Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VDPAU vs. XvMC?

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

  • #16
    seriously, with the open drivers the fan on my card is on max. (and the system needs 60W more). The fan is loud. Really, really, really loud.

    Comment


    • #17
      What makes you think that UVD is even required for comfortable video decode?

      I have a few points to make regarding this point;
      1) If you remember back many years, you could get an "MPEG CARD" to playback MPEG videos (1 or 2? Both? I don't quite remember). This was necessary at a time when CPUs weren't powerful enough to drive SD videos, so they accelerated SD video decoding. Anyway, point is that NOBODY is interested in acceleration when dealing with SD MPEG 1/2 now since the CPU usage in decoding those is negligible -- we only accelerate the down/up scaling and similar transformation using Xv.
      2) Modern CPUs are basically *borderline* in handling modern HD videos on a single core. Older CPUs are borderline when using MULTIPLE cores. That means that the total acceleration doesn't really need to be *that much* in order to get a reliable playback.
      3) WELL DOCUMENTED GPU features can be used for partial video-decode acceleration. As bridgman has pointed out in other threads, this partial video decode acceleration is actually *MOST* of the video decode process. To me that suggests that rather than sucking up most of my older multi-core CPU running at full speed, video decoding might drop down to, for example, half of a single core at half speed, which is low enough that I don't worry about it, even on a laptop since the CPU will be in a power-saving low-frequency mode.

      Could it be better? Sure, we could make full use of UVD, BUT, it is not *so critically important* that we can't live without it.

      My opinion: GPU hardware video decode acceleration is a product of bad-DRM. Without bad-DRM, video decode acceleration would most likely be done using standard GPU features for equivalent video playback performance at slightly higher CPU usage. I.e., the proposed video-decode-over-gallium. Putting video decode into a dedicated chip makes it harder to reverse engineer since DRM-infested bad goes in to hardware, and clear video (w/HDCP) comes out the HDMI port on the other side of it. I.e., it enables the "magic black box" feature.

      Originally posted by xiando View Post
      This indicates that the secret AMD total plan for AMD World Order is flawed.

      That the AMD apparently does NOT want me or my family to have access to the UVD programming information is a serious problem, I have the technology yet I can not use it. It is apparent that this is a problem and the AMD fails to deliver; thus, it does seem that we indeed have the Delivery Problem. Please urge your superiors to add the UVD information to the Total open source graphics Plan.

      I realize that the AMD plan is already better than the non-existant NVIDIA plan, but the Intel are making far more git commits and the AMD really should do more where they can.

      Comment


      • #18
        Video accelleration for h264/vc1 is certainly nice to have. As ATI does not provide a similar feature as Nvidia with VDPAU those cards are only 2nd choice for systems which should decode full hd. The curious thing about that is XvBA was here even before VDPAU was introduced, but only same privileged people could use it (some famous OEMs...). That's the wrong way as video accelleration has got lots of issues usually when it is introduced and without testers the quality will never be good. vdpau with bad content used crashed the Xserver too in the beginning. The drivers needed to improve over time. Even when you get accelleration via XvBA tomorrow there still would be lots of errors which are no more in VDPAU. ATI really missed the best time to introduce it - now the best they could do is implementing vdpau and forget their own lib.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Kano View Post
          Video accelleration for h264/vc1 is certainly nice to have. As ATI does not provide a similar feature as Nvidia with VDPAU those cards are only 2nd choice for systems which should decode full hd. The curious thing about that is XvBA was here even before VDPAU was introduced, but only same privileged people could use it (some famous OEMs...). That's the wrong way as video accelleration has got lots of issues usually when it is introduced and without testers the quality will never be good. vdpau with bad content used crashed the Xserver too in the beginning. The drivers needed to improve over time. Even when you get accelleration via XvBA tomorrow there still would be lots of errors which are no more in VDPAU. ATI really missed the best time to introduce it - now the best they could do is implementing vdpau and forget their own lib.
          Absolutely agree. I am one of the part time Linux users that was discussed in one of the previous threads on the same topic who probably don't count towards the Linux stats that ATI counts, however I can say one thing quite honestly. Had I read these threads (and I do intend to publicize this as this information is not available very easily - at least people on forums like slashdot seem to think that ATI is a better bet on Linux due to companies support for Linux), I would have bought an Nvidia card instead of an ATI one. What AMD/ATI probably doesn't realise is that lack of UVD support on Linux actually affects their share of Windows market share as well. I think as an end user, I can only vote with my wallet.

