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

[Phil Bridges]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Mark Lord <mythtv at rtr.ca> wrote:
> On 12-02-08 12:26 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
>> On 12-02-08 09:31 AM, William Powers wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> ...
>>> Fermi stream processors appear to be about half as capable as pre-Fermi
>>> units. Whether at is due to drivers or the design, I cannot say.
>>
>>
>> That's interesting.  So I just now went and ran the only objective benchmark
>> that seems to exist -- qvdpautest -- on my shiny new ASUS fanless GT430,
>> and compared results with an older run on the previous
>> (2-slot) Zotac fanless GT240 card.
>>
>> The GT430 is faster at decoding than the GT240, twice as fast for VC-1,
>> and somewhat faster on all of the others.
>>
>> But the GT240 blows it away for de-interlacing modes, by a wide margin.
>> The GT430 still comes out with room to spare for Advanced/2X,
>> but not nearly as much as the GT240.
>>
>> Both cards have 96 stream processors, but the GT430 is Fermi, and the GT240 is not.
>
> Time for a followup:
>
> The GT430 card does indeed run into difficulties (jerky playback)
> when "vdpauhqscaling" is enabled and a high-resolution interlaced file
> is being played (and scaled).
>
> The older GT240 card did not have any issues with that, but the GT430 does.
>


Hmmm - looks like there's a trade-off between HD audio and HQ video.