NVIDIA GeForce GT 520

[Kano]

What you say is definitely incorrect. Btw. if you have got libva + vdpau-video wrapper installed then vainfo will show mpeg4simple which is used by divx. Most likely there is a test tool for vdpau directly too. xvba-video never exposed that or did you see it? if you recommend ati hardware because of video decoding hardware that only works within win then you are in the wrong forum i think...

[DanL]

If VDPAU is a big issue, I don't see why a GT 520 is still a good buy when the GT 430 exists in the same factor and price.

The fifth generation of PureVideo HD, introduced with the Geforce GT 520, has significantly improved performance when decoding H.264 (and, from an already much higher level, other codecs),[8] it is also capable of decoding 4K x 2K videos.[9] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purevid...n_PureVideo_HD

Also, since the 3D hardware isn't as beefy as the 430, it probably uses less power, which is a good thing when using passive cooling..

[Richard Wolf VI]

The fifth generation of PureVideo HD, introduced with the Geforce GT 520, has significantly improved performance when decoding H.264 (and, from an already much higher level, other codecs),[8] it is also capable of decoding 4K x 2K videos.[9] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purevid...n_PureVideo_HD

Also, since the 3D hardware isn't as beefy as the 430, it probably uses less power, which is a good thing when using passive cooling..

Doesn't convince me yet. Intel GMA X3500 supports DirectX 10 yet you won't play Crysis with it. Does it matter that the codec support is optimized when the hardware itself is slower? I feel that any advantage in code is lost because of it.

[DanL]

Does it matter that the codec support is optimized when the hardware itself is slower?

The GT520 may have less 3D hardware, but its core and memory clocks are faster, which is the important thing for PureVideo. Did you actually look at the benchmarks, or did you just assume the 520 was slower? http://www.anandtech.com/show/4380/d...us-shootout/11

As PureVideo HD performance is dependent on the GPU's core clock speed, the impact of PureVideo will vary depending on the speed rather than the 3D power of your graphics card.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2048/3

[Richard Wolf VI]

The GT520 may have less 3D hardware, but its core and memory clocks are faster, which is the important thing for PureVideo. Did you actually look at the benchmarks, or did you just assume the 520 was slower? http://www.anandtech.com/show/4380/d...us-shootout/11]

I saw the benchmarks here and they spoke by themselves.

Saw the ones on Anandtech and I couldn't agree more:

On the GT 520 and HD 6450:

A discerning buyer building a HTPC system, having perused the various sections in this piece, would do well to avoid these two products.

If you prefer only AMD cards, the 6570 is the perfect HTPC card.

If you prefer only NVIDIA cards, the GT 430 is the perfect HTPC card for which you can obtain a passively cooled model.

Thanks for the article!

[DanL]

I saw the benchmarks here and they spoke by themselves.

Saw the ones on Anandtech and I couldn't agree more:

On the GT 520 and HD 6450:







Thanks for the article!

You're welcome, Windows user

[Panix]

You're welcome, Windows user

If you're going to go with an ATI card, you might as well be a Windows user.

What's the point of an ATI card in Linux if you want it for a HTPC machine? AMD refuses to support xvba and/or any UVD3 hardware acceleration/decoding in Linux.

Nvidia at least has some option so I guess their support is better overall. Nvidia has a BSD driver, AMD, again, no.

AMD has an open driver that half works but no support with HD 6xxx cards.

The GT 520 card might suck but it's fairly recent and with VDPAU, you can use it for HTPC which is all it's basically good for. NO ATI cards are good for HTPC in Linux but they're totally supported in Windows. I guess AMD supports Windows, not Linux.

[DanL]

I guess AMD supports Windows, not Linux.

To be fair, AMD is hiring community devs that show interest in supporting AMD on Linux. The g3dvl state tracker is in its infancy, and it's not going to mature overnight.

[Panix]

To be fair, AMD is hiring community devs that show interest in supporting AMD on Linux. The g3dvl state tracker is in its infancy, and it's not going to mature overnight.

You still think I'm being unfair? Have you read the latest reports in either the ATI/AMD (Catalyst) driver or OSS driver sections? I say I'm not being unfair.

[DanL]

You still think I'm being unfair?

No, just unreasonable and near-sighted. I even said if one wants hardware video acceleration right now, nvidia is preferable. I also said that g3dvl is in its infancy and that AMD has hired more devs for open-source development. So, don't think that things will never change, but don't expect tough work to happen instantly either.