ATI Radeon HD 4890 vs. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on April 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Latest CUDA App: MotionDSP’s vReveal
NVIDIA had more slides in its GTX 275 presentation about non-gaming applications than it did about how the 275 performed in games. One such application is MotionDSP’s vReveal - a CUDA enabled video post processing application than can clean up poorly recorded video.
The application’s interface is simple:
Import your videos (anything with a supported codec on your system pretty much) and then select enhance.
You can auto-enhance with a single click (super useful) or even go in and tweak individual sliders and settings on your own in the advanced mode.
The changes you make to the video are visible on the fly, but the real time preview is faster on a NVIDIA GPU than if you rely on the CPU alone.
When you’re all done, simply hit save to disk and the video will be re-encoded with the proper changes. The encoding process takes place entirely on the GPU but it can also work on a CPU.
First let’s look at the end results. We took three videos, one recorded using Derek’s wife’s Blackberry and two from me on a Canon HD cam (but at low res) in my office.
I relied on vReveal’s auto tune to fix the videos and I’ve posted the originals and vReveal versions on YouTube. The videos are below:
In every single instance, the resulting video looks better. While it’s not quite the technology you see in shows like 24, it does make your videos look better and it does do it pretty quickly. There’s no real support for video editing here and I’m not familiar enough with the post processing software market to say whether or not there are better alternatives, but vReveal does do what it says it does. And it uses the GPU.
Performance is also very good on even a reasonably priced GPU. It took 51 seconds for the GeForce GTX 260 to save the first test video, it took my Dell Studio XPS 435’s Core i7 920 just over 3 minutes to do the same task.
It’s a neat application. It works as advertised, but it only works on NVIDIA hardware. Will it make me want to buy a NVIDIA GPU over an ATI one? Nope. If all things are equal (price, power and gaming performance) then perhaps. But if ATI provides a better gaming experience, I don’t believe it’s compelling enough.
First, the software isn’t free - it’s an added expense. Badaboom costs $30, vReveal costs $50. It’s not the most expensive software in the world, but it’s not free.
And secondly, what happens if your next GPU isn’t from NVIDIA? While vReveal will continue to work, you no longer get GPU acceleration. A vReveal-like app written in OpenCL will work on all three vendors’ hardware, as long as they support OpenCL.
If NVIDIA really wants to take care of its customers, it can start by giving away vReveal (and Badaboom) to people who purchase these high end graphics cards. If you want to add value, don’t tell users that they should want these things, give it to them. The burden of proof is on NVIDIA to show that these CUDA enabled applications are worth supporting rather than waiting for cross-vendor OpenCL versions.
Do you feel any differently?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
jeffrey - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
1) ATI driver - Was 8.12 really used? Why? 9.3 was released last month.2) Conclusion - The edge should have gone to the 4890 for being ahead of the 275 in most games at resolutions targeting the price point.
Gary Key - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
1. The 9.4 beta was used for the HD 4890 and the chart has been updated to reflect it. The 9.3 drivers are not any faster than the 8.12 HotFix for the other AMD cards in every test I have run but Crysis Warhead with a Core 2 Quad. A few improvements have been made for CF compatibility and video playback though.2. The conclusion has been updated to clarify our thoughts between the two cards.
can - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
An ATI gpu with and nvidia gpu doing physx? I'm curious to see results of this kind of arrangement. Not a dedicated PCI Physx card, but on a faster bus, with a more powerful processor, as a video card. I'm wondering about pitfalls and performance and the literal looks of the application.SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
Sorry bub, you're stuck with ati, and as far as curiosity for physx - uhh... don't worry, you're not missing much, anand only got addicted to it for a bit.If you want the driver hack for it, there's a thread at techpowerup.
Some genius figured something out on it- not sure which os.
Jamahl - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
The conclusion in this review is awful beyond anything I have read before.How can the reviewer say the 275 is winning this one when the benchmarks clearly show dominance for the 4890 at most resolutions?
Otherwise it was a good article but the conclusion leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
He could say it because he said it for ati for 6 months when ati won the top resolution. So his brain is in a "fart mode" that lied for ati for so long, he said it this time for nvidia - either that or he realized if he didn't he would look like an exposed raging red rooster fanboy.Good thing the reds started screaming NOW, after loving it for 6 months when their card was on top using the false method - because anand came in and saved the day - and changed the conclusion - for ati.
LOL
When nvidia doesn't give them a card for review again, it will be "them towing the line of honesty" that causes, no doubt, right ?
BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA
( you all just tell yourselves that along with our dear leaders )
erikejw - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
"On the NVIDIA side, we received a reference version of the GTX 275."You wish.
"since there is no 275 ASIC, NV is telling OEMs that they can make it from either a 280 or 260 board. One costs much more, and one performs better, so guess what everyone is going to use?
That isn't necessarily bad, but how NV is seeding reviewers is. They are only going to be giving out a very special run of ONLY 280 based parts.
Quite special 280 based parts at that. Reviewers beware, what you are getting is not what you can buy."
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/599/10515...">http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new...ia-hoodw...
bill3 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
A lot of people seem to be crying about lack of temp, power consumption, oc, and fan noise numbers..while I agree in a stand alone review these are glaring omissions, the fact is theres a dozen reviews around the web where you can get that info in triplicate. I would much rather have the insight on CUDA and PHysx!I mean, people act like the internet isnt free and we all arent a google search/mouse click away from that type of info! Geez.
That said, I suppose reviews must be treated as "stand alone", however artificial a construct it may be. However if theres anything thats easily forgivable to be left out it's simple data numbers that can be found at a thousand other places. Which is exactly what temp, oc, etc are. I already know those numbers from a ton of other reviews. These people whining in the comments act like Anand is the only hardware review site there is. I would think if anybody was truly interested in laying out 250 to purchase one of these theyd be looking at more than one review!
SkullOne - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I second the question about why did you use Catalyst 8.12 Hotfix? Other sites are using what appears to be an Beta Catalyst 9.4 driver so is your listing of Catalyst 8.12 a misprint?Also why do you care if AMD sent you an overclocked version? The HD4890 is directly targeted at the overclocking enthusiasts which is a realm that AMD has ignored up until now while NV embraced it.
The HD4890 has already been taken to 1+GHz on it's GPU and up to 4.8GHz on it's memory on other sites. That by far makes it the better buy.
SkullOne - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Forgot to mention that by having this extremely overclockable card AMD has opened up another entire SKU for themselves by selling "OC" cards with the 4890.