nVidia likely to remain accelerated video king?

[mirv]

Of course you will, but if people don't complain or make you aware of specific stability issues and lacking performance then they aren't doing their part to help you make a better driver.

There's an awful sense of fanboyism creeping into Linux in recent and it's not helping anyone at all.

Yes, there is a lot of "fanboyism", both for nvidia and ati.
I'd also say that, especially with open source development, complaining isn't as good as decent bug reporting and proper feedback. Perhaps that's what you mean, but I still wanted to make the distinction.

[LinuxID10T]

It's a technicality you don't understand. Understanding terms, their context and their application is more important than just rote recitation. You don't win arguments on the value of the word themselves, but their meaning in context as well.

You're arguing as you think you're right when the truth is you're utterly and infallibly wrong.

You don't even bother to educate yourself on matters which have been layed in front of you. I'll say it once again, IN WINDOWS ATI NOW HAS BETTER SUPPORT FOR HD THAN NVIDIA DOES. There's a reason for this. Bigger market share, more competitive market and thusly more money at stake. Therefore ATI pushes their hardware to meet the demands of the market and to beat their competitors.

ATI doesn't do particularly well in terms of Linux prebuilt or post installation machines. Nvidia is the clear winner in the Linux market and Linux is used as a Worstation environment for many pro level workstation apps like MAYA. ATI's fglrx just doesn't have the performance or stability to support these pro level apps properly. fglrx is still very much in its infancy in many ways and its slowness to implement Xv let alone HD decoding has been a long term bugbear for ATI owners.

Xv is not enough for a proper HD experience, even with a really fast CPU because it doesn't offer enough direct control over the output renderer. Proper HD decoders do because they are not at the mercy (entirely) of the OS and GPU and its VRAM are set into specific modes of play to process HD content accurately and properly. This also includes the output device wrt HDMI content control and proper modesetting, deinterlacing and motion compensation.

With a CPU driven decoder almost all of those latter extremely important functions are purely handled by the OS and/or app of choice and most times they aren't even handled at all, just ignored or handed off to nowhere.

But hey, you can keep ignoring the reality and making smart remarks until the cows come how for all I care.

Oh and stop pretending you don't own an ATI card too. It's pathetic when someone won't even be honest about where they're (so obviously) coming from.

First off, did you see the Windows 7 vs Linux benchmarks on Phoronix? Linux beat Windows far more often on ATI cards than it did Nvidia ones, so calling the driver slow is nonsense. The FGLRX drivers also often have a higher geometric mean when benchmarked against Windows, however this is mostly due to the OS and not the driver. Really, the driver code for 3D acceleration is written in a way agnostic of the OS. Also, would you consider an Athlon X2 4400+ or a Sempron 140 fast? First off, if you do you are in the stone age. Second off, the first CPU is from 2005, and the second one is the slowest desktop processor available from AMD today, both of these I own and are perfectly capable of playing Bluray quality HD video without even needing Xv. I use OpenGL output because I have guaranteed playback without tearing. Lastly, yes I am a proud owner of many ATI AND Nvidia cards. While I like watching HD video, I prefer having higher 3D performance, and that is where ATI wins across the board.

Honestly, I am defending ATI just as you are defending DRM. DVI is just as capable as HDMI, and is an open standard unlike HDMI.

[IsawSparks]

First off, did you see the Windows 7 vs Linux benchmarks on Phoronix? Linux beat Windows far more often on ATI cards than it did Nvidia ones, so calling the driver slow is nonsense. The FGLRX drivers also often have a higher geometric mean when benchmarked against Windows, however this is mostly due to the OS and not the driver. Really, the driver code for 3D acceleration is written in a way agnostic of the OS. Also, would you consider an Athlon X2 4400+ or a Sempron 140 fast? First off, if you do you are in the stone age. Second off, the first CPU is from 2005, and the second one is the slowest desktop processor available from AMD today, both of these I own and are perfectly capable of playing Bluray quality HD video without even needing Xv. I use OpenGL output because I have guaranteed playback without tearing. Lastly, yes I am a proud owner of many ATI AND Nvidia cards. While I like watching HD video, I prefer having higher 3D performance, and that is where ATI wins across the board.

