Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Processor requirement for seamless 1080p?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 1, 2007 12:38:08 PM

Hey all - even with my new E6600 and 4GB of RAM, I can't seem to play 1080p video without it being choppy. Is my CPU still too slow to be able to play this HD resolution seamlessly? If so, what kind of setup would be needed? I downloaded a bunch of HD movie trailers from Apple - only to find out that the 720p's are the only ones that work well. Would a 512MB video card be the answer?
March 1, 2007 12:46:12 PM

Try a new video card.

Also, high amounts of RAM on low performing graphic cores is just a marketing stunt. For example; it's better to have 256MB 7900GS than a 512MB 7600GS.

Try the X1650 XT for starters.
March 1, 2007 1:45:29 PM

Quote:
Also, high amounts of RAM on low performing graphic cores is just a marketing stunt. For example; it's better to have 256MB 7900GS than a 512MB 7600GS.


Is that true? I always thought it was like Windows, where the quantity of RAM was more important than its speed. I have a 256MB GeForce 6200 GT, which is just a temp card until affordable DX 10 GPU's hit the market later this year. Do you have any idea what will be a decent midrange DX 10 chipset? I know the 8800 is the current monster, but I don't need anything like that. Thanks in advance.
Related resources
March 1, 2007 1:50:54 PM

Quote:
Hey all - even with my new E6600 and 4GB of RAM, I can't seem to play 1080p video without it being choppy. Is my CPU still too slow to be able to play this HD resolution seamlessly? If so, what kind of setup would be needed? I downloaded a bunch of HD movie trailers from Apple - only to find out that the 720p's are the only ones that work well. Would a 512MB video card be the answer?



No CPU will play 1080p unassisted. You have to have HD ssuport in the GPU. I tried 720p and my dual core was at 80%. 720p is I believe 1024 whereas 1080p is 1920.

I beleive Anand did a BluRay test with C2Q and QFX and BluRay basically won. Only those two systems could play BluRay while doing aything else and I believe decoding is threaded.
March 1, 2007 1:53:28 PM

Quote:
Also, high amounts of RAM on low performing graphic cores is just a marketing stunt. For example; it's better to have 256MB 7900GS than a 512MB 7600GS.


Is that true? I always thought it was like Windows, where the quantity of RAM was more important than its speed. I have a 256MB GeForce 6200 GT, which is just a temp card until affordable DX 10 GPU's hit the market later this year. Do you have any idea what will be a decent midrange DX 10 chipset? I know the 8800 is the current monster, but I don't need anything like that. Thanks in advance.

The most affordable DX10 card at the moment is the 8800 GTS 320 for around $300, Nvidia's mid range DX10 cards are due out in April when you should be able to get one for under $200. AMD/ATI and its top of the line R600 series have been delayed to May, when they are supposed to come out mid-range cards I'm not sure.
March 1, 2007 1:56:18 PM

Yeah, I noticed a 75-80% CPU usage playing a 720p QuickTime last night. The video was smooth, but the system was undeniably taxed. Will most of the decent DX 10 GPU's coming out be able to effectively output 1080p, or just the really high-end ones?
March 1, 2007 2:09:06 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I noticed a 75-80% CPU usage playing a 720p QuickTime last night. The video was smooth, but the system was undeniably taxed. Will most of the decent DX 10 GPU's coming out be able to effectively output 1080p, or just the really high-end ones?



It's not the DX part of the GPU, it's the video part. The newer ATi/nVidia GPUs have support but your player has to take advantage of it. Ati's is called Avivo and I can't remember what nVidia's is called.

But truthfully watching BluRay, etc will be a pain on the PC cause you have to have an HDMI monitor and Vista. XP doesn't have the DRM stuff. You can play nonDRM, non BluRay/HDDVD content but I'd rather watch on a 32"+ monitor.
March 1, 2007 2:14:14 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I noticed a 75-80% CPU usage playing a 720p QuickTime last night. The video was smooth, but the system was undeniably taxed. Will most of the decent DX 10 GPU's coming out be able to effectively output 1080p, or just the really high-end ones?



