Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bridgman's negative proof of AMD opensource ATI Avivo Video Decoder

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    Q: You've *REALLY* rammed your foot down your throat with this comment. I suggest you do a little research and figure out just WHO it is you replied to, and then come back here and apologize to the entire world.
    Can't agree more. All the best to Deathsimple!

    Q is usually funny, but he's making personal insults in this thread without even being provoked.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by HokTar View Post
      Q is usually funny, but he's making personal insults in this thread without even being provoked.
      Maybe he just doesn't realize being offensive.
      I mean there's this Asperger thing and the like...

      Comment


      • #48
        i think amd also will open up the ati "avivo converter"

        o yes this will hurt Intel very much.

        They do this to support the Fusion-LLano launch.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          i think amd also will open up the ati "avivo converter"
          What you think is not particularly interesting, it's what you know that matters.

          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          o yes this will hurt Intel very much.

          They do this to support the Fusion-LLano launch.
          AMD can only compete with Intel on price. If AMD really wants to hurt Intel then it has to settle for very low profit margins.

          Comment


          • #50
            The video decode acceleration is not only a question whether the CPU can do it, also it is a power consumption question. And here UVD is much better than GPU shaders, which in turn is better than CPU decode.

            And AMD can compete on performance depending on the workload. At least for bitcoin mining a poopy E-350 keeps up with a Core2 Quad. Llano will probably beat even a 10-core Westmere Xeon.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by chithanh View Post
              The video decode acceleration is not only a question whether the CPU can do it, also it is a power consumption question. And here UVD is much better than GPU shaders, which in turn is better than CPU decode.
              i think you are not right in all cases.

              the UVD unit is only better if you only watch a video.

              but if you trans-code the video from one video format into another one then the ati avivo converter is more powerful.

              and a second case if you use not supported codex's like WebM the shader solution beats the UVD again.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                What you think is not particularly interesting, it's what you know that matters.
                I do an Extrapolation from my knowledge to an point of high probability.

                its a mix of knowledge and Thinking.




                Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                AMD can only compete with Intel on price. If AMD really wants to hurt Intel then it has to settle for very low profit margins.
                amd don't need to lowing the price so much if there software and driver support is good to improve the experience with there hardware.

                amd can not hit intel on profit margins because amd do have 30% and intel do have 50-60% means if amd goes down to 0% intel win because they still do 20% profit.

                amd only cat hit intel on quality.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                  I do an Extrapolation from my knowledge to an point of high probability.

                  its a mix of knowledge and Thinking.
                  Ahh that explains it, you are working with a very small and corrupt data set.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    and a second case if you use not supported codex's like WebM the shader solution beats the UVD again.
                    It's only superior if no dedicated alternative exists.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      It's only superior if no dedicated alternative exists.
                      but right now on the market there is no dedicated alternative!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                        Ahh that explains it, you are working with a very small and corrupt data set.
                        maybe. but i think we got answers in the future.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                          but right now on the market there is no dedicated alternative!
                          Right now WebM isn't exactly "rocking the interweb" either.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            Right now WebM isn't exactly "rocking the interweb" either.
                            Give it some time plz. IE6 didn't flood the internet in one day, either.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                              Give it some time plz. IE6 didn't flood the internet in one day, either.
                              Oh it may some day become big, or not, just compared to h264 content out there it has a long long long way to go yet and if you remove the "just internet" restriction it has an even longer ways to go especially where it is not only competing against h264, vc1 and mpeg2.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                                Oh it may some day become big, or not, just compared to h264 content out there it has a long long long way to go yet and if you remove the "just internet" restriction it has an even longer ways to go especially where it is not only competing against h264, vc1 and mpeg2.
                                my argument was just a technical argument and not a market-share "my penis is larger than your penis" argument.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X