GT 430/520 or GTX 560 Ti

[jalyst]

@deanjo: here are my responses, but 1st...
What are your thoughts on Jimbo's post?

Places and examples of scenes where I see a lot of issues on lcds are in accurate colour replication and gradients. This becomes very noticeable in dark scenes or scenes where there is a scene full of the same colour with very slight hue changes (such as a dim under water scene). There also still seems to be an advantage with plasmas when it comes to watching fast action sports with a lot of motion on it. LCD's have improved quite a bit over the years with this but still lag behind plasma even with the "240 Hz" LCDs. The problem with many of these LCD's (especially cheaper ones) are as well that to achieve these faster refresh rates they are sacrificing the colour spectrum and using TN panels and suffer from all the negatives of a TN panel (reduced colour depth, limited viewing angles)

Don't the very latest LED-based LCD's correct many of these shortcoming's you refer to?

The only real downside to plasma that I have seen over the years is image retention when leaving it on a static picture over a very long time. Newer plasmas now days have protections against this (screen savers, pixel shifts, screen wipe routines on start up) and really shouldn't concern the average home user. If you are planing to run a static billboard however then you should go LCD.

Yes I've read that too: =/>50" & Plasmas actually become better value than LCD's.
Hmm, I can't think of any instances where I might want to have a static image all the time.
What are these static billboards you're referring to, might I want something like that?

With plasmas you actually want to start looking at 50"+ sizes to get the best image quality. This is the size where most plasmas start having full HD resolutions (with the exception of a few 42" Panasonics). Unless you are going ultra high end you won't even come close to $2k in a 42" display.

Well that's great to hear!
So you reckon I can get a 'ultra high-end' 50" plasma, & still be under $2k?

Are the 'ultra high-end' plasmas generally not available in 42"?
I'd prefer to stick to 42", but if I won't get the best plasma IQ in that bracket, then I'm happy to move up.
So long as price remains comfortably below $2k...

To compare the individual brand "features" I haven't really seen a resource like that. Most brand features are simply fancied up names for industry wide used techniques and technologies. AVS forums have excellent resources where the features are discussed and consumer reports usually has very good write ups on the features in their yearly electronics buying guide.

No I was referring to a good & up-to-date resource on the competing technologies, not individual brand "features".
Yes I'm aware of AVS, & will definitely 'poke around' there soon.
Consumer Reports is news to me, I'll have a closer look, thanks!

[jalyst]

blackstar

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?53802-GT-430-520-or-GTX-560-Ti&p=209878#post209878

crazycheese

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?53802-GT-430-520-or-GTX-560-Ti&p=209888#post209888

Did you see my last responses to you, can you spare a few minutes to address them?
Thanks in advance for your time/thoughts.

I guess the title of this thread should be changed now too.
Given the shift in focus, I might ask a mod to do so later.

[BlackStar]

Are you absolutely certain of this?
I could've sworn I read that they now have the smarts to turn-off all parts used exclusively for 3d acceleration, & hence lower their envelope to the same as the lowest VA only parts.

The 3d engine cannot be turned off, because it's used to paint the desktop (there is no 2d engine anymore). What cards do is reduce shader and memory clocks to cut down on power consumption. Even so, transistors will consume power. Since the 560 has many more transistors than the 520 (I'd imagine 3x or so), it will consume more power than the 520 when idle (and significantly more so when loaded).

I'd suggest searching http://techreport.com for reviews on these cards. The second-to-last page of their reviews tests power consumption.

For "bang for buck" IQ, which would you pick & why: Plasma or LED LCD?
(I don't care about power consumption, or purported reliability levels)

For smaller sizes, probably LCD. For larger sizes, probably Plasma.

Myself, I bought a LCD because I often connect it to my PC/laptops. Even though the Plasmas I saw in-store did look better than the LCDs, the potential of image burn-in turned me off.

That said, if I bought a TV now primarily for movies, I'd probably go for a Plasma.

Outdated, modern LED LCDs have "corrected" those issues and matches , or even surpases, plasma quality.

LED is a lighting technology. As such, it cannot "correct" panel-related issues, i.e. viewing angles and blurring/ghosting. LED can correct black levels, but LCDs with deep blacks tend to carry corresponding prices - note that this is a feature you get even on entry-level Plasmas.

That said, LCD panels are significantly better nowadays than they were a few years ago. My main complaint (still) has to do with blurring and crushing of dark colors. Unless you go for the priciest LCD panels, chances are you will experience some loss of definition and visible trails in dark scenes.