It's not the DX part of the GPU, it's the video part. The newer ATi/nVidia GPUs have support but your player has to take advantage of it. Ati's is called Avivo and I can't remember what nVidia's is called.

But truthfully watching BluRay, etc will be a pain on the PC cause you have to have an HDMI monitor and Vista. XP doesn't have the DRM stuff. You can play nonDRM, non BluRay/HDDVD content but I'd rather watch on a 32"+ monitor.

Yeah, I agree - Blu-Ray is best for TVs, not PCs. It's just that I'lll be getting a new widescreen monitor and figured I'd might as well get a video card fully capable of outputting all HD resolutions. The 640MB 8880's are a little pricey, but considering what you're getting and the expected usability (several years), it's not such a bad deal.
March 1, 2007 2:18:18 PM

i thought all you needed was a HTCP cert player and HTCP cert video card to run HD-DVD or blue ray?

and there is dvi to hdmi converters for HTCP cert video cards that only have dvi. AND hdmi is coming very soon to the pc. one example is the ati(its still canadian in my heart) 690G chipset.

but ive seen without video card support even an E6800 is taxed to 90%+ CPU useage during HD-dvd playback at 1080p
March 1, 2007 2:18:30 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I noticed a 75-80% CPU usage playing a 720p QuickTime last night. The video was smooth, but the system was undeniably taxed. Will most of the decent DX 10 GPU's coming out be able to effectively output 1080p, or just the really high-end ones?



It's not the DX part of the GPU, it's the video part. The newer ATi/nVidia GPUs have support but your player has to take advantage of it. Ati's is called Avivo and I can't remember what nVidia's is called.

But truthfully watching BluRay, etc will be a pain on the PC cause you have to have an HDMI monitor and Vista. XP doesn't have the DRM stuff. You can play nonDRM, non BluRay/HDDVD content but I'd rather watch on a 32"+ monitor.

Yeah, I agree - Blu-Ray is best for TVs, not PCs. It's just that I'lll be getting a new widescreen monitor and figured I'd might as well get a video card fully capable of outputting all HD resolutions. The 640MB 8880's are a little pricey, but considering what you're getting and the expected usability (several years), it's not such a bad deal.


Just make sure that you get it with an HDMI conection or Vista will downgrade it (what a pain). That 640MB will definitely handle the task. It outputs 2560x2048.
If you stick with XP there may be some nonDRM stuff available. I found a few and it was WOWWWWW! and that was at 720p.
March 1, 2007 2:21:54 PM

i have a much weaker processor X2 3800+ (939), 2gb of DDR400, but i have a X1900 pushing a 24" widescreen at 1920x1200 (1080p = 1920x1080) flawlessly, even the HD videos from windows run flawless.
March 1, 2007 2:25:36 PM

I play 1080i and 720p out of my media center box to my 61" LCD RP on a A64 3000+ and a nvidia 6600 using VLC. My CPU utilization is around 25-30% and I get no stuttering and/or audio drop outs. I'll see if I can get my hands on a 1080p clip but I can't see where that would put it much past 35-40% tops....just depends on how you're watching the clips...I'm going component into the TV....
March 1, 2007 2:36:57 PM

Here is a link to a thread on the AV Science forums the discusses/lists the hardware (cpu, memory, motherboards, and graphics cards) necessary for watching HDTV. I don' t know anything about the reputation of those forums, but the article made sense and the recommendations look good to me. It's worth a read.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=710828
March 1, 2007 2:47:08 PM

Quote:
Here is a link to a thread on the AV Science forums the discusses/lists the hardware (cpu, memory, motherboards, and graphics cards) necessary for watching HDTV. I don' t know anything about the reputation of those forums, but the article made sense and the recommendations look good to me. It's worth a read.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=710828


