I bought a 3850 two years ago and believed eventually my card would have hardware acceleration support. Now this day comes. But thank you ATI. You really makes me feel upset/betrayed. AMD/ATI you betray all faithful buyers who bought your RV6xx even though the performance was worse than Nvidia. I can tolerate the buggy fglrx, I can tolerate my wine broken all the time, but why fglrx can't even bring a small happiness to its RV6xx buyer?! I really think my requirement for fglrx is quite low. I just want hardware acceleration for video decoding so I can watch some 1080p video in linux environment. ATI/AMD, you really break my heart.
realy its a good move to drop fglrx ....
i will tell you some points!
OpenCL/fglrx do not work on hd2000/HD3xxx openCL/radeon will work on HD3xxx
Viedeo acceleration/fglrx do not work on hd3xxx but will work on Radeon/Galium3D...
I'll have to find some more taxing clips, but in my experience so far, this has pretty impressive results. I've been trying some of the various h.264 clips (trying to find the highest frame size and bitrate ones I can) on http://www.h264info.com/clips.html
This isn't a comprehensive, or particularly scientific benchmark, but it gives an idea of the difference in processor (CPU) usage between Xv and XvBA. I'm using htop to monitor mplayer, btw.
Phenom II 810 (2.6GHz), MSI 790GX-G65 using onboard HD3300:
I am Legend 1080p (really 816p):
without XvBA: max 77% CPU
with XvBA: max 3% CPU
Coraline 1080p (from the link at the top of the page at Digital Digest)
without XvBA: spiked at 99% usage 102secs into the clip, mplayer complains system is too slow, but for the most part was 30-70%
with XvBA: %2-3
So far any of the others I've played back give the same results: no more than %3 usage. If anyone knows of a particularly strenuous clip I'd like to try it.