X-bit labs Community

AlanSymes · Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:17 pm Post subject: H264 and CPU based decoding?

Just a general question related to an article over at the inquirer that has implied that any of the CPU's presently available are unable to decode the H264 codec for HD DVD's, event the new dual core ones.
The question is do you think that this codec is beyond the lastest and greatest from AMD and Intel and if so what will they need to be able to handle this work load? More cores? new instruction? Any suggestions?
What is the truth here?

MadDog-2000 · Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: H264 and CPU based decoding?

Jake · Full Member Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 175

Something the inquirer article didn't make perfectly clear was that it was referring to HD content encoded in H.264, which makes a big difference.
(Your typical HD content may contain 6 times the number of pixels compared to a standard ntsc signal.)
People routinely use H.264 variants to encode/decode all sorts of signals already, but these tend to be at lower resolutions. Try encoding HD content in DivX and playing it back in full screen. Most CPUs will have difficulty doing that too, let alone H.264.

cushionnl · X-bit Guru Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 3146

Maybe you'll find the whitepaper from ATI interesting? Shouldn't be surprised if it is the basis for what is said by INQ here.

Silver · Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:58 am Post subject:

theliquidh20 · Senior Member Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 825

Just played it on a 2.8GHz P4. Looks like a ppt show !
_________________
Dell 9100
3.6GHz Pent 2MB
1024MB DDR2
X850XT PE
X-FI Platinum Edition
Dell 20.1" LCD
Cambridge T7900 7.1
2 x 160GB RAID0

psycho_mccrazy · Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:20 am Post subject:

me also played the terminator2 clip, 1080p, though with my 1152.864 resolution monitor, i couldn't enjoy it at full detail. i'd say, apart form a slight quarter second hesitation when starting(resizing wmp to take all desktop), it was pretty smooth.

wmp mem usage 35megs

cpu usage 75-80%

is fine with me. BTW, when playing mpeg/mpeg2 clips of normal TV resolution, the CPU usage is 1-2%. seems like the radeon xpress 200 integrated grafix have some video processing features.
_________________
Windjammer: E8400@3.6GHz + 4G DDR2-800 + Ati 4870 on GA-EP45-DS3R with Scythe Ninja 2 and 3x HDDs inside a Cooler Master HAF 932 case.
Backup: Athlon 3000+/MSI RS480M2/2GDDR400/7900GTX.
Displays are a 24.1 inch IODATA (1900.1200) and a Samsung Syncmaster 997MB (1600.1200)

AlanSymes · Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:24 am Post subject:

Thanks guys, That would explain why very small res will play but the only one I have tried that was high res seemed to freeze the entire system. My XP 1800+ just isn't up to it. It would seem the R520 or rather one of its relatives will be of interest to me at some point.
In that case I will change the question some what, what do you think would be necessary, CPU wise to play H264 with no performance hit? After all a new video card will probably need a new motherboard and therefore a new CPU. I am going to have to start saving again!

cushionnl · X-bit Guru Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 3146

That clip isn't H.264.

Better to check out Apple in this case: QuickTime Player.

hehe · Full Member Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 410

Those winmedia 1080p demos actualy have a 1440x810 resolution.
The 720p demos are 1280x720.
I understand they also use 1080 for 4:3 1440x1080 format but to advertise the clips as being 1080p while showing it with black bars is rediculous, 1920x1080 is the real res.
Im looking forward to seeing some videos shot with digital cameras in that resolution.

Does anyone know when theyre gonna start using 1920x1080 60p cameras?
I think 24fps is just way to low and at this res an increase in fps is way more important than more pixels.

MadDog-2000 · Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:02 pm Post subject:

cushionnl · X-bit Guru Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 3146

Stupify · Terakh Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 7727 Location: Toronto

i watched most of them and they ran without any lag. System specs: AMD Sempron 3100+ <Rev C?>; 1GB memory at 333Mhz, apparently it downclocked; ATI 9600XT 128MB, XP, WMP10. There were few that went up to 90% cpu usage, but still ran smooth. T2 was about 60% only.

cushionnl · X-bit Guru Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 3146

That's another example that Microsoft wasn't underestimating the configuration needed to play back those particular WMV-HD clips then, without specific hardware acceleration. That's good to know indeed, although not surprising, since it would only reflect badly on Microsoft if it did so.

For H.264 and 1080p, hardware acceleration (when at a reasonable price) certainly seems like an attractive option in general, judging by the evidence so far (although that doesn't mean that there aren't higher level configs able to do without). Of course, that all depends on being able to get what one wants to see in 1080p and having the screen to show it on. Smile

hehe · Full Member Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 410

MadDog-2000 · Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:46 pm Post subject:

Guest · Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:14 pm Post subject:

hehe · Full Member Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 410

cushionnl · X-bit Guru Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 3146

You are talking about a monitor here? If so, watch out for copy-protection if you want to use a digital interface.
_________________
megalomaniac, elitist bastard