Graphics cards are all about 3D, right? Read most graphics card reviews, anywhere on the 'net or in print, and you'll see they focus almost entirely on 3D performance and features. We understand this because that's why we would buy these expensive devices in the first place. Windows 2D performance is essentially a solved problem (at least until Windows Vista), so what else is there for the graphics card to do?
One word: video. Video on the PC is tremendously popular. Peer-to-peer networks share large video files while web-based video (including the ever-popular movie trailers) expand rapidly thanks in large part to broadband connections. Now with the PC's emerging role as a media device for the living room, video becomes even more important.
Both ATI and Nvidia have been touting their video quality and performance lately, and both have chosen to market the video experience. Nvidia has PureVideo while ATI has Avivo. Both are catch-all marketing words that describe the companies video efforts, from hardware to software (in ATI's case, the Avivo label also carries display output technologies under its umbrella).
Today, we're going to take a look at the quality and performance of video with the latest generation of Nvidia and ATI cards. We'll look at CPU utilization with a variety of source material and describe some of our subjective and objective quality observations.
Final Thoughts
Clearly, ATI offers better video support in their latest graphics cards than Nvidia does. They dominate the HQV benchmark tests, offer much lower CPU utilization for DVD playback, and offer solutions for acceleration H.264 and DivX (though one requires a specific codec and the other a specific player). In really tough video scenarios, like those with odd cadence patterns or noisy DVDs, ATI delivers better quality. Their de-interlacing algorithms seem just a little bit better, too.
This is the rub: Most users will never run into those situations. The vast majority of users only ever encounter reasonably well-made DVDs that only require 3:2 pulldown or none at all, and have no interlaced images. Odds are, most computer users will only very rarely run into a situation where the visual quality between ATI and Nvidia's latest graphics cards is different enough to notice, and that's if you stick your nose up to the screen and start to scrutinize the video very closely. Users that have TV tuners in their PC will certainly appreciate the good de-interlacing and noise reduction in the Radeon X1000 series of cards.
For now, we can say that ATI is the clear video winner, but whether that matters to you personally depends largely on what video-related tasks you use your computer for. If all you do is watch downloaded clips and movie trailers, both ATI and Nvidia's hardware will give you a very similar experience. If you're a hardcore video nut that is willing to jump through a few codec and player-related hoops, and if you have a lot of funky DVDs or watch a lot of TV on your PC, ATI is clearly the better choice. Of course, Nvidia continues to work feverishly on their video features, and it won't be long at all before we see improved performance, quality, and H.264 acceleration in a driver update. Both manufacturers are likely to make significant strides in video (both hardware and software) in the coming year, so this story is far from over.
For complete review and benchies go to : ExtremeTech
One word: video. Video on the PC is tremendously popular. Peer-to-peer networks share large video files while web-based video (including the ever-popular movie trailers) expand rapidly thanks in large part to broadband connections. Now with the PC's emerging role as a media device for the living room, video becomes even more important.
Both ATI and Nvidia have been touting their video quality and performance lately, and both have chosen to market the video experience. Nvidia has PureVideo while ATI has Avivo. Both are catch-all marketing words that describe the companies video efforts, from hardware to software (in ATI's case, the Avivo label also carries display output technologies under its umbrella).
Today, we're going to take a look at the quality and performance of video with the latest generation of Nvidia and ATI cards. We'll look at CPU utilization with a variety of source material and describe some of our subjective and objective quality observations.
Final Thoughts
Clearly, ATI offers better video support in their latest graphics cards than Nvidia does. They dominate the HQV benchmark tests, offer much lower CPU utilization for DVD playback, and offer solutions for acceleration H.264 and DivX (though one requires a specific codec and the other a specific player). In really tough video scenarios, like those with odd cadence patterns or noisy DVDs, ATI delivers better quality. Their de-interlacing algorithms seem just a little bit better, too.
This is the rub: Most users will never run into those situations. The vast majority of users only ever encounter reasonably well-made DVDs that only require 3:2 pulldown or none at all, and have no interlaced images. Odds are, most computer users will only very rarely run into a situation where the visual quality between ATI and Nvidia's latest graphics cards is different enough to notice, and that's if you stick your nose up to the screen and start to scrutinize the video very closely. Users that have TV tuners in their PC will certainly appreciate the good de-interlacing and noise reduction in the Radeon X1000 series of cards.
For now, we can say that ATI is the clear video winner, but whether that matters to you personally depends largely on what video-related tasks you use your computer for. If all you do is watch downloaded clips and movie trailers, both ATI and Nvidia's hardware will give you a very similar experience. If you're a hardcore video nut that is willing to jump through a few codec and player-related hoops, and if you have a lot of funky DVDs or watch a lot of TV on your PC, ATI is clearly the better choice. Of course, Nvidia continues to work feverishly on their video features, and it won't be long at all before we see improved performance, quality, and H.264 acceleration in a driver update. Both manufacturers are likely to make significant strides in video (both hardware and software) in the coming year, so this story is far from over.
For complete review and benchies go to : ExtremeTech