[jalyst]

^ Thanks blackstar I'll respond tomorrow, 4am here!

crazycheese if you've got a few minutes to respond, I'd be ever so grateful

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?53802-GT-430-520-or-GTX-560-Ti&p=209888#post209888

And deanjo, when you next have a few minutes of course

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?53802-GT-430-520-or-GTX-560-Ti&p=210039#post210039

I think I'll start a dedicated thread about all my findings soon.
Thanks again everyone for your thoughts, all-the-best/night!

[crazycheese]

Damn, I swear I read that there's much more smarts now...
Such that top-end cards have idle & VA power very close to that of the lowest-end cards?
There's been huge improvements compared to previous generations, alas it's not quite perfect yet

I will check some more sources to be sure of all this myself, thanks
It also sux that they've deliberately crippled easy OC'ing & no longer support it
I guess they've done that to ensure lower power, they should still leave the option there for power users!

I don't think they crippled it, I think they have not implemented it yet.. Because they focus more on directx now, because games are running mostly directx, because microsoft actively pushes its own standard there, because microsoft has been preinstalled since beginning and imposes threats to any vendor declining this "policy".

So now you know why world without microsoft would be a MUCH better place.

And they crippled opengl because most income is done on windows/games/geforce and linux/workstation/quadro, hence they do not want linux/workstation/geforce - sparing people massive amounts of money and nvidia massive amounts of income. Unlike many suggested nvidia still does not sell support, but sell overpriced cards instead. Amd is not any better by the way, yeah - what a shame. Good crippled driver = mediocre uncrippled driver. If you can call binary blob - good. But not much choice if heading for performance. Maybe AMD will finish opensource driver in 5 years so there is hope, but they always fail to realise it and head for proprietary chicken race.

I don't care about built-in Linux/DVB-C etc, I have a HTPC coming that'll take care of all that, & more.
I also don't care so much about power consumption...
As I'm devising a HA/HE system that will cut my power bill markedly, so if TV power goes up, no "biggy"
But the overall IQ sounds good, not sure how well it compares to a similarly priced Plasma though.

Whats "HA/HE system"? I don't know, I always set priorities and calculate before heading somewhere(if there is sense to calculate ofc). A 300W bulb running mostly 8hrs/day over a year will cause massive bill, at least in europe. And Im using energy saving bulbs since 10 years in the house. So yes, to me plasma is like conventional heat bulb vs energy saving 1:10 ratio. If you manage to grab energy efficient plasma and it will not have image burn problems I will be happy for ya. Hell if you grab the tvbox you wish, I will be happy for ya regardless

[crazycheese]

The 3d engine cannot be turned off, because it's used to paint the desktop (there is no 2d engine anymore). What cards do is reduce shader and memory clocks to cut down on power consumption. Even so, transistors will consume power. Since the 560 has many more transistors than the 520 (I'd imagine 3x or so), it will consume more power than the 520 when idle (and significantly more so when loaded).

You are correct, additional pipelines, additional memory controllers and additional power elements consume additional power. Its like airplane idling consumes way more than moped at top speed. But I have provided the link and consume is not that high, at least on 560. 590 in SLI would consume way more of course(remember nvidia has de-facto no sli on linux).

[crazycheese]

Another small thing to remember - idling airplane can deliver hundreds time more power than running moped. You use it or not, it will stay constant. But a moped would bump to performance limit where plane would be just warming up..

Just as example, the 260 gtx sp 216 I own manages 60 fps in urban terror at maximum quality(everything maxed) at full hd. at idle clocks.
I forced it once and wondered wtf happened to vsync... Normally it goes way off 125 fps(internal game imposed limit) and never falls on maps of any complexity any amount of players/smoke particles etc. Not that I play often.

[AnonymousCoward]

Another small thing to remember - idling airplane can deliver hundreds time more power than running moped. You use it or not, it will stay constant. But a moped would bump to performance limit where plane would be just warming up..

Just as example, the 260 gtx sp 216 I own manages 60 fps in urban terror at maximum quality(everything maxed) at full hd. at idle clocks.
I forced it once and wondered wtf happened to vsync... Normally it goes way off 125 fps(internal game imposed limit) and never falls on maps of any complexity any amount of players/smoke particles etc. Not that I play often.

That's not at all surprising, urban terror isn't exactly a heavy game.

[crazycheese]

That's not at all surprising, urban terror isn't exactly a heavy game.

It is VERY heavy game in its class. One of the heaviest using ioquake/quake3 up to date. Especially when you play on LARGE levels with 40-60 players!

[crazycheese]

That's not at all surprising, urban terror isn't exactly a heavy game.

The most heaviest on quake3 I know is OpenArena -> ~16 bots, OA_PVOMIT map, fullhd, all settings max, bloom on, rocket deathmatch, spectator from the above. Lots of light sources, forces this card into 9-40 fps. (of course com_hunkmegs at least 512 and vsync off)