home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
MediaPortal 1 Talk
HD H264 Video Decode Quality and Performance comparison
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="idioteque" data-source="post: 166035" data-attributes="member: 37301"><p>anandtech has a nice article about HD Video decoding:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Conclusion:</p><p></p><p><strong>Nvidia has better quality, minimal 8600 don't use a 8800</strong></p><p><strong>AMD has lower CPU utilization minimum 2600 don't use a 2900</strong></p><p></p><p><em>Those who choose to stick with very well produced 1080p content may not need post processing noise reduction or de-interlacing, but they might miss out on imported content or HD releases of some TV series (depending on what studios choose to do in that area). For now, we're going to recommend that users interested in HTPC setups stick with the tools that can get the job done best no matter what the source material is. The only options for HD video intensive systems today are the Radeon HD 2600 and GeForce 8600 series cards. For its better handling of noise reduction (and especially the fact that it can be turned off) we recommend the 8600 GT/GTS above the other options in spite of the fact that the 2600 XT provided better CPU offloading.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>We have to stress here that, in spite of the fact that NVIDIA and AMD expect the inclusion of video decode hardware on their low end hardware to provide significant value to end users, we absolutely cannot recommend current low end graphics card for use in systems where video decode is important. In our eyes, with the inability to provide a high quality HD experience in all cases, the HD 2400, GeForce 8500, and lower end hardware are all only suitable for use in business class or casual computing systems where neither games nor HD video play a part in the system's purpose.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>AMD's UVD does beat out NVIDIA's VP2 in both H.264 and VC-1 decode performance. However, it isn't really enough to make a tangible difference in the viewing of movies. Performance is important, and UVD performance is certainly impressive. <strong>But we still have to favor the 8600 for its superior image quality.</strong> </em></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3047" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3047</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="idioteque, post: 166035, member: 37301"] anandtech has a nice article about HD Video decoding: Conclusion: [B]Nvidia has better quality, minimal 8600 don't use a 8800 AMD has lower CPU utilization minimum 2600 don't use a 2900[/B] [I]Those who choose to stick with very well produced 1080p content may not need post processing noise reduction or de-interlacing, but they might miss out on imported content or HD releases of some TV series (depending on what studios choose to do in that area). For now, we're going to recommend that users interested in HTPC setups stick with the tools that can get the job done best no matter what the source material is. The only options for HD video intensive systems today are the Radeon HD 2600 and GeForce 8600 series cards. For its better handling of noise reduction (and especially the fact that it can be turned off) we recommend the 8600 GT/GTS above the other options in spite of the fact that the 2600 XT provided better CPU offloading. We have to stress here that, in spite of the fact that NVIDIA and AMD expect the inclusion of video decode hardware on their low end hardware to provide significant value to end users, we absolutely cannot recommend current low end graphics card for use in systems where video decode is important. In our eyes, with the inability to provide a high quality HD experience in all cases, the HD 2400, GeForce 8500, and lower end hardware are all only suitable for use in business class or casual computing systems where neither games nor HD video play a part in the system's purpose. AMD's UVD does beat out NVIDIA's VP2 in both H.264 and VC-1 decode performance. However, it isn't really enough to make a tangible difference in the viewing of movies. Performance is important, and UVD performance is certainly impressive. [B]But we still have to favor the 8600 for its superior image quality.[/B] [/I] [url]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3047[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
MediaPortal 1 Talk
HD H264 Video Decode Quality and Performance comparison
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom
