[mythtv-users] Video Card Recommendation Needed

[Thrash Dude]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:55:11 -0500
Raymond Wagner <raymond at wagnerrp.com> wrote:

> On 3/2/2011 18:46, Thrash Dude wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 15:38:59 -0800
> > Ajay Sharma<ajayrockrock at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Thrash Dude<thrash.dude at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:58:23 +1100
> >>> Jean-Yves Avenard<jyavenard at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1 March 2011 07:51,<moodyjunk at frontiernet.net>  wrote:
> >>>>> I'm running Fedora 12 with kernel 2.6.32.26-175 and MythTV 0.24.
> >>>>>   I need to replace my current video card (9500GT) due to a bad
> >>>>> fan. I'm looking at Asus ENGT430
> >>>>> (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121397)
> >>>>> vs Asus ENGT240
> >>>>> (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121353).
> >>>>>   Does anybody have any recommendations of GeForce GT 430 vs 240
> >>>>> for this configuration?  ie, is GT 430 supported well in kernel
> >>>>> 2.6.32.26-175 and MythTV 0.24
> >>>> Get a GT430.
> >>>>
> >>>> The GT240 is overkilled ; and doesn't have any of the nice audio
> >>>> features found in the GT4xx series.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> mythtv-users mailing list
> >>>> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> >>>> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> >>> I'd avoid any of the fermi chips unless you also plan on gaming.
> >>> That is until/if Nvidia fixes the mixer code for the fermi chips.
> >>>
> >>> The GT430 is on par with an ION, 8400, GT210.
> >>>
> >>> For VDPAU, GT9500+ GT220+ are the better, and less expensive
> >>> choices.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=133465&page=28
> >> I'm planning on getting a GT440 pretty soon.  Sorry for being
> >> dense, but what's wrong with the mixer code for the fermi chips?
> >> I read the link that you posted but it didn't describe the problem.
> > If you read that thread, it shows vdpau test results for many
> > different cards. The results show the new fermi chips being
> > extremely weak in the mixer code (IVTC ...) granted, if all you
> > ever decode is 24p or SD material you'll most likely not see a
> > problem. If you decode HD material that needs IVTC or HD material
> > that broadcasts at 60/59.9FPS (Some ABC/Fox shows) the fermi cards
> > will hit a bottleneck.
> 
> I really don't think you understand what you are saying.  Some basic 
> terminology... deinterlacing is where you input an interlaced signal
> and output a progressive signal at half the field rate.  Inverse
> telecine is where you take an interlaced signal at 60 fields per
> second, and output the original progressive signal at 24 frames per
> second.
> 
> The program you linked to seems to run what it claims are "TEMPORAL + 
> IVTC" and "TEMPORAL_SPATIAL + IVTC" tests.  If you run a temporal, or 
> temporal-spatial deinterlacer, you output progressive content, and 
> cannot perform IVTC.  Similarly, if you run IVTC, you output
> progressive content, and cannot perform deinterlacing.  Those two
> tests yield widely different results, when effect they should be
> doing the exact same thing, with the exact same performance.  The
> only thing I can surmise is that the test is not using a telecined
> source, the driver detects this and drops out of IVTC, instead
> performing the selected deinterlacer.  In effect, all you're doing is
> measuring the overhead of the analysis compared to running the
> deinterlace filter directly.
> 
> Next up, ABC and FOX both broadcast 60 frames per second,
> progressive. You cannot deinterlace progressive content.  The
> engineers at nVidia understand this, and will not attempt to
> deinterlace progressive content.  You cannot possibly bottleneck, and
> the card will only have to do basic video scaling.
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


Thanks for clearing that up. Makes much more sense to
me now.

Apologies for the miss information.