GeForce GT 430: The HTPC Crowd Gets Fermi On A Diet

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
HQV testing was a joke. You guys enabled some stupid contrast enhancements and sharpenings, then wondered why the scores were low? And didn't even tell what software you used?

HQV is probably the silliest "image quality" test ever done anyway.
 
If it's eighty dollars, it's a ripoff. I got my GT 240 (don't hate on the 15" monitor) for forty dollars after rebate, and it's still faster.
 
[citation][nom]palonaama[/nom]HQV testing was a joke. You guys enabled some stupid contrast enhancements and sharpenings, then wondered why the scores were low? [/citation]

You do realize that HQV gives higher scores when contrast enhancements, sharpening, and de-noise is enabled...

...right? 😀
 
I'd shell out $150 for a gt430 if it included a cable card slot. That would be a true all around HTPC card. Cable card tuners are rarer than hot librarians.
 
its funny how thier review is different to everyone elses review which says the image quality on the AMD cards are vastly superior to the nvidia card
 
[citation][nom]neilnh[/nom]I use my HTPC for OTA HD networks (Fox, ABC, NBC, etc), Hulu, ESPN3, Blu-ray, and DVD-rips. I get HD on most of the shows I watch, and Hulu doesn't look bad for the others. There are very few gaps, but some would care a lot about them... HBO, NFL network, ESPN content that isn't available on ESPN3. Overall though, no monthly fee for all my TV with HD DVR... I like it. Some people use cable cards, but my whole reason for going the HTPC route was to save money, not pay more.[/citation]

isn't a special antenna needed for the over the air HD signal? are there indoor ones or outdoor one i have to install in the roof of my house? sorry for the noob questions.
 
[citation][nom]lashton[/nom]its funny how their review is different to everyone elses review which says the image quality on the AMD cards are vastly superior to the nvidia card[/citation]

What's really funny is that this review didn't compare GeForce GT 430 against any Radeons when it comes to video quality testing--we said we'd do that in the near future--yet somehow you read that we did... 😀
 
NVidia still has no competitor to the HD5670, which is what I've been looking for. A DX11 card that doesn't need an external power plug with CUDA and Physx that can actually play games decently and priced around $100 or less isn't asking too much, is it?
 
[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]Quite poor card. In HQV 2.0 image quality testing HD5570 also takes victory. I guess that's why you didn't put it on comparison.[/citation]

[citation][nom]lashton[/nom]its funny how thier review is different to everyone elses review which says the image quality on the AMD cards are vastly superior to the nvidia card[/citation]


[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]What's really funny is that this review didn't compare GeForce GT 430 against any Radeons when it comes to video quality testing--we said we'd do that in the near future--yet somehow you read that we did...[/citation]


Cleeve, I have to agree with the guys here, you chose not to post at least the Radeon 5570 scores, which goes to say that you didn't do a comparison, you just stated that Nvidia did a good job.

Leaving the "good" Nvidia scores alone, while being informative, is not a very good thing to do, given that you are reviewing HTPC class cards, and that is important information to reach the final conclusion on the card's value, plus it is equivalent to leaving a question mark on the Radeon side, which gives space to speculation.

Not very good journalism, I might say. If you post Nvidia's score, you should at least post it's direct competitor's too.
 


The HQV benchmark can be, unfortunately, extremely subjective - especially when it comes to graphics cards, where the benchmark can score differently based on what settings the user chooses in the driver.

I can't comment on what other websites did, I can only test it and report my findings.
 


Here's the thing, tpi2007:

I'm not a huge fan of the HQV 2.0 benchmark. And I'm going to go into this in an in-depth review in the near future, but without spending a whole lot of time on it I'm not comfortable comparing graphics cards without digging into it and explaining a few things. I don't think the GeForce GT 430 review is the proper place to do that.

To quickly state my concerns, almost all modern graphics cards now score close to perfect marks in the HQV 1.0 benchmark, and I think HQV 1.0 sets a good standard. Now that it's an attainable goal though, the goalposts have been moved. And I don't think the HQV 2.0 final scoring is reasonable based on how most people use their HTPCs, that is to say I don't feel the score accurately reflects how good of a job a graphics card does at video playback. A lot of the tests are somewhat fringe, and I think the new benchmark can spit out a fairly pessimistic score when in real-world use most folks would never see a difference.

Not to mention, scoring is incredibly subjective on graphics cards because the result is heavily influenced by individual driver settings.

All of this adds up to a situation where I'm not real comfy posting competing scores without an in-depth analysis to accompany it. To me, that's better journalism that spitting out competing numbers just so I can say I did, regardless of how misleading they might be.

You guys will get your numbers from us, you'll just have to wait for a proper review is all. :)


 
[citation][nom]Article[/nom](who knows if it'll ever be pervasive under $100). [/citation]

I remember hearing or reading the same line for different technologies that turned out to be completely wrong.
 


My editor added that. Not entirely sure I agree at face value, it's probably inevitable that Dx11 will be utilized by budget cards at some time.

I understand his point though, that cards like the GT 430 might not be around long enough to see meaningful Dx11 gaming use in it's lifetime.
 
You don't need to go as far scaled down as the GTX 430 for an HTPC build. I mean, you can if you want to if you are on a low budget, but I prefered to spend a little more and get a lot more for the money. I used the GTX 460 and it's very quiet and very cool. For a few bucks more you can build an HTPC that can game like crazy. I'm loving it.
 
Seriously... they just need to make a video card specifically for video play back quality, and hopefully make it drain little power. I couldn't accept this card in an HTPC.
 
I would also much prefer a dedicated HTPC video card. First of all, I don`t need D-sub, ever, ever again. Second I do not want to play games, sitting 10 feet away from a 1920*1080 screen makes everything but video not very fun to look at or do. This card seems decent performance wise, and has a few perks for those looking for extras like hdmi 1.4 and all the 3d stuff for video, but as far as i`m concerned just give me nothing but HD playback features and losseless audio, and i`ll be pretty happy. Oh, an HDMI in on a pc would be nice, but that`s not going to happen.
 
I don't know if anybody said this before (I didn't read all the comments, it's too late here and they are too many), but it would have been nice to test the performance of the 430 in PhysX acceleration. Having the same number of the 240 shaders with higher clock and newer architecture may translate into better physX performance, making this card an attractive option for ATI users who wish to have physX for example.
Just my 2 cents!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom