was all one generation.

The X1900 lacked proper HDCP keys, even though the GPU was HDCP compatible.

It was a major issue: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=851


By Lightning III on 9/5/2007 12:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
I got a HIS X1600 512mb turbo that's HDCP Compliant that was the previous generation I guess I can scan the box for you when I get home. I was unsure about my old X850 maybe it was there on the built by ATI cards but not for AIB partners.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Anh Huynh on 9/5/2007 12:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don't consider HDMI audio on the AMD solutions a necessary plus, considering it provides absolutely no benefit compared to the S/PDIF input solution.

It still doesn't output LPCM audio for HD DVD's and is still a high-definition audio based solution. At least with a S/PDIF input solution, you can choose your own sound card and take advantage of Dolby Digital Live encoding.

And the NVIDIA solutions support VC-1 decoding.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Lightning III on 9/5/2007 9:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
Really so working with a micro ATX or SFF system max PCI slotage is 2. so the real choice is dual tuners or your X-FI or paying for the super pricey PCI EXpress 1x cards.

I personally use the spdif out solution.

But not everybody starts out with the corvette, most build a escort first and then transition that way.

on a seperate note AMD includes their HDMI adaptor I don't seem to see anything resembling that on the included bundles photos on newegg do you have to pay extra for that.

Also I seem to remember NVIDIA boys having to pay extra for the purevideo codecs.

Surely this is no longer true.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Anh Huynh on 9/5/2007 10:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
Some motherboards have onboard audio that features Dolby Digital Live encoding.

You have to pay for the PureVideo decoder itself, which allows you to decode DVD/MPEG2 content.

It's no different than having to pay for Cyberlink PowerDVD to watch DVD movies on AMD cards or take full advantage of the Avivo HD optimizations.

The DVI to HDMI adapter bundle is up to the partner.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Lightning III on 9/5/2007 1:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know my power DVD came for free with my 550 pro,my HD-TV wonder and my 650pro.

all at no extra cost

And what I hope is a little extra compatability, since my tuners and my video card are designed and manufactured by the same company.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By elgoliath on 9/6/2007 5:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
If you think power DVD was free just because it wasn't listed on the invoice, I have something I'd like to sell you...

You paid for it, they just rolled the charge into the total price.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Lightning III on 9/5/2007 9:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
NVIDIA
VC1 support = software decode = cpu utilization = more heat or higher cpu requirement


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Anh Huynh on 9/5/2007 10:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you know something NVIDIA doesn't, their PureVideo HD page specifically states VC-1 HD decode acceleration.

quote:
NVIDIA PureVideo HD technology delivers outstanding picture clarity, ultra-smooth video, vivid color, and precise image scaling for video and HD DVD and Blu-ray movies. PureVideo HD accelerates and enhances high-definition movies in H.264, VC-1, WMV, and MPEG-2 formats, delivering life-like images that have up to six times the detail of standard DVD movies. High definition post-processing features, including advanced de-interlacing, noise reduction, and edge enhancement, provide spectacular picture clarity at resolutions up to 1080p—the highest HD resolution available.


http://www.nvidia.com/page/purevideo_HD.html


By Lightning III on 9/5/2007 12:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
software acceleration is not hardware acceleration

quote:
while the 8600 GTS and 8800 GTS share roughly the same performance. The HD 2600 XT leads the pack with an incredibly low CPU overhead of just 5 percent. This is probably approaching the minimum overhead of AACS handling and disk accesses through PowerDVD, which is very impressive. At the same time, the savings with GPU bitstream decode are not as impressive under VC-1 as on H.264 on the high end.


or

quote:
VC-1 bitstream decoding doesn't have as large an impact as H.264 bitstream decoding. We would have to drop down to a significantly slower CPU in order for the difference to offer AMD an advantage


perhaps a 754 sempy or a socket A northwood

most first time HTPC attemps are spare part rigs

AMD's solution is more flexible for legacy parts or the new low power AMD BE processors

I just hope Mr Wilson got a pair of ULTRAS in the mail for this quote
quote:
quote:
For now, we're going to recommend that users interested in HTPC setups stick with the tools that can get the job done best no matter what the source material is. The only options for HD video intensive systems today are the Radeon HD 2600 and GeForce 8600 series cards. For its better handling of noise reduction (and especially the fact that it can be turned off) we recommend the 8600 GT/GTS above the other options in spite of the fact that the 2600 XT provided better CPU offloading.


Because he managed to ignore all of my previous posts reasons to give the recomondation to NVIDIA.
Who has made good fist attempt at breaking in to the ATI dominated HTPC world.

and thats why AMD had to step forward and cry foul


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By Thorburn on 9/5/2007 6:52:16 AM , Rating: 3
Points 2 and 3 are a little unfair.

First of all, NVIDIA us an 80nm process for the G84 and G86 GPUs, G80 (8800) is 90nm.

Additionally testing has shown the 2600 XT and 8600GTS to be roughly equal in terms of power consumption.

The PEG power connector on the 8600GTS seems to be more a case of NVIDIA accounting for overclocking and being a little conservative than it being needed at stock.

For HTPC's however the HD ranges mandatory HDCP support and more elegant HDMI solution make it a great choice, the lackluster 3D performance being less important in this marketplace.


RE: So whats the conclusion?
By stevenplatt on 9/5/2007 8:05:06 AM , Rating: 3
I did much research on which solution was better for HD playback. ATI always came out on top. I am not an ATI fanboy, quite the contrary, but ATI HD 2000 series cards are more feature rich. There is a reason their production was delayed. I remember reading reviews where 2600xt would spank 8600GT in video quality. On numerous reviews Nvidia magically produced new "Beta" drivers that sudenly acheived perfect scores on the image quality tests. I dont doubt for a second that there was some driver optimizing. Besides this is nothing new. Didn't Nvidia optimize for 3D mark? In other news...My HD 2600xt arrives tomorrow. Don't think I'm biased. I genuinly thought the image quality on the Radeon was that much better.