[mythtv-users] Intel Releases Programmers Reference Manual

[Michael T. Dean]

On 02/01/2008 11:01 AM, Tom Greer wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2008 6:58 AM, Brian Wood <beww at beww.org> wrote:
>> John Drescher wrote:
>>> I consider intel graphics 2 to 3 years behind ATI and nVidia in 3D but
>>> it is unclear how much this effects 2D.
>>>       
>> I think Intel pretty much concentrated on the "business graphics" end of
>> things while ATI and nVidia went after the gaming market (or the CAD
>> market if you look at the Quadro series).
>>
>> Unfortunately nobody seems to have gone after the video (as in TV)
>> segment of the market to any great extent.
> From a business perspective why should any of these vendors invest a lot of
> money in optimizing TV video when there are numerous posts here and
> elsewhere the an nVidia FX-5200 card is sufficient.
>   

Though if you look at the ATI/AMD Xilleon processor--a chip designed 
specifically for digital TV--it appears in what percentage of HDTV sets 
today?  Back in 2004, they had 85% market share for demodulators and 40% 
for MPEG decoders (a.k.a. the Xilleon) in ATSC sets.  AIUI, that 40% has 
been increasing rapidly since 2004.  I'd guess that's a pretty good 
chunk of change.  (True, ST Micro leads in the European Market, but the 
US market is still rather large.)

AMD has announced that their next-generation AVIVO product, the Unified 
Video Decoder (UVD), was based on the Xilleon processor with hardware 
H.264 and VC-1 (i.e. ideal for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD).  AMD also has an 
agreement with DivX, Inc. allowing it to implement hardware DivX decoding.

Remember that we--Myth users with "normal" PC's doing our TV--are the 
minority.  Most everyone else out there enjoying digital TV (whether 
using the FCC-mandated built-in tuner/decoder in their HDTV sets or 
using an STB) has a graphics solution that was optimized for TV video.

However, as you implied, packaging a TV-specific solution for use in 
"normal" PC's probably isn't a good business decision--especially when 
you consider the cost of "generic" (versus 
embedded/application-specific) drivers, customer support, ...  And, 
IMHO, a PC user is /much/ better off with a general-purpose graphics 
solution.  That is, after all, exactly why my PVR-350 is sitting on a 
shelf (and was used for almost 4 years as an encoder only--without even 
loading the TV out driver).

> If I were making R&D decisions, I'd go after the gaming market where people
> are willing to pay megabucks to upgrade/replace their video cards
> regularly.  Or the business market where I could sell low cost cards in
> volume.
>
> It's not like we will all run out and buy new hardware just because they
> made the drivers better.

Though once the open-source AMD/ATI drivers are up to speed 
post-spec-release, I will run out and replace all my NVIDIA (with 
proprietary drivers) cards with ATI cards.

>   And even if we did, there aren't enough of us to
> be a significant revenue stream.
>   

Definitely true.

> Open sourcing the drivers is our best hope for improvement in this area.

Exactly.  And, it should prove at least somewhat beneficial for the 
vendor (ref my above statement).

Mike