Zotac ZBOX: Brazos Goes HTPC
by Andrew Van Til on June 9, 2011 5:00 PM ESTVideo Decoding Quality
| HQV-HD Quality Tests | ||||||
| Class 1 - Video Conversion | ||||||
| Core i5-2500K | NVIDIA GT430 | AMD 3200 | AMD 6310 | AMD 5550 | Best | |
| Video Resolution | 20 | 20 | 2 | 7 | 20 | 20 |
| Dial | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Dial w/ Static Pattern | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Gray Bars | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Violin | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Film Resolution | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| Stadium 2:2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Stadium 3:2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Overlay on Film | 8 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Horizontal Text Scroll | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Vertical Text Scroll | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Response Time | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 3:2 Lock | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 2:2 Lock | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Multi-Cadence | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
| 2:2:2:4 24FPS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2:3:3:2 24FPS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 3:2:3:2:2 24FPS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 5:5 12FPS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 6:4 12FPS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 8:7 8FPS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Color Upsampling Errors | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Interlace Chroma Problem | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Chroma Upsampling Error | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Class 1 Total | 46 | 50 | 17 | 27 | 50 | 90 |
| Class 2 - Noise and Artifact Reduction | ||||||
| Core i5-2500K | NVIDIA GT430 | AMD 3200 | AMD 6310 | AMD 5550 | Best | |
| Random Noise | 14 | 17 | 14 | 14 | 9 | 20 |
| Sailboat | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Flower | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Sunrise | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Harbor Night | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Compression Artifacts | 12 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 20 |
| Scrolling Text | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Roller Coaster | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Ferris Wheel | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| Bridge Traffic | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Upscaled Compression Artifacts | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 20 |
| Text Pattern | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Roller Coaster | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| Ferris Wheel | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Bridge | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Class 2 Total | 29 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 27 | 60 |
| Class 3 - Image Scaling and Enhancements | ||||||
| Core i5-2500K | NVIDIA GT430 | AMD 3200 | AMD 6310 | AMD 5550 | Best | |
| Scaling and Filtering | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Luminance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Chrominance Frequency Bands | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Vanishing Text | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Resolution Enhancement | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Brook, Mountain, Time Elapsed Flower, Red Hair, Wood Grain | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Class 3 Total | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Class 4 - Adaptive Processing | ||||||
| Core i5-2500K | NVIDIA GT430 | AMD 3200 | AMD 6310 | AMD 5550 | Best | |
| Contrast Enhancement | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Theme Park | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Driftwood | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Beach at Dusk | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| White and Black Cats | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Skin Tone Correction | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| Skin tones | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| Class 4 Total | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 27 | 30 |
| Benchmark Total | 128 | 131 | 96 | 106 | 134 | 210 |
When evaluating HQV-HD scores it is important to remember that while numbers are produced, the outcome is still somewhat subjective and results should only be evaluated within the context that created them. In this case, testing was conducted with the above connected to a Panasonic TC-P58VT25. Given the results I’ve seen from AMD with its 5550, I was somewhat surprised to see the 6310’s performance, especially in the cadence detection section of the test—a place where AMD was the first GPU vendor to pass all of the formats. It does display an obvious advantage versus the older AMD 3200 found in the Zino HD, so hopefully we will see further improvements as the drivers mature.