Thanks for the link - I'm an AVS member myself, but never came across this thread. It's also a great resource for technical info, though the response times are considerably slower than you all. :D 
March 1, 2007 2:48:22 PM

there are alot problems in this area, with it being new tech, but to play HD vids you need a HD compatible GPU and a HD compatible moniter, if it doesnt say it is, you can assume it isnt, even if it meets the resolution.
March 1, 2007 2:56:08 PM

Right off the bat, that article confirms what a previous poster said - the speed of the card is more important than the capacity. Still, in this day and age, I wouldn't want to go with anything less than 512MB. Vista welcomes it, and you can be sure Vienna (its successor) will almost need it.
March 1, 2007 2:57:25 PM

Quote:
i thought all you needed was a HTCP cert player and HTCP cert video card to run HD-DVD or blue ray?

and there is dvi to hdmi converters for HTCP cert video cards that only have dvi. AND hdmi is coming very soon to the pc. one example is the ati(its still canadian in my heart) 690G chipset.

but ive seen without video card support even an E6800 is taxed to 90%+ CPU useage during HD-dvd playback at 1080p


No you also have to have a HDCP compliant monitor. Because XP doesn't have the DRM stuff you have to use Vista. You're right though 1080p will destroy any current CPU. There are already monitors with HDMI/HDCP at Newegg.

With all of the trouble though I won't be using my PC for it. Not to mention that my monitor is only 19"(am upgradng to 22" soon) but my TV is a widescreen 27".
March 1, 2007 2:59:05 PM

I wish these G-Damn manufacturers would crunch out standard products with universal capabilities. It a nightmare trying to navigate through this tech transition, hoping that you dont get left holding the bag like with DRM.

All I want is a 60 inch 1080p TV to plug into the back of my PC, and play and watch whatever I want, with no strain on the PC, at a really cheap price.

Is that too much to ask?
March 1, 2007 3:00:09 PM

Guys - my Core Duo notebook with a GO 7400 plays 1080p.

His system should be eating it alive.
March 1, 2007 3:05:30 PM

Quote:
I play 1080i and 720p out of my media center box to my 61" LCD RP on a A64 3000+ and a nvidia 6600 using VLC. My CPU utilization is around 25-30% and I get no stuttering and/or audio drop outs. I'll see if I can get my hands on a 1080p clip but I can't see where that would put it much past 35-40% tops....just depends on how you're watching the clips...I'm going component into the TV....


Exactly. But the SW has to have support for the GPU acceleration. Media Center has it. When I played the 720p video I was using Media Player 9 which I don't believe has H.264 ( without a codec). I have 11 now so I'll see if it lowers the CPU usage on 4400+. I have a 7800GT OC which is pretty much outclassing the 6600.
March 1, 2007 3:09:06 PM

Quote:
Guys - my Core Duo notebook with a GO 7400 plays 1080p.

His system should be eating it alive.


What SW are you using? Believe me 1080p from BluRay will eat your system alive without the proper SW codec to enable the GPU acceleration.

BluRay takes C2Q/QFX to the limit (see Anand's QFX review) and leaves the other chips outside crying.
March 1, 2007 3:31:41 PM

Quote:
I play 1080i and 720p out of my media center box to my 61" LCD RP on a A64 3000+ and a nvidia 6600 using VLC. My CPU utilization is around 25-30% and I get no stuttering and/or audio drop outs. I'll see if I can get my hands on a 1080p clip but I can't see where that would put it much past 35-40% tops....just depends on how you're watching the clips...I'm going component into the TV....


Exactly. But the SW has to have support for the GPU acceleration. Media Center has it. When I played the 720p video I was using Media Player 9 which I don't believe has H.264 ( without a codec). I have 11 now so I'll see if it lowers the CPU usage on 4400+. I have a 7800GT OC which is pretty much outclassing the 6600.