          To be fair, an average end user doesn't care about the ideology behind open source vs. closed source as long as we can get a working driver that delivers the advertised features. So can we please get something that works and have a open source vs. closed source DRM debate on the side?
          Last edited by arbitrabbit; 10-30-2009, 08:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Personally, Open Source drivers are FAR more important than UVD.

            AMD is doing a good thing (tm) by supporting free drivers. UVD would be nice, but there's no way in hell that I'd be buying nVidia for some cooler video playback at this time

            To be fair, an average end user doesn't care about the ideology behind open source vs. closed source
            The average Windows user doesn't.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by energyman View Post
              seriously, with the open drivers the fan on my card is on max. (and the system needs 60W more). The fan is loud. Really, really, really loud.
              The git driver has had power management for a few months now. I'm using this on mine and the case temperature stays below 35C:
              Code:
              Section "Device"
                  Identifier "HD4350"
                  Driver "radeon"
                  Option "ClockGating"
                  Option "DynamicPM"
                  Option "ForceLowPowerMode"
              EndSection
              ...just don't let X crash or your card's going to fry again. Happened to me once already...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                Personally, Open Source drivers are FAR more important than UVD.

                AMD is doing a good thing (tm) by supporting free drivers. UVD would be nice, but there's no way in hell that I'd be buying nVidia for some cooler video playback at this time


                The average Windows user doesn't.
                Define an average Windows user? I have been using Linux for the past 9 years and I still don't care about the ideology. For me, it is all about the best tool for the job, where the job in my definition is a secure OS where I can do the most basic tasks like web browsing, word processing, spreadsheeting and yes, watching videos and listening to music easily. The reason I use Linux is because I personally feel that it has lower cost of ownership than windows and is a lot more customisable.

                On the other hand my parents also use Linux but they simply use it because I installed it (as it was easier for me to maintain remotely) and they don't even know what Linux or Windows is. For them everything is the "computer" and they take everything else for granted.

                And with distributions like Ubuntu, you bet that the number of users who care more about usability rather than ideology are only going to increase. So don't make assumptions about the average Linux user nowadays.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ant P. View Post
                  The git driver has had power management for a few months now. I'm using this on mine and the case temperature stays below 35C:
                  Code:
                  Section "Device"
                      Identifier "HD4350"
                      Driver "radeon"
                      Option "ClockGating"
                      Option "DynamicPM"
                      Option "ForceLowPowerMode"
                  EndSection
                  ...just don't let X crash or your card's going to fry again. Happened to me once already...
                  Does this work with the driver from Ubuntu 9.10 ?
                  Thanks.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by arbitrabbit View Post
                    Define an average Windows user? I have been using Linux for the past 9 years and I still don't care about the ideology.
                    This is hardly average.

                    And just because you don't care about the ideology doesn't mean that others don't. Shoving closed drivers down everyone's throats so your CPU runs a bit cooler is not what everyone wants.

                    So don't make assumptions about the average Linux user nowadays.
                    I didn't, you did.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      This is hardly average.
                      Please provide some sources/data which would suggest your claim is true. To me, and apparently others, "average Linux user cares more about opensource than his hardware working" just doesn't pass the laugh test. It might have been true in the days of yore when no one bothered to offer pre-compiled packages because everyone using linux was either a coder or had no issue compiling programs on their own. Those days are, thankfully, long gone.
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      And just because you don't care about the ideology doesn't mean that others don't.
                      I know the plural of anecdote isn't 'data', but count me in the "cares about using hardware features first, about opensource second" crowd. The number of nvidia users (see Phoronix Graphics survey) is also telling. Or are you saying all those nvidia users are windows users who just switched to Linux and haven't changed their hardware?
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      Shoving closed drivers down everyone's throats so your CPU runs a bit cooler is not what everyone wants.
                      Shoving? You got the docs, you got the free drivers (crippled as they are) what do you care what happens in the closed source driver? Are you using it at a gunpoint?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by beecher View Post
                        Does this work with the driver from Ubuntu 9.10 ?
                        Thanks.
                        Not with KMS in my experience. Check your /var/log/Xorg.0.log. Mine shows:
                        (WW) RADEON(0): Option "DynamicPM" is not used
                        (WW) RADEON(0): Option "ForceLowPowerMode" is not used

