Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MageMinds" data-source="post: 670025" data-attributes="member: 30288">You cut the important part of the sentence ... IMO &quot;In My Opinion&quot;And you left out an important detail too ... Not only the hardware need to support DxVA, but the file must be supported by the capabilities of the card too... Not all files are encoded equally and in the future when new method of encoding are used your DxVA card might not be able to decode using DxVA. CUDA on the orther hand is simply a parallel processor and the codec send stuff the parallel processor to be calculated and the result is sent back to the CPU. A true offloading solution, your CPU and GPU are working together to compute anything. You could even use your CUDA processor to encode a video... They build supercomputer around CUDA processor, 512 and more parallel processor in one machine. Search for &quot;Tesla nVidia&quot;. Contrary of the DxVA hardware capabilities to decode certain settings from the h264, in the future CoreAVC would just have to release a new codec supporting the new option and your CUDA processor would do whats it's told to do... Do get me wrong here DxVA is a good alternative when you doesn't have a CUDA processor, but if you do have a CUDA processor, which every ION chipset does have; 16 parallel processors, then you should use that. IMO.Maybe the choice of the word &quot;worst&quot; was a little bit too much though... I would now say, it's the wrong codec to choose for your hardware... If you buy a sport card design to run with higher octane fuel, it will run with regular fuel, but you're using the wrong gas, you should put in the right type of gas to enjoy your engine at it's top performance. My ION board was able to transcode a HD video as fast as my Core2 Quad 9550, using a program developed by nVidia that use the CUDA processor to do the transcoding, it's called badaboom...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MageMinds, post: 670025, member: 30288"] You cut the important part of the sentence ... IMO "In My Opinion" And you left out an important detail too ... Not only the hardware need to support DxVA, but the file must be supported by the capabilities of the card too... Not all files are encoded equally and in the future when new method of encoding are used your DxVA card might not be able to decode using DxVA. CUDA on the orther hand is simply a parallel processor and the codec send stuff the parallel processor to be calculated and the result is sent back to the CPU. A true offloading solution, your CPU and GPU are working together to compute anything. You could even use your CUDA processor to encode a video... They build supercomputer around CUDA processor, 512 and more parallel processor in one machine. Search for "Tesla nVidia". Contrary of the DxVA hardware capabilities to decode certain settings from the h264, in the future CoreAVC would just have to release a new codec supporting the new option and your CUDA processor would do whats it's told to do... Do get me wrong here DxVA is a good alternative when you doesn't have a CUDA processor, but if you do have a CUDA processor, which every ION chipset does have; 16 parallel processors, then you should use that. [B]IMO[/B]. Maybe the choice of the word "worst" was a little bit too much though... I would now say, it's the wrong codec to choose for your hardware... If you buy a sport card design to run with higher octane fuel, it will run with regular fuel, but you're using the wrong gas, you should put in the right type of gas to enjoy your engine at it's top performance. My ION board was able to transcode a HD video as fast as my Core2 Quad 9550, using a program developed by nVidia that use the CUDA processor to do the transcoding, it's called badaboom... [/QUOTE]

Verification