I'm not using Media Center, I was using the term media center in a generic sense meaning the PC in my entertainment stack. Nor am I using Windows Media Player. VLC is vastly superior to Media Player 9, 10 or 11 in terms of HD playback (or standard def for that matter). I was playing 720p and 1080i clips using VLC on my old Thinkpad T42 with ATI 9XXX series graphics (CPU was at 80% but it played just fine) with no discernable loss in quality. My point was that his box should be playing those clips with no issue.

As to BlueRay why anyone would waste the money to have the capability right now is beyond me.
March 1, 2007 3:35:36 PM

Quote:
I wish these G-Damn manufacturers would crunch out standard products with universal capabilities. It a nightmare trying to navigate through this tech transition, hoping that you dont get left holding the bag like with DRM.

All I want is a 60 inch 1080p TV to plug into the back of my PC, and play and watch whatever I want, with no strain on the PC, at a really cheap price.

Is that too much to ask?
That's why early adoption, with some of these technologies....can really blow. You won't see me getting a Blu-Ray/HD DVD player for a couple more years. Oftentimes, having to have the newest/best is a curse....even if you have really deep pockets. :x
March 1, 2007 3:36:41 PM

Quote:
Guys - my Core Duo notebook with a GO 7400 plays 1080p.

His system should be eating it alive.


What SW are you using? Believe me 1080p from BluRay will eat your system alive without the proper SW codec to enable the GPU acceleration.

BluRay takes C2Q/QFX to the limit (see Anand's QFX review) and leaves the other chips outside crying.

Judging by clips streamed or stored on my PC. Granted, I've never tried BluRay on my laptop.

I will be trying HD-DVD through my 360 add-on whenever I get the software, though... :twisted:
March 1, 2007 3:48:32 PM

Quote:
I play 1080i and 720p out of my media center box to my 61" LCD RP on a A64 3000+ and a nvidia 6600 using VLC. My CPU utilization is around 25-30% and I get no stuttering and/or audio drop outs. I'll see if I can get my hands on a 1080p clip but I can't see where that would put it much past 35-40% tops....just depends on how you're watching the clips...I'm going component into the TV....


Exactly. But the SW has to have support for the GPU acceleration. Media Center has it. When I played the 720p video I was using Media Player 9 which I don't believe has H.264 ( without a codec). I have 11 now so I'll see if it lowers the CPU usage on 4400+. I have a 7800GT OC which is pretty much outclassing the 6600.

I'm not using Media Center, I was using the term media center in a generic sense meaning the PC in my entertainment stack. Nor am I using Windows Media Player. VLC is vastly superior to Media Player 9, 10 or 11 in terms of HD playback (or standard def for that matter). I was playing 720p and 1080i clips using VLC on my old Thinkpad T42 with ATI 9XXX series graphics (CPU was at 80% but it played just fine) with no discernable loss in quality. My point was that his box should be playing those clips with no issue.

As to BlueRay why anyone would waste the money to have the capability right now is beyond me.


The point was that without GPU acceleration 1080p will murder a CPU.
March 1, 2007 3:49:37 PM

I have no intention of installing a Blu-ray and/or HD-DVD drive in my computer for several years. However, there is already plenty of downloadable HD content online, with more coming. That's the main reason I want an HD capable adapter on my system.

I'll be curious to see what Nvidia's offerings are next month, and if the midrange cards are going to be worth getting. Maybe by the summer, the current 8800's will drop to a more reasonable level to make the decision a no-brainer.
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2007 3:51:48 PM

Quote:
That's why early adoption, with some of these technologies....can really blow. You won't see me getting a Blu-Ray/HD DVD player for a couple more years. Oftentimes, having to have the newest/best is a curse....even if you have really deep pockets. :x


I'm with you on that. I don't even planning on getting an HDTV until the FCC forces digital broadcast and the cable/satellite companies are offering every/most channels in HD. Not only that, but by then the HDTV prices will have dropped and things will standardized because of the FCC ruling.

