Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: NVIDIA Releases Standalone VDPAU Library

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,829

    Default NVIDIA Releases Standalone VDPAU Library

    Phoronix: NVIDIA Releases Standalone VDPAU Library

    While NVIDIA developed VDPAU (the Video Decode and Presentation API for Unix, one awesome way of accelerating HD video playback with great results) for use in their proprietary graphics driver, the API itself is open and has been well adopted by multimedia applications. VDPAU has worked out so well and has received critical mass that there is a VDPAU back-end for Intel's VA-API and work is underway on bringing VDPAU support directly to Intel's graphics driver. VDPAU may one day end up being used in other open-source drivers too...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzU0MA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Radoboj, Croatia
    Posts
    155

    Default

    So what are the odds of having VDPAU support in xorg-driver-ati one day in the future?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoDoENT View Post
    So what are the odds of having VDPAU support in xorg-driver-ati one day in the future?
    Last time I checked, the documentation released by AMD lacked any info for the video decoder. Also, as Bridgman pointed out earlier, the early HD Radeons had the acceleration implemented in a way such that documenting it would compromise HDCP (or something along those lines).

    I'd say video acceleration for R600/R700 is simply not coming to opensource drivers (not from official sources), we might see it in fglrx if we're lucky.

    Such is the sorry state of linux graphics - my choices are intel (drivers in quantum state, getting all the features to work with adequate performance is next to impossible for a casual Linux user), AMD (no opensource 3D for cards less than 4 years old, proprietary driver has problems with some basic functionality (Xv) and switching between computer power modes), nvidia (no opensource driver worth using yet, proprietary driver mostly works, but lacks some common features (XR&R1.2), and there's always the creeping shadow of nvidia's 'Bumpgate'). Other graphics vendors have no drivers/hardware worth using.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myxal View Post
    I'd say video acceleration for R600/R700 is simply not coming to opensource drivers (not from official sources), we might see it in fglrx if we're lucky.
    It's a damn shame.

    Quote Originally Posted by myxal View Post
    Such is the sorry state of linux graphics - my choices are intel (drivers in quantum state, getting all the features to work with adequate performance is next to impossible for a casual Linux user), AMD (no opensource 3D for cards less than 4 years old, proprietary driver has problems with some basic functionality (Xv) and switching between computer power modes), nvidia (no opensource driver worth using yet, proprietary driver mostly works, but lacks some common features (XR&R1.2), and there's always the creeping shadow of nvidia's 'Bumpgate'). Other graphics vendors have no drivers/hardware worth using.
    That sounds about right. I wish someone would write an article (HEY PHORONIX, I'M TALKING TO YOU! on the lines of "The Sorry State of Sound on Linux". At least no one has figured out a way to integrate PulseAudio into the X stack to mess things up

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myxal View Post
    I'd say video acceleration for R600/R700 is simply not coming to opensource drivers (not from official sources), we might see it in fglrx if we're lucky.
    I don't believe that that is an entirely accurate statement. There are different levels of video acceleration... the difference is in how much of the decode process is accelerated. Right now we DO have acceleration -- though only very basic Xv. Playing a full-HD video right now *does* peg any CPU that isn't at least a fairly recent 2-core or better. Offloading a -- lets call it a -- "significant chunk" over to the GPU (even without using the video decoder junk in the GPU) will take a significant chunk of the processing off the CPU to hopefully make HD playback stable on even older 2-core processors (maybe even 1-core's).

    Now the question you need to ask yourself is this: how much acceleration do you really need? My "tv computer" is an older X2-3800 that I recently picked up for free + an RHD3650 ($40). HD video playback goes like this;
    720P single threaded: fairly OK with the occasional chop. Very watchable.
    720P multi-threaded: perfect.
    1080P single threaded: unwatchable, drops about 50%.
    1080P multi-threaded: fairly OK with the occasional chop. About the same as 720P single threaded.

    So how much acceleration do *I* need on this "$40" computer to make 1080P perfect? The answer is *not much*. And that's on old junk.

    Here's what bridgman has to say about video decode acceleration:
    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...69&postcount=3

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lbcoder View Post
    I don't believe that that is an entirely accurate statement. There are different levels of video acceleration... the difference is in how much of the decode process is accelerated. Right now we DO have acceleration -- though only very basic Xv. Playing a full-HD video right now *does* peg any CPU that isn't at least a fairly recent 2-core or better. Offloading a -- lets call it a -- "significant chunk" over to the GPU (even without using the video decoder junk in the GPU) will take a significant chunk of the processing off the CPU to hopefully make HD playback stable on even older 2-core processors (maybe even 1-core's).

    Now the question you need to ask yourself is this: how much acceleration do you really need? My "tv computer" is an older X2-3800 that I recently picked up for free + an RHD3650 ($40). HD video playback goes like this;
    720P single threaded: fairly OK with the occasional chop. Very watchable.
    720P multi-threaded: perfect.
    1080P single threaded: unwatchable, drops about 50%.
    1080P multi-threaded: fairly OK with the occasional chop. About the same as 720P single threaded.

    So how much acceleration do *I* need on this "$40" computer to make 1080P perfect? The answer is *not much*. And that's on old junk.

    Here's what bridgman has to say about video decode acceleration:
    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...69&postcount=3
    You make a good point here. We shouldn't spend more than 50 bucks if all you want is to watch HD content.

    I think the problem is with people that spent 150 or more and want to get the most out of their hardware.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myxal View Post
    Last time I checked, the documentation released by AMD lacked any info for the video decoder.
    On the other paw developers seem to think we don't need anything more. (at least for some level of video decoding acceleration) They'd be doing it with shaders. Someone just has to write it in.
    Edit: Never mind, didn't read until the end. Apparently bridgman did say this in the other thread.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    [VDPAU has worked out so well and has received critical mass that there is a VDPAU back-end for Intel's VA-API and work is underway on bringing VDPAU support directly to Intel's graphics driver.
    Actually, MPEG-2 and H.264 video decode acceleration for Intel G45 (GMA4500HD et al.) is now being developed as VA API driver.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gbeauche View Post
    Actually, MPEG-2 and H.264 video decode acceleration for Intel G45 (GMA4500HD et al.) is now being developed as VA API driver.
    Since according to Wikipedia you can use VDPAU as an VA API backend, that should not make a significant difference, I think...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Since according to Wikipedia you can use VDPAU as an VA API backend, that should not make a significant difference, I think...
    This means you need an application supporting VA API to use it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •