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

[Mark Lord]

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 that 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.

Cheers