                        I'm running 2.6.32-rc5 and drm/mesa/xf86-video-ati git master.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Shoving? You got the docs, you got the free drivers (crippled as they are) what do you care what happens in the closed source driver? Are you using it at a gunpoint?
                          I was clearly referring to this:

                          To be fair, an average end user doesn't care about the ideology behind open source vs. closed source as long as we can get a working driver that delivers the advertised features. So can we please get something that works and have a open source vs. closed source DRM debate on the side?
                          So I didn't start the debate on what the average linux user wants, I just said that I don't want the excellent work that AMD is putting into open-source drivers shouldn't be sabotaged so we can get add DRM to the binary blob faster.

                          I care about open infrastructure, and there are many others who do, too. I don't want somebody else deciding that linux should be half-open and half-closed in the name of the mythical "average user".

                          The number of nvidia users (see Phoronix Graphics survey) is also telling.
                          Yes.

                          It is telling that AMD hardware only got the ability to play videos properly on Linux a couple of months ago and that nVidia was the only option in the past.

                          It is not telling that people don't want open-source drivers.
                          Last edited by pingufunkybeat; 10-31-2009, 02:28 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            AMD are not sabotaging open source driver work in favour of binary blobs. AMD are putting more work than was originally intended into the open source drivers.
                            It was the community who said "just give us the documentation, we'll do the rest". AMD has done that, and has given extra support to help in the development of the drivers. If anything, AMD has lessened work on fglrx to help with open source stuff (though, I would point out that in doing so AMD does not have to support older video cards in fglrx).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by mirv View Post
                              AMD are not sabotaging open source driver work in favour of binary blobs. AMD are putting more work than was originally intended into the open source drivers.
                              It was the community who said "just give us the documentation, we'll do the rest". AMD has done that, and has given extra support to help in the development of the drivers. If anything, AMD has lessened work on fglrx to help with open source stuff (though, I would point out that in doing so AMD does not have to support older video cards in fglrx).
                              However, they haven't given the documentation to exploit UVD in open source drivers and reading Bridgman's comments in many threads, it is reasonable to assume that they probably never would (after a detailed study where the senior management is more than likely to veto the idea of releasing the specs if that would increase the likelihood of AMD's DRM to be broken, but only benefits a miniscule proportion of their user base).

                              That is where my rant started really, that can we have the open source vs. closed source debate on the side and give top priority of getting something working out first, be it closed source or open source. As I said, according to me an average user probably doesn't care about where the driver is coming from, be it AMD or the community, as long as it works. And if your post is correct that AMD is prioritising open source over closed source, it does give me some reason to be concerned as for reasons I mentioned above, AMD are highly unlikely to release the specs for the UVD Asic to the community, but the increased focus on open source driver would probaly delay the availability of those features in their closed source driver as well. I certinaly hope it doesn't happen but can we continue having this open source vs closed source debate with AMD but without letting the users hang in the mean time?
                              Last edited by arbitrabbit; 10-31-2009, 05:01 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by arbitrabbit View Post
                                That is where my rant started really, that can we have the open source vs. closed source debate on the side and give top priority of getting something working out first, be it closed source or open source.
                                That's what is happening today. Other than having everything happen instantly what would you like to see changed ? I have said (about 20 times) that UVD support is likely to come out in the closed driver before the open driver, and that is still our thinking.

                                In the meantime, the open source work is starting to shift focus to Gallium3D, which is a practical pre-requisite for decode acceleration *without* relying on UVD.

                                I think all the things you want are happening.

                                Originally posted by arbitrabbit View Post
                                I certinaly hope it doesn't happen but can we continue having this open source vs closed source debate with AMD but without letting the users hang in the mean time?
                                At the risk of offending everyone here, I guess I should make it clear that we are *not* waiting to see what decisions come out of the discussion on Phoronix before doing any work on open or closed drivers

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X