Why xvimagesink uses more cpu than ximagesink in this case?

[Stefan Kost]

On 07/24/11 17:48, Haikal wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Yogesh Marwaha <yogeshm.007 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just consider these simple pipelines:-
>>
>> gst-launch -v audiotestsrc ! goom ! ffmpegcolorspace ! ximagesink
>>
>> gst-launch -v audiotestsrc ! goom ! ffmpegcolorspace ! xvimagesink
>>
>> 2nd uses more cpu than first; though one would think