Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 96 of 96

Thread: Radeon UVD Support Going Through Code Review

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    In case of the OSS Drivers you can drop HD2xxx up to HD4xxx to UVD1 and UVD2 are not supported.
    yes... amd really like this obsolescence! this is just immoral!

    they doom the nature by electronic garbage... and no energy saving is not saving nature because you can drive your computers on 100% green energy!

    old-hardware+green energy is the most saving nature people can do.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    yes... amd really like this obsolescence! this is just immoral!
    No thats has some reasons why its not on the list.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    No thats has some reasons why its not on the list.
    LOL reasons=excuses

    more lies to fix the old lies.

    sure... maybe the reason is: they chance something in the UVD3 unit to protect the DRM...

    double speech war=peace slavery=freedom

    reasons=excuses

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    139

    Default

    hi, i'm sorry but my English is bad.
    If they release the source code of the UVD, you might get something better than the dvxa in windows, or VDPAU in linux?

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    779

    Default

    Shaders vs. ASIC

    For me it's an intermediate solution to use the "all-purpose" shaders for that and keep them busy instead of an ASIC that was made for the very purpose. The ASIC will always be better and especially with far lower power consumption (probably even mW area).

    And: Some flamers here seem to have way too much time.
    Nvidia? They don't support free drivers at all. They just "won't sue nouveau".
    intel: Not much GPU power here, driver so-so, but do they actually have any specific video decode unit, something that also touches content decryption of "commercial media"?
    Matrox, VIA, SiS etc. : lol.
    Imagination Technologies: ROFL.

    No enterprise can just easily give out specs that touch these things without some review. Otherwise they could be gripped by legal means quite easily e.g. with sales stop/prohibition.
    And most of them don't publish anything at all.
    I'd be really welcoming any UVD functionality for sure, but I accept that this isn't an easy topic and needs some careful handling first.

    So +1 from me for archibald.

    And these people flaming AMD-ATI, regardless of me being a fan of them, think about it and see if other GPU vendors are any better in this regard. Hint: They aren't. So please stop flaming AMD for something that is clearly NOT their fault. Flame Disney, GEMA, VG Wort, MPAA, RIAA, Warner, Universal and these folks for making devices more expensive than necessary and not fully usable in a free OS environment.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adarion View Post
    Shaders vs. ASIC

    For me it's an intermediate solution to use the "all-purpose" shaders for that and keep them busy instead of an ASIC that was made for the very purpose. The ASIC will always be better and especially with far lower power consumption (probably even mW area).

    And: Some flamers here seem to have way too much time.
    Nvidia? They don't support free drivers at all. They just "won't sue nouveau".
    intel: Not much GPU power here, driver so-so, but do they actually have any specific video decode unit, something that also touches content decryption of "commercial media"?
    Matrox, VIA, SiS etc. : lol.
    Imagination Technologies: ROFL.

    No enterprise can just easily give out specs that touch these things without some review. Otherwise they could be gripped by legal means quite easily e.g. with sales stop/prohibition.
    And most of them don't publish anything at all.
    I'd be really welcoming any UVD functionality for sure, but I accept that this isn't an easy topic and needs some careful handling first.

    So +1 from me for archibald.

    And these people flaming AMD-ATI, regardless of me being a fan of them, think about it and see if other GPU vendors are any better in this regard. Hint: They aren't. So please stop flaming AMD for something that is clearly NOT their fault. Flame Disney, GEMA, VG Wort, MPAA, RIAA, Warner, Universal and these folks for making devices more expensive than necessary and not fully usable in a free OS environment.
    hi maybe there is a complete alternative viewpoint what if the question is not "Shaders vs. ASIC"

    maybe they only work so hard on the UVD unit only because they need the "stars-yController" inside of the UVD unit to eliminate circling data on the PCIe bus from cpu to gpu and back.

    because the biggest impact in watt power consuming is not shaders vs asic the biggest different is in stars-yController or not.

    you can drive a shader solution with and without the stars yC-cpu on the card

    in tact the UVD solution use all the stars-yController+shaders+ASIC

Posting Permissions

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