Originally posted by brent
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mesa 9.0 Officially Released, Supports OpenGL 3.1
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by brent View PostIf you have a capable driver, MPlayer's OpenGL output is similarly efficient as Xv or VDPAU. That is, the overhead is negligible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by aceman View PostSo what about mplayer -vo vdpau. Can it be used anywhere where -vo xv was used? If there is not the proper format support in the specific GPU driver for vdpau (e.g. radeon only has mpeg1/2) will the video be decoded in SW? But will the presentation features of VDPAU still be used?
Does Gallium have a high-quality scaler? With Nvidia, you can use -vo vdpau:hqscaling=1 for a much better picture than the default bilinear scaler.
Originally posted by curaga View PostRadeon FOSS. XV output is at 0.5% cpu, GL output is 35%. Hardly negligible, and the difference was much greater on older cards (this is a HD4k).
On Nvidia and Intel the difference is minimal. Run mplayer with -v -vo gl, see which options for gl were chosen. Play around with different ones, especially the ati-hack and the force-pbo ones.Last edited by Gusar; 11 October 2012, 04:24 AM.
Comment
-
force-pbo: no difference.
force-pbo + ati-hack: no difference.
It's simply impossible for a heavier path to be equal to a faster path, so I guess we're arguing about "how much slower is gl". The answer for radeon, a lot, far more than I'd accept for better-quality fonts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostIt's simply impossible for a heavier path to be equal to a faster path
Besides, Xv _also_ uses the 3D engine (textured video) on modern graphic cards, so the only difference between xv and gl is how to access the graphic card. GL probably has some overhead here, but on Nvidia and Intel it's negligible.
Originally posted by curaga View Postso I guess we're arguing about "how much slower is gl". The answer for radeon, a lot,
Comment
Comment