Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HD 2600 PRO - dissapointed by performance

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HD 2600 PRO - dissapointed by performance

    Hi,
    I have a HD 2600 Pro AGP on an old motherboard, the Asus P4S533 with a 2.0 GHz pentium processor. I run XP with the lastest drivers for the card (used the MSI Live update service). Im using VGA to a LCD with 1440x900 res. The board only support AGP 4X.

    When playing some HD I found at http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...nture_1080.exe ,
    performance is not very good at all. Sure, I can see the pictures, and colors and sharpeness seems very good. But the playback is not smooth, i.e. it stops up for half a second now and then.

    Yes, the system is kinda outdated, but I am wondering if this result is as excpected or if I should be able to get better performance.

  • #2
    As far as I know, HD playback in Linux can't (currently) be offloaded to the GPU like in Windows, so your CPU will be doing most of the work.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, since he said he's running Windows XP, I think he's on the wrong website entirely.

      Comment


      • #4
        DriverHeaven is a pretty good place to go for XP driver issues. For the moment, my first question would be whether you have enough system memory. Running HD video lights up a lot of OS and driver code, and it sounds like you might be swapping...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
          DriverHeaven is a pretty good place to go for XP driver issues. For the moment, my first question would be whether you have enough system memory. Running HD video lights up a lot of OS and driver code, and it sounds like you might be swapping...
          I have 1279 MB DDR installed.

          I didnt realize this is Linux only until after I posted, soorry about that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Forge View Post
            Well, since he said he's running Windows XP, I think he's on the wrong website entirely.
            I have latest kubuntu installed too, but since HD playback was not smooth I decided to try xp. I did a phoronix test, check out the results:

            ATI fgl_glxgears 10 Seconds FPS HIB BAR_GRAPH fgl-glxgears -loop 10000 1 754.92 Processor: Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.00GHz @ 2.00GHz (Total Cores: 1), Motherboard: System Manufacturer System Version, Chipset: SiS, System Memory: 1265MB, Disk Space: 5GB, Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro AGP, Screen Resolution: 1440x900 OS: Ubuntu 8.04, Kernel: 2.6.24-18-generic (i686), X.Org Server: 1.4.0.90, OpenGL: 2.1.7412 (fglrx), Compiler: GCC 4.2.3, File-System: ext2/ext3 dhave June 8, 2008 08:36 PM Compiz and Firefox were running on this system. 1.0.0 1 fglglxgears fgl-glxgears 1.0.0 This test calculates the average frame-rate within the ATI fgl_glxgears test. Demo Michael Larabel

            Comment


            • #7
              Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you wouldn't receive help and would be ejected, just that I imagine most folks here know Linux first, Windows second or not at all.

              My take on things is that your CPU is just way way way too slow. I can just barely get 720p x264 playing smoothly on my Pentium M 1.6GHz. You've got 400MHz on me, but you're also running a very old model of Pentium 4.

              Basically, if you're in Windows, you might get lucky with a horribly accelerated layout, the media player, codec, and hardware all running 100%.

              In Linux we can't get access to some of the proprietary video decode acceleration stuff due to retarded legal restrictions.

              With no hardware decode acceleration the very slow CPU you have, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that you'll get smooth 1080p playback. In Windows, with the decode fully functional it probably still wouldn't be enough.

              I'd give some serious thought to some upgrades if you aspire to HD video playback.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Forge View Post
                With no hardware decode acceleration the very slow CPU you have, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that you'll get smooth 1080p playback.
                But hw accel was to come to this system with the new grapchics card, and with acceleration it would be working, or at least that was the plan. Surely, when people are told theire old system can be still usefull with a small upgrade, this is a tempting offer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, IMO if it says it can fully decode HD videos in hardware then the rest of the hardware shouldn't make that much of an issue, right?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The rest of the hardware definitely makes less difference, but you still have to push a heck of a lot of data back and forth.

                    Hmmm.... hard drive directly connected to the GPU... hmmm...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Radeon HD 2600 can not do any meaningful hardware acceleration of h264 or VC1 playback under Linux. It can do some Motion Compensation (henceforth MC) and some inverse discrete cosine transform (likewise IDCT) acceleration, but those are intended for DVD playback, and aren't really useful for the newer HD codecs. THe Radeon HD 2K series do have UVD, so they can do parts of the x264/VC1 decode in hardware on Windows, but things have to be just so in order for it to work.

                      Make sure you have the newest ATI drivers installed.
                      Be sure you're using a hardware-accelerated media player. For VC1/WMVHD, only Windows Media Player is a sure thing.

                      Pray. HD decode acceleration is not nearly so clean and easy to set up as most folks would tell you. Lots of tiny little things can scupper the whole process, and a P4/2.0 isn't going to manage anything if hardware decode doesn't happen.

                      And forget all about Linux. AMD/ATI made some very compromising choices in order to get UVD into their chips, and it looks like Linux will never ever get any part of it as a result.

                      Thank DRM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just a quick clarification here -- the DRM bits of UVD might be a problem for providing open source support for UVD under Linux, but so far we don't see any problems with providing closed source support for UVD.
                        Last edited by bridgman; 06-14-2008, 10:59 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Sorry, that really didn't even occur to me. You are of course absolutely correct.

                          Think AMD can sell me a discounted 4870 for testing/documentation purposes? I'm thinking about switching back and can do a big writeup on it.

                          (Kids are expensive)

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X