Will AMD's XvBA Beat Out NVIDIA's VDPAU?
Phoronix: Will AMD's XvBA Beat Out NVIDIA's VDPAU?
Going back to last year we have exclusively been reporting on AMD's new HD video decoding interface, which is called XvBA. This interface for use with UVD2 GPUs is properly known as X-Video Bitstream Acceleration, which we have already described at length...
NVIDIA's headstart will definitely help here. Some competition will be nice, though, giving incentive to add performance and features.
I think they got some money from ATI/AMD ....
They used a totally outdated graphic card versus a rather new one.
According to the NVIDIA documentation (at http://us.download.nvidia.com/XFree8...ppendix-h.html ), VC-1 support on this card is only partial, while most new cards (even cheap ones) has total support.
If the card has total support in VC1, I guess results will be exactly the same as H264: VDPAU will totally beat XvBA
Video decode acceleration with XvBA on Linux doesn't work very well over here. It's probably vaporware for anything but embedded solutions anyway.
I'm not a big fan of competition when it's one vendor-specific API against another; that just means app developers have to either do more work to support both APIs or alienate a big chunk of the user base by choosing one API. Hopefully this will all get unified behind one open API (which seems to be the direction VA API is headed) and they can compete purely on implementation quality.
Well vdpau is open. Even Via's chrome now supports it. And ya take the VC-1 comparison with a grain of salt. They are using a old 8600 card vs one of the 8 or 9 series IGP's or cards like the newer 8400 cards which have PureVideo support that does do full VC-1 acceleration. The two vc-1 example's play great at < 1% CPU usage here on a nvidia IGP that has PV Gen 3 support. There is also the fact that while he is using the latest official drivers the recently leaked Cuda drivers have many vdpau improvements as well. Another thing is he could have at least used the two discreet cards in the same system.
Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber
1. XvBA isn't vaporware, because it hasn't even been announced yet. Vaporware requires something to be hyped up first, and AMD hasn't said a word about it yet. And no, it won't be available for the open source drivers, just like Nvidia won't allow VDPAU to be used by open source drivers either.
2. This article kept mentioning that XvBA was supported by the drivers, which is flat out FALSE. It isn't supported at all, it hasn't even been announced yet, as mentioned above in point 1. Phoronix is really doing a disservice to AMD here and riling people up over nothing. An initial post when the library was first added is OK, and maybe 1 more every few months with a quick status update (no new news) is fine, but you shouldn't seem to be putting words in AMD's mouth that they have never said.
3. The benchmarks linked to are pretty useless. The systems the 3 cards are running on are completely different, and you can't compare any of the results between them beyond a basic 'yes, it seems to work pretty well' check that all 3 easily passed. If anything, Intel's VAAPI support seemed the most impressive of the 3, because it was running on an Atom CPU.
If I'm not mistaken, the extension has been present in the driver for a while now.
Originally Posted by smitty3268
"Supported" is very, very different from "present." I believe Micheal is a native english speaker who should know this. AMD could easily remove XvBA from their next driver like it never existed, because they haven't ever said they would support it. I don't believe they've ever even acknowledged it's existence.
Originally Posted by Melcar
Originally Posted by Melcar
But not Announced by AMD/ATI.
The fanboy has spoken.
Originally Posted by phhusson
Last edited by Nille; 07-06-2009 at 09:06 PM.