Back to the OP: What video card are you using now? As mentioned, getting a new gpu *should* fix the issue. You might also want to try a different media player like the K-Lite Codec Pack as it offers more compatibility than using Quicktime. Not sure how is it with HD content, but I use it for playing everything flawlessly! By far the best media player I have ever used.

Good luck!
March 1, 2007 3:56:58 PM

Quote:
I have no intention of installing a Blu-ray and/or HD-DVD drive in my computer for several years. However, there is already plenty of downloadable HD content online, with more coming. That's the main reason I want an HD capable adapter on my system.

I'll be curious to see what Nvidia's offerings are next month, and if the midrange cards are going to be worth getting. Maybe by the summer, the current 8800's will drop to a more reasonable level to make the decision a no-brainer.



Quote:
The new driver will allow all Geforce 6 and 7 series to play H.264 content. Yes, this means each and every card from Geforce 6200 to 7800 GTX will play H.264. I still wonder about NV40 based cards as they had some troubles with WMV files before. ATI R5XX generation can play H.264 but not the older R420/430/480 generations. None of these cards are actually supported for H.264 playback and we don’t think ATI will provide any kind of H.264 support for those older cards. Kind of bad for you if you have one.



The 320MB is at $300 now which is what I paid for a 7800GT.Supposedly AMD is going to release all of the SKUs of R6xx at the same time so you may want to hold out as ATi is known for better video quality (though nVidia has caught up).
March 1, 2007 4:02:52 PM

Quote:
What video card are you using now?


I can already hear the laughs, but I've only got an ASUS Extreme GeForce 6200 GT (256MB) right now. Yeah, I know - Turbo Cache sucks, but it was the cheapest card I could put in the system until the DX 10 ones are available. I know my current card wouldn't cut it on Vista because the onboard memory is only 64MB even though the smoke & mirrors caching makes the OS think you've got 256MB.
March 1, 2007 4:05:03 PM

Quote:
What video card are you using now?


I can already hear the laughs, but I've only got an ASUS Extreme GeForce 6200 GT (256MB) right now. Yeah, I know - Turbo Cache sucks, but it was the cheapest card I could put in the system until the DX 10 ones are available. I know my current card wouldn't cut it on Vista because the onboard memory is only 64MB even though the smoke & mirrors caching makes the OS think you've got 256MB.


That should actually work. All 6xxx cards have the support. Maybe updating your driver?
March 1, 2007 4:13:38 PM

Quote:
What video card are you using now?


I can already hear the laughs, but I've only got an ASUS Extreme GeForce 6200 GT (256MB) right now. Yeah, I know - Turbo Cache sucks, but it was the cheapest card I could put in the system until the DX 10 ones are available. I know my current card wouldn't cut it on Vista because the onboard memory is only 64MB even though the smoke & mirrors caching makes the OS think you've got 256MB.


That should actually work. All 6xxx cards have the support. Maybe updating your driver?

I've got the lastest GeForce drivers from Nvidia, so that can't be it. You don't think only having 64MB of onboard (physical) memory is the problem?
March 1, 2007 4:16:47 PM

Quote:
What video card are you using now?


I can already hear the laughs, but I've only got an ASUS Extreme GeForce 6200 GT (256MB) right now. Yeah, I know - Turbo Cache sucks, but it was the cheapest card I could put in the system until the DX 10 ones are available. I know my current card wouldn't cut it on Vista because the onboard memory is only 64MB even though the smoke & mirrors caching makes the OS think you've got 256MB.


That should actually work. All 6xxx cards have the support. Maybe updating your driver?

I've got the lastest GeForce drivers from Nvidia, so that can't be it. You don't think only having 64MB of onboard (physical) memory is the problem?

Out of curiousity have you tried using VLC Player? Just google for it and you should find it....
March 1, 2007 4:25:10 PM

Haven't tried VLC but I tried MPlayer.

