[mythtv-users] Temporal 2x vs Temporal-Spatial 2x

William Powers wepprop at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 14:31:21 UTC 2012

> I didn't think the 520 could do Advanced 2x on 1080i? I would like to know if you are indeed using it, and if you don't get skipped frames.
In a half-height frontend I have tried a passive G210, a passive GT520 and a GT220 with a fan. At least I think it's a fan. It sounds like a coffee grinder and the card eventually overheats anyway. But it's supposed to be a fan. In a full-height frontend I have tried an 8400 GS, a 9500 GT, and a GT 430, all passive. Only the 220, 430 and 9500 would reliably do Advanced,2X and, according to qvdpautest, the 430 and 9500 didn't have a lot of headroom.

I did a fairly extensive comparison of Temporal,2X vs Advanced,2X with the 220 and I could never see a difference,  not even on scrolling or crawling text. But I didn't try sports so YMMV.

Fermi stream processors appear to be about half as capable as pre-Fermi units. Whether that is due to drivers or the design, I cannot say.

On my primary frontend I am running the 520 with Temporal,2X and I'm happy with it. On a secondary frontend I have switched to OpenGL rendering with Sandy Bridge Intel Graphics and the GreedyHighMotion 2X software deinterlacer and I like it just a much as Nvidia. It's only a G620 Pentium CPU so it hits about 50% CPU during playback but it idles around 32 watts with a 250 watt 80+ power supply that's probably less than 70% efficient at that power level. With a Pico-PSU it would probably use less than 20 watts at idle. Playback increases the power consumption about 5 watts. I really want to try an i3-2105 and see if that improves some of the OpenGL hardware-assisted deinterlacers that are unusable now.

At this point, I am beginning to think that Intel graphics would make a better low power frontend than anything Nvidia-based, although I did have to jump through one or two hoops to get OpenGL working on Intel.

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list