HQV is a useful tool for measuring video performance, but only in a limited context. So to get a better feel for the GPU’s capabilities screen shots from three (480i/720p/1080i) “real world” samples were captured at their native resolution. Here we can see clear differences in performance between the AMD 6310 and the other GPUs (AMD 5550, Intel HD 2000 and NVIDIA GT430) in deinterlacing, noise reduction, brightness, and color. That said, the most interesting story told by the images is found when comparing the differences within the AMD family. Looking at the 480i sample in detail, we can see that the 5550 has a clear advantage in deinterlacing quality (most likely due to the 6310’s lack of vector adaptive DI support), especially along the goal line. There is also a marked difference between the states where the video processing setting were set to their defaults and when they were disabled—an indication that the GPU does not support advanced video processing (VP) features when “Enforce Smooth Video Playback” (ESVP) is enabled. Now we can debate if anything is truly missing in this regard in the comments, but it is worth noting that the VP features are not available.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
dagamer34 - Thursday, June 9, 2011 - link
Needs built-in IR, and then we can call it an HTPC.amdhunter - Saturday, June 11, 2011 - link
You can always use a vnc based remote control program with your Android or iPhone.Khato - Thursday, June 9, 2011 - link
There's been a troubling trend of late in a number of Anandtech articles where testbed configurations are not even mentioned in passing. While it's not as important here for the most part, when it comes to a comparison of power consumption, especially at low levels, the power supply used can play a larger part than the CPU. With the information available in this article, the conclusion would be that the E-350 based ZBOX is very efficient and an excellent low power choice... Whereas an article on another site that compared similarly configured systems using the same power supply had an E-350 at 100% CPU load at 23.9 watts while the same load on an i3 2100T was only at 33.6 watts. As well, the i3 2100T system actually idled a bit lower, 9.8 watts vs 12.8 for the E-350.It's details like that that make me quite interested to see what Zotac could come up with in terms of a sandy bridge based ZBOX.
zupzop - Thursday, June 9, 2011 - link
The article of xbitslabs entitled "every watt counts" you refer to, is completely misleading. If every watt would count they would have compared the E350 with the economical MSI board (they tested themselves), rather than with the energy wasting Gigabyte board.against the i3 2300. If you look for the MSI E350 on the xbitlabs pages you can verify for yourself that is consumes less power than the i3 2100 in every test reported(of course, given the testbed configuration used for the i3 2100).
Xbitlab data:
Power consumption:
Test -> Idle, CPU-B , GPU-B, CPU+GPU B
E350 + MSI 7.3 15.8 17.5, 22.1
E350 + Gigabyte 12.8, 23.9, 27.7, 31.2
i3 2100 9.7, 33.6, 22.8, 38.9
(see http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-e... )
(and http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-... )
Khato - Thursday, June 9, 2011 - link
Thanks for the further information. It's another excellent example of how the testbed configuration at these power consumption levels can have a marked effect upon how a product compares.duploxxx - Friday, June 10, 2011 - link
xbitlabs also forgets that only for the price of the i3 2300T you can buy the brazos board+cpu......lets see how they fare soon against the E2and A4 launch LIano, in the end that is where an i3 should be compared with.
octagonalman - Friday, June 10, 2011 - link
Xbitlabs didn't forget that - the price difference is mentioned clearly in the conclusion.burntham77 - Friday, June 10, 2011 - link
Just another reason why I have become a fan of MSI.duploxxx - Friday, June 10, 2011 - link
Regarding the review:This is a design build for home consumers, so therefore first of all this should have been compared against those in the same class... Atom and ION like builds i.s.o these stupid compares with desktop parts. Sure those might have also a good low power and performance quality but then you get into the self-made designs with personal touches.
THis is becomming a habbit for anandtech site, compare with what needs to be compared, it's always possible to find a cpu and gpu that will do things in a more performing way, if you want to review the ultimate self-made htpc , start building a few and compare those against each other.
Khaot:
THe reason why no provider will put a SNB inthere is first of all the price it will be much much more expensive from a cpu and mobo point of view to build and secondly since although those cpu are low power consumption they have a much higher TDP range which will force them to build and design towards the actual TDP..... not some homebrew user who makes something (which will never be that thin btw) and doesn't care about rated TDP, when intel will release lower power cpu there will also be again a pricetag.
Randomblame - Thursday, June 9, 2011 - link
I just put together an htpc in the bedroom from the pile of broken acer laptops I have. It is just the bottom of the laptop without a battery and a few of the bottom covers have been replaced with patches of duct tape but it's small, quiet, efficient, powerful enough to stream movies off my desktop, and the best part is it has a keyboard and touchpad built in - small footprints ftw