Originally posted by deanjo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Another Look At The Latest Nouveau Gallium3D Driver
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Thatguy View PostI think those days "aside from ARM' are pretty much way behind us. even the most basic systems at walmart 2 cores can easily play video without any acceleration at all.
1) You have selected a fairly light example of video, I gave you a more "typical" encode that falls within many hd program streams. Even it however is nowhere close to being a typical h264 stream on say a bluray.
2) you are not playing them back at full resolution, by the looks of it you are running your system @ 1280x1024 which equates to less then 1/2 the amount of pixels (output of the video would be if running fullscreen 1280x720) the display has to render as it would on a 1080p machine. For any meaningful results you would have to be rendering the output at the videos native resolution.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostYou would be surprised. Your "tests" are not for example using sound methodology. As I pointed out before:
1) You have selected a fairly light example of video, I gave you a more "typical" encode that falls within many hd program streams. Even it however is nowhere close to being a typical h264 stream on say a bluray.
2) you are not playing them back at full resolution, by the looks of it you are running your system @ 1280x1024 which equates to less then 1/2 the amount of pixels (output of the video would be if running fullscreen 1280x720) the display has to render as it would on a 1080p machine. For any meaningful results you would have to be rendering the output at the videos native resolution.
But seriously. Its a non issue. 99% of users aren't compiling a kernel while watching a video. Usually they are watching just the video.
Also the bit rate of big buck bunny is typical of most video streaming bit rates. I have no idea where your comming up with the counter argument.
I can even play 4 of the same video in the same size simultanoeusly which was my point.
In todays day and age of fast cpu for x86, we simply don't have a huge pressing need for video accelration.
Its like chasing a white elephant, it only makes you tired.
Now if your saying that ARM needs vide accelration. I whole heartedly agree. But most of todays modern dual core and up systems are completely cpabale of playing video with zero acceleration and 1980x1020 isn't even all that popular. most video on pcs are DVD or lower quality. blue Ray players aren't even very common acesseories yet.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Thatguy View PostIt doesn't make a difference, it still also has to cut bitrate and dither which costs clock. being as my video hardware is unsupported I can only display at that resolution currently.
But seriously. Its a non issue. 99% of users aren't compiling a kernel while watching a video. Usually they are watching just the video.
Also the bit rate of big buck bunny is typical of most video streaming bit rates. I have no idea where your comming up with the counter argument.
I can even play 4 of the same video in the same size simultanoeusly which was my point.
In todays day and age of fast cpu for x86, we simply don't have a huge pressing need for video accelration.
Now if your saying that ARM needs vide accelration. I whole heartedly agree. But most of todays modern dual core and up systems are completely cpabale of playing video with zero acceleration
and 1980x1020 isn't even all that popular.
most video on pcs are DVD or lower quality. blue Ray players aren't even very common acesseories yet.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostI most assuredly know that it does make a difference. This is easily seen when resizing a window while the video is playing. The bigger the window, the greater the load.
No they may not be compiling a kernel but they may be doing items such as recording, timeshifting while watching another show which depending on your capture hardware can do. Many devices rely on software encoding and that starts adding up to the load.
I'd be more concerend about disk write speed if I was watching and recording video at the same time. especially with one HDD in the machine
It is hardly representative of HD bitrates. Maybe for webstreaming but not for anykind of local playback. The sample I put up however is very representative of the video one can expect from HD Rips, HD stream captures, HD personal video cameras, HD video encoders, etc. It falls within the specs of a typical AVCHD format that many consumer devices record to.
Doesn't mean anything if you can't decode even a medium bitrate HD stream (Let alone one that is CABAC instead of CAVLC).
give me a stream I will benchmark decoding it. I am not even remotely concerned. Again you point is moot on most modern hardware.
Oh how wrong you are as it allows for smaller form factor devices with less power hungry processors that can be freed to do other tasks. CPU decoding is like trying to use a clawhammer to pound in a railway tie spike. Sure it can be done but it isn't efficient at all.
your making a argument against not for video acceleration. How HD does a 3.5 inch screen need to be ?
With no post processing, scaled down video sure they are and they are extremely inefficient at it.
WHAT? lol you have to be kidding me. It is pretty much the standard.
Oh man you must live under a rock someplace (here I thought I lived in the boonies). HD is everywhere. From the TV you watch live, to the streaming content, to the devices like Bluray. If it isn't there ask your self why is it that a majority of TV's and monitors are 1080p nowdays?[/QUOTE]
TV and Blue ray is the only thing "aside from gaming" ushing bit rate in any direction beyond 680.
thats how it is. the bulk of videos online are sub 480.
I have a 65 inch TV in my living room and a 1080p cable servie with 150 hd channels. I don't watch TV on my 23 inch monitor.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Thatguy View PostI'd be more concerend about disk write speed if I was watching and recording video at the same time. especially with one HDD in the machine
its 1980 x1020 16:9 1gb file for a 4 minute video. thats pretty damn representitive of typical bit rates found on blue rays.
give me a stream I will benchmark decoding it. I am not even remotely concerned. Again you point is moot on most modern hardware.
yes becuase a 13 inch netbook screen render beautfiul 1024x780 images.
your making a argument against not for video acceleration. How HD does a 3.5 inch screen need to be ?
I'm not suffering.
whats the standard ? 480 web video ? yeah its pretty much standard.
TV and Blue ray is the only thing "aside from gaming" ushing bit rate in any direction beyond 680.
thats how it is. the bulk of videos online are sub 480.
I have a 65 inch TV in my living room and a 1080p cable servie with 150 hd channels. I don't watch TV on my 23 inch monitor.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mugginz View PostHave you tried it on say a machine like a HTPC with an Intel E3300 while it's also say recording two or three shows as well?
Comment
Comment