It uses around 60-80percent of my CPU (Athlon 3200+) to play 1080 videos.

You should give it a try before spending a crazy amount on hardware....
March 1, 2007 4:26:05 PM

I haven't heard of the VLC Player, but will definitely give it a shot. I've never been a fan of QuickTime anyway, and perhaps my issue is purely codec related.
March 1, 2007 4:56:51 PM

Just my two cents on this... I've also noticed this 'tearing issue' with 1080p h.264 videos downloaded from Apple and played in quicktime player for WINDOWS. I've got a system that's a Core 2 Duo 6400 running at 2.5Ghz, 2GB of RAM, and a crappy 7300GS video card. I can you tell you right now that with Apple Quicktime player for Windows, there is NO HARDWARE acceleration to decode the videos, it's purely CPU based. That being said, on 1080p my cpu usage is maybe 40-50%, BUT I see the tearing. I the SAME system I've set-up OS X (hackintosh) natively with QI/CE working with the 7300GS, and the the same videos in Quicktime player for OS X and the playback is LIQUID SMOOTH with maybe 20-30% cpu usage for 1080p videos. This is because Quicktime for OS X is programmed MUCH better and uses the hardware video acceleration. So in short, don't bother wasting your money on an expenssive video card, it won't help AT ALL for the h.264 movies in Quicktime player. Another media player under windows that can decode those that taps into hardware video decoding might help. DivX and WMV HD video play flawlessly on my machine and use video acceleration. Anyway, hope that clears things up for you.... it's just Quicktime for Windows... Cheers!
March 1, 2007 5:03:57 PM

VLC is ausome. i find it gives much ebtter quality picture then stuiped media player does. dunno why but it works great!
March 1, 2007 5:04:44 PM

That's awesome, iceman - thanks! A new card may still be in my future, but I'll be getting it more for Aero than HD. QuickTime has always given me problems (playback, editing, you name it), so I was a little suspect of it to begin with. I'm going to see how that VLC player works out and stick to things like WMV HD.
March 1, 2007 5:06:11 PM

Quote:
VLC is ausome. i find it gives much ebtter quality picture then stuiped media player does. dunno why but it works great!


If VLC is open source, that would explain it. A lot more refinement has gone into it than any MS program.
March 1, 2007 5:08:16 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I noticed a 75-80% CPU usage playing a 720p QuickTime last night. The video was smooth, but the system was undeniably taxed. Will most of the decent DX 10 GPU's coming out be able to effectively output 1080p, or just the really high-end ones?



It's not the DX part of the GPU, it's the video part. The newer ATi/nVidia GPUs have support but your player has to take advantage of it. Ati's is called Avivo and I can't remember what nVidia's is called.

But truthfully watching BluRay, etc will be a pain on the PC cause you have to have an HDMI monitor and Vista. XP doesn't have the DRM stuff. You can play nonDRM, non BluRay/HDDVD content but I'd rather watch on a 32"+ monitor.

Hey baron, you've probably seen this already, but this software http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/02/14/slysoft_anydvdhd_beta...
seems like a good way to get around pesky hdcp requirements.
March 1, 2007 5:20:48 PM

Quote:
VLC is ausome. i find it gives much ebtter quality picture then stuiped media player does. dunno why but it works great!


If VLC is open source, that would explain it. A lot more refinement has gone into it than any MS program.

VLC is indeed open source. I use it for all my media playback on my 61" TV. It does HD, almost every format of standard def I've been able to through at it, AND, it will play back DVD ISO's straight from the ISO files menus and all...
March 1, 2007 5:20:52 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I noticed a 75-80% CPU usage playing a 720p QuickTime last night. The video was smooth, but the system was undeniably taxed. Will most of the decent DX 10 GPU's coming out be able to effectively output 1080p, or just the really high-end ones?



It's not the DX part of the GPU, it's the video part. The newer ATi/nVidia GPUs have support but your player has to take advantage of it. Ati's is called Avivo and I can't remember what nVidia's is called.