Honestly, I am defending ATI just as you are defending DRM. DVI is just as capable as HDMI, and is an open standard unlike HDMI.

1. I'm not defending DRM. I'm talking facts. HDMI is an open standard, yes, but it often takes a closed standard to get people like manufacturers and producers of content to align together to produce working standards. You know, like CPU manufacturers and x86 or TV broadcasters and NTSC, PAL and SECAM. Or radio communications standards which your cellphone might use. You know, standards that you pay a licensing fee to use and depend on every day.

2. You're talking rubbish. Neither of those CPUs can play fullrate HD in Profile 4.1 and higher and screen tearing isn't the issue here, motion interpolation is.

3. ATI have higher performance in games in Windows on Dual GPU solutions. No professional uses ATI hardware these days. Not in terms of heavy maths analysis, 3D design or non linear video editing. The death of Hydra came when professionals got sick of ATI's crappy OpenGL implementation in 2004.

Honestly mate, try your open source is the message malarkey on someone else. I know and support open source, but I also know that when I want a fully functional 3D and HD video experience in Linux and Windows that I can rely on Nvidia to deliver. ATU is a gamble in Windows (Media Player Home Cinema still has issues with ATI hardware) and is mediocre in Linux at best.

[IsawSparks]

Moreover those CPUs can't manage multiple streams at the same time. That's a requirement for Bluray playback.

[mirv]

2. Yes those CPUs can. I have an AMD X2 3800+ perfectly capable of it all.

[bridgman]

2. You're talking rubbish. Neither of those CPUs can play fullrate HD in Profile 4.1 and higher and screen tearing isn't the issue here, motion interpolation is.

IsawSparks, when you say "motion interpolation" are you talking about quarter pixel interpolation on motion comp (which is mandatory, but which should be easily handled by the texture engine in a 3D engine) or motion interpolation during post-processing, which is a completely optional feature that happens after decoding ?

[IsawSparks]

2. Yes those CPUs can. I have an AMD X2 3800+ perfectly capable of it all.

Your CPU is capable of doing two fullrate 40MBps AVC streams in profile 4.1 or higher?

[IsawSparks]

IsawSparks, when you say "motion interpolation" are you talking about quarter pixel interpolation on motion comp (which is mandatory, but which should be easily handled by the texture engine in a 3D engine) or motion interpolation during post-processing, which is a completely optional feature that happens after decoding ?

The former, which no CPU HD decoder does in Linux (and only a few do in Windows with the right playback app, Elecard is one I think that does).

[Panix]

2. Yes those CPUs can. I have an AMD X2 3800+ perfectly capable of it all.

I had an AMD X2 4200+ and used it as a HTPC and in a MythTV setup. There was definitely reasons to go to a faster cpu.

These discussions on going on quite long. A video card has VIDEO ACCELERATION AND DECODING CAPABILITIES. Why is everyone arguing about whether a cpu can do it or not? It's really stupid. People do things on their computer that requires CPU PROCESSING POWER. They might want to do things while the video is being decoded or whatever. The video card should be doing these chores. They are capable of it. If drivers don't allow this, then this should be worked on. For me, it doesn't matter if FOSS drivers are able to do it or if it has to be a binary blob driver to do it, then fine.

Processors that have both the processing chip and GPU integrated is not out commercially yet and it's not the standard yet so all this fuss about A v.s. B is moot.

Those who are arguing about processors being powerful enough are missing the point. Besides, not everyone is able to get a Quad Core or powerful cpu. Maybe they want the HTPC as a 2nd or third computer so they want to go with budget stuff. But, the point is, why have the philosophy that the cpu can do the work when the video card should be perfectly capable?

ATI should get their butts in gear and work on features that have been dormant for years.

[mirv]

Well I can't do much else when HD stuff is playing, but I can't go out and buy new hardware because I feel like it and so I've got to squeeze as much out of my system as I can.
And please don't mistake me - acceleration on a video card would be much nicer, for a good many reasons. Was just pointing out that even older CPUs are still quite powerful.