| |||||||||||||
LCA: Two talks on the state of XLCA: Two talks on the state of XPosted Feb 14, 2008 15:09 UTC (Thu) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050)In reply to: LCA: Two talks on the state of X by nix Parent article: LCA: Two talks on the state of X
As the xf86-video-ati radeon driver doesn't provide a textured XVideo adaptor yet, I assume you're referring to using an OpenGL output plugin in your video player. The reason this performs so badly is that the Mesa r200 driver is very inefficient in getting texture data from the application to the GPU, involving several memory copies and possibly other processing. A textured XVideo adaptor (as implemented in xf86-video-intel e.g.) shouldn't require significantly more CPU cycles than an overlay.
(Log in to post comments)
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 15, 2008 9:20 UTC (Fri) by ranmachan (subscriber, #21283) [Link] A textured XVideo adapter could also have the advantage that you can play more than just one video at the same time. NVidia had that ages ago in their binary driver (because their cards could do the color conversion on stretchblit AFAIK).
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 15, 2008 21:13 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] How... useful. Do you have a multistreamed consciousness, or something? How on earth can you pay *attention* to two videos at the same time? (And if you're only paying attention to one, isn't the other one annoying, flickering away in the background?)
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 19, 2008 7:20 UTC (Tue) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050) [Link] Think several browser tabs with embedded video players. Only one of them may actually play at any time, but only one of them can get the single overlay port.
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 19, 2008 7:55 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Argh, yes, I see, because they won't even display a paused image without an overlay.
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 15, 2008 21:16 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I completely failed to realise that Xv could turn the incoming video into textures and slam it at the video card. Obviously if it did that things would be about as fast as slamming it at the video card without texturizing it first, with the advantage that modern cards are designed to render big textures fast. And, yes, if the thing's doing copies performance will suck. From your wording it sounds like it's not something fundamental to the hardware :) When I get another machine to use as a desktop box later this year (so can afford to restart X on this one without losing all my working state) I might have a look at that. Someone else will probably get to it first, though...
|
|||||||||||||