But truthfully watching BluRay, etc will be a pain on the PC cause you have to have an HDMI monitor and Vista. XP doesn't have the DRM stuff. You can play nonDRM, non BluRay/HDDVD content but I'd rather watch on a 32"+ monitor.

Hey baron, you've probably seen this already, but this software http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/02/14/slysoft_anydvdhd_beta...
seems like a good way to get around pesky hdcp requirements.


I glanced at it, but anyway I hope Pete wins.
March 1, 2007 5:38:40 PM

Quote:

But truthfully watching BluRay, etc will be a pain on the PC cause you have to have an HDMI monitor and Vista. XP doesn't have the DRM stuff.


Completely inaccurate. In fact, most people watching HD DVD and Blu-ray on HTPCs on AVSForum are using XP. PowerDVD 6.5 and 7.1/7.2 are running on XP. DRM and all.
March 1, 2007 9:39:39 PM

Quote:
But truthfully watching BluRay, etc will be a pain on the PC cause you have to have an HDMI monitor and Vista. XP doesn't have the DRM stuff. You can play nonDRM, non BluRay/HDDVD content but I'd rather watch on a 32"+ monitor.




Power dvd, you just turn on the fox head (any dvd) (free trial) and you can watch hd-dvd with any computer and load it on your hdd and burn it to blue way. NO HDMI needed! :twisted:
March 1, 2007 10:12:16 PM

Quote:
Just my two cents on this... I've also noticed this 'tearing issue' with 1080p h.264 videos downloaded from Apple and played in quicktime player for WINDOWS. I've got a system that's a Core 2 Duo 6400 running at 2.5Ghz, 2GB of RAM, and a crappy 7300GS video card. I can you tell you right now that with Apple Quicktime player for Windows, there is NO HARDWARE acceleration to decode the videos, it's purely CPU based. That being said, on 1080p my cpu usage is maybe 40-50%, BUT I see the tearing. I the SAME system I've set-up OS X (hackintosh) natively with QI/CE working with the 7300GS, and the the same videos in Quicktime player for OS X and the playback is LIQUID SMOOTH with maybe 20-30% cpu usage for 1080p videos. This is because Quicktime for OS X is programmed MUCH better and uses the hardware video acceleration. So in short, don't bother wasting your money on an expenssive video card, it won't help AT ALL for the h.264 movies in Quicktime player. Another media player under windows that can decode those that taps into hardware video decoding might help. DivX and WMV HD video play flawlessly on my machine and use video acceleration. Anyway, hope that clears things up for you.... it's just Quicktime for Windows... Cheers!


Dont spill shit out of your ass, for others to read. If your hardware can't decode it, the CPU will be taxed tryign to do it. The CPU's we have are not designt to do it effeciently.

It is your card, the 6200's dont have a decoder. Cards with decoders from Nvidia

GeForce 8800 GTX
GeForce 8800 GTS
GeForce 7950 GX2
GeForce 7900 GTX
GeForce 7900 GT
GeForce 7900 GS
GeForce 7600 GT
GeForce 7800 GTX 512
GeForce 7800 GTX
GeForce 7800 GT
GeForce 7600 GT
GeForce 7600 GS
GeForce 7300 GT
GeForce 6800 Ultra 512

ATI

I think all the X1XXX series can decode H.264
March 1, 2007 10:42:53 PM

whoa how about the 7950 GTs? I'm pretty sure they can decode...

