List for me the benefits of 3D Hardware Acceleration

[pufftissue]

the obvious is that it offloads work from your cpu.

But beyond that, does hardware acceleration actually improve picture quality?

What I am asking is if the purevideo decoder, the sagetv decoder, the cyberlink mpeg2 decoder, is primarily responsible for pic quality....or is it the hardware acceleration that is embedded in the cards responsible?

Is avivo a hardware chip? is purevideo a hardware chip as well as a $50 download?

My impression is that enabling hardware accleration impressively improves the pic quality, BUT it is jerky and unwatchable...and believe me I've been all over the forums trying to fig out why it is so jerky.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by pufftissue

the obvious is that it offloads work from your cpu.

But beyond that, does hardware acceleration actually improve picture quality?

Probably the biggest thing is 3D Accelleration is a requirement to enable Fullscreen Exclusive VMR9, which is by many accounts the premier way to render video on the PC. VMR9 renders video as a texture, just like 3D games, and FSE VMR9 allows Sage to completely take over the graphics card (and to a great degree the whole PC) allowing for smoother playback with fewer interruptions.

However, I think you're really asking what the benefit of DirectX Video Accelleration (DXVA) is.

What I am asking is if the purevideo decoder, the sagetv decoder, the cyberlink mpeg2 decoder, is primarily responsible for pic quality....or is it the hardware acceleration that is embedded in the cards responsible?

They play a large role, but aren't the whole story. Firstly noting is fully hardware decoded on graphics cards, some of the decoding is always done in software, this is why the decoder makes a difference. It does part of the decoding and thus influences the quality.

For example the Sage decoder is probably the worst of the ones you mentioned. Quality is generally not that great, and further it does not support DXVA at all.

Most decoders these days, especially retail decoders, support DXVA. Of those, nVidia's decoder is probably the most highly regarded decoder available.

Is avivo a hardware chip? is purevideo a hardware chip as well as a $50 download?

Both "AVIVO" and "PureVideo" are marketing names, they are names for all video playback related technologies from ATI and nVidia (respectively). They encompase hardware features on the video card, driver features, and video decoders. In the case of nVidia, they provide solutions for all three (Cyberlink, Nero, and Intervideo all offer decoders that support "PureVideo" as well), ATI only directly provides the hardware and drivers, they rely on Cyberlink for thier decoders (Nero, nVidia, and InterVideo decoders also work with AVIVO).

My impression is that enabling hardware accleration impressively improves the pic quality,

I'd say in general yes, but it depends on what you're watching. The biggest benefit is for video that requires deinterlacing, for instance Sage recordings. These are generally recorded as video but are often film content, or a mix that. I'm aware of no software that can (in realtime) match the deinterlacing quality of "PureVideo" or "AVIVO".

BUT it is jerky and unwatchable...and believe me I've been all over the forums trying to fig out why it is so jerky.

Try enabling Fullscreen Exclusive mode.

[FidgetyRat]

As an example, we will use my client machine
Its a P3 600Mhz mini-pc with 256Mb ram running XP, Sage6 and MC

it has some generic intel onboard video. Obviously this will not include any hardware acceleration or decoding..

Using default software decoders or even intervideo, I was forced to Overlay. the cpu was almost always at 100% and hitting stop would cause a 10 second delay until the UI popped up. I used to blame 600 MHZ as being too slow for a client.


After installing purevideo, using VMR9 and the pure audio decoders, watching a show with pure software decoding uses about 80-90% CPU, full responsive UI and background application use.

Now that slow P3 600 box is a zippy little client.


Using hardware based decoding such as pairing the Pure decoders with an NVIDIA card ABOVE the FX5200 will = pretty much NO CPU overhead at all. I run a 5200 on my server which is one of the first cards to *start* supporting hardware decoding. NVIDIA labels it as "partially" supported. Pairing that particular card with Purevideo and VMR9 cut CPU use from 80% down to 15% or less as well as increasing picture quality. It is well worth the 50 purchase.

[jbarr]

Originally Posted by FidgetyRat

Using hardware based decoding such as pairing the Pure decoders with an NVIDIA card ABOVE the FX5200 will = pretty much NO CPU overhead at all.
...
Quality-wise. I have yet to see a decoder produce as smooth an image as the NVIDIA codecs.

Fidgety, I'm currently using an "eVGA 256MB Geforce 7300LE" and am struggling with picture quality.

I am currently using the Intervideo decoders for audil and video with Overlay. I'm at work, and I don't remember the FSE or 3d accelleration settings. I get very good quality with almost no stuttering, but it still seems "rough" at times. I have tried PureVideo w/VMR9, and it's stutter-city.

Is it just a matter of finding the correct settings, or would I do better if I bought a better graphics adapter? I would think that given my specs below, I would get decent results.

[FidgetyRat]

Here is a list of compatible cards. Yours seems alot better then mine so I suspect some software conflicts here. Especially if I run pure software decoding on a 600mhz box.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/purevideo_support.html

My settings for my Geforce FX 5200 are:

NVIDA Decoder (not post-processor)
VMR9 with 3d Acceleration ON.
Also using NVIDIA Decoder for the audio.

Might also want to make sure your display drivers are up to date.

You might want to also run the windows decoder check to make sure Pure is being used as the default decoder. Sometimes they conflict with one another.

Beyond that, your hardware is way better then mine, so something is fishy.



EDIT:

Come to think of it, I used to not use the PureDecoders because on my last HTPC install it ran like hell. After the last re-install of windows I made sure it was the only present decoder. I really suspect a conflict.

[pufftissue]

Last night I reinstalled my ATI 1950pro and it now works much more smoothly with vmr9....but overlay is more or less perfectly smooth playback.

But as far as pic quality, I find virtually no difference b/w overlay and vmr9. (Overlay is darker, but you can adjust the gamma and contrast in ATI's Catalyst control center).

1. Should vmr9 be noticeably better?
2. Does 3D hardware acceleration while using overlay do anything? Or is 3D hardware acceleration only for vmr9?

[CharleyZ]

I was recently wondering the same thing. However, I do not use any PC clients. I only watch SageTV via my MVPs. Would adding a decent video card that supports 3D harware acceleration offer me anything?

I am running a pretty "beefy" server - Intel Core2 Extreme X6800 processor, NVIDIA nForce 590 motherboard, 2 GB RAM, 2TB RAID-5. However, since it is only a server, I am using a very generic video card.

[FidgetyRat]

Originally Posted by CharleyZ

However, since it is only a server, I am using a very generic video card.

The performance gains by the modifications listed within this thread only benefit the playback of video on the local machine. If the server is just used for recording and not watching of video, adding a new display adapter won't help at all.


Basically, its client-side, not server-side that benefits.


Since I use my server AS my main TV client, I had to step up the graphics.

[CharleyZ]

So the setting to enable 3D hardware accelertation would offer absolutely no benefit in my situation? With the video card currently in my system, I can't enable it at all, but I've always been curious.