yo don't understand the Bridgman rhetoric he work on h.264 he also work on a UVD solution but this does not mean they release anything.
if he do not find a way to protect the DRM/Copyprotection in his solution there will be no release for "UVD3" they already drooped the work for UVD1 and UVD2....
but he will work on h.264 support after that to because the hd7970 do have a complete new video "engine" then they will try it for that hardware generation to.
the HDMI case show that the internal work @ AMD can FAIL! they worked on a opensource solution and after the legal check they dropped it.
and in my point of view they will fail for the UVD unit.
so the real target is the "VCE" video unit.
The original post said they wouldn't release anything, and then bridgman said that was wrong.
I don't think there's any rhetoric there, although obviously they could change their plans I suppose.
Edit: I guess it said "in the coming years", and obviously I would be pretty disappointed if it really takes years.
The opposite of "nothing" is not "everything"; you are taking the most optimistic possible interpretation of what I said, which can lead to disappointment.
Most of the work Christian has done since he started at AMD has been related to video decode, both with shaders and with UVD. He started with shaders, but switched to UVD when the shader work proved to be less than promising (which we discussed here several months ago). The issue was that the decode work
EDIT - where did the rest of my post go ?
OK, short version -- as posted here a couple of times before, shader work turned out not as well as hoped because the parts we could accelerate on GPU had already been implemented pretty efficiently on x86 SIMD instructions, so Christian switched to working on UVD. We don't know yet if we will be able to release the code, but Christian and others are looking into ways to make that possible.
Last edited by bridgman; 06-06-2012 at 06:09 AM.
Like I said: "you can forget about H.264 support (whether it be UVD or shader approach) in the open drivers for the coming years.".
Btw. This is not an interpretation of your words, but my experience in general. When there is no clear timetable and the only thing communicated is something like "we don't know when", it's either not going to happen or it's going to take a very long time.
So I stand by my words: "you can forget about H.264 support (whether it be UVD or shader approach) in the open drivers for the coming years."
I guess... if you're just saying "I am knowingly taking the most pessimistic range of interpretations" then that's fair, and I have been very clear that people making buying decisions should not assume UVD support in the open driver yet.
On the other hand, pretty much everything with the open drivers so far has faced similar challenges and an awful lot of things *have* happened, so I think saying unequivocally that something is *not* going to happen is just as misleading.
My main objection with your previous post was not those words, however, but the (incorrect) statement that Christian had only done work on video decode before starting at AMD and that we had stopped him from working on that and shifted him to other tasks, along with the other conclusions you based on that statement.
Last edited by bridgman; 06-06-2012 at 06:41 AM.
But that's different. AMD has always been very secretive about UVD. How long did it take before we could use UVD with closed source Catalyst? Years no?
Is he working on video decode right now? Full time? I don't think so. Of course you're in a better position to know than me. But from what I can see from the internets it seems he's working on compute support?My main objection with your previous post was not those words, however, but the (incorrect) statement that Christian had only done work on video decode before starting at AMD and that we had stopped him from working on that and shifted him to other tasks, along with the other conclusions you based on that statement.
Well, actually, it is. If anything in his post was correct, then saying "nothing" was correct was false.
But I was being a little tongue-in-cheek to begin with.
I'm a little surprised you didn't see this coming ahead of time. Years and years ago AMD put out marketing info that the bits of h.264 that couldn't be accelerated on shaders were good for 50% of decoding time. It was part of the reason they created UVD in the first place.OK, short version -- as posted here a couple of times before, shader work turned out not as well as hoped because the parts we could accelerate on GPU had already been implemented pretty efficiently on x86 SIMD instructions, so Christian switched to working on UVD.
Last edited by smitty3268; 06-06-2012 at 08:44 AM.