Anyway hats off to VLC, it is much better than Quicktime, Real, WMP combined!
March 1, 2007 10:46:35 PM

Quote:
Just my two cents on this... I've also noticed this 'tearing issue' with 1080p h.264 videos downloaded from Apple and played in quicktime player for WINDOWS. I've got a system that's a Core 2 Duo 6400 running at 2.5Ghz, 2GB of RAM, and a crappy 7300GS video card. I can you tell you right now that with Apple Quicktime player for Windows, there is NO HARDWARE acceleration to decode the videos, it's purely CPU based. That being said, on 1080p my cpu usage is maybe 40-50%, BUT I see the tearing. I the SAME system I've set-up OS X (hackintosh) natively with QI/CE working with the 7300GS, and the the same videos in Quicktime player for OS X and the playback is LIQUID SMOOTH with maybe 20-30% cpu usage for 1080p videos. This is because Quicktime for OS X is programmed MUCH better and uses the hardware video acceleration. So in short, don't bother wasting your money on an expenssive video card, it won't help AT ALL for the h.264 movies in Quicktime player. Another media player under windows that can decode those that taps into hardware video decoding might help. DivX and WMV HD video play flawlessly on my machine and use video acceleration. Anyway, hope that clears things up for you.... it's just Quicktime for Windows... Cheers!


Dont spill **** out of your ass, for others to read. If your hardware can't decode it, the CPU will be taxed tryign to do it. The CPU's we have are not designt to do it effeciently.

It is your card, the 6200's dont have a decoder. Cards with decoders from Nvidia

GeForce 8800 GTX
GeForce 8800 GTS
GeForce 7950 GX2
GeForce 7900 GTX
GeForce 7900 GT
GeForce 7900 GS
GeForce 7600 GT
GeForce 7800 GTX 512
GeForce 7800 GTX
GeForce 7800 GT
GeForce 7600 GT
GeForce 7600 GS
GeForce 7300 GT
GeForce 6800 Ultra 512

ATI

I think all the X1XXX series can decode H.264

The 6 series may not support h.264 but it does support HD decoding:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce6_techspecs.html

The entire line supports hardware decoding, just not h.264.

The entire line in the 7 and 8 series support h.264:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_30459.html
http://www.nvidia.com/page/8800_tech_specs.html

Please note that I am not saying his GPU is adequate - indeed it's not adequate in a broad sense - but given that I can play 1080i encoded clips on boxes with iGMA950 video using VLC then the 6200 shouldn't have too hard of a time with any clip with the exception of *maybe* clips that use h.264....
March 1, 2007 11:13:10 PM

In your first link on the charts it says this towards the bottom, i think a botton end product would probably would not have it.




3.Features may vary by product. Some features may require additional software.>>>This is in reference to the 6200 turbocache having PureVideo technology which is what does the decodign
March 2, 2007 2:08:12 AM

Quote:
Ok i take it back, looks like your card can do decoding i don't know now...

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


Good find - I missed that chart and I just went by the spec on the first link which says HD, but doesn't mention h.264.
March 2, 2007 9:08:35 AM

How about you get your facts straight before being utterly rude... first off, I said it's a 7300GS which DOES support pure video... however, if you read any of the articles on this VERY SITE that reviewed the various video hardware decoders, you'd know that Nvidia's implementation of Pure Video ONLY works if you buy the codec EXTRA from Nvidia, not out of the box with the drivers, and ONLY with their DVD player... check the archives.. it's pretty lame... ATI's Avivo technology IS enabled out of the box in their drivers and works on ALL video and with Windows Media Player. Quicktime for Windows does not use ANY hardware decoding from the video card on the Windows platform, it's pure CPU, and yes modern dual core CPUs are sufficient to decode 1080p h.264 video, though it's obviously not optimal to do so. Under OS X for INTEL, Quicktime player uses OpenGL acceleration which is beatifully integrated with Apple's Aqua Interface to handle the demanding task of decoding h.264 and DOES provide an AMAZINGLY smooth HD video playback even with the 7300GS (still does not use the Pure Video shit, but it does use the GPU very intelligently resulting in smooth playback.) There IS a reason why I mentioned that it is the SAME machine, with the SAME hardware, just Dual Booting windows XP and OS X... makes for an exellent comparisson. Next time, before you so quickly criticize, think twice, and maybe try it yourself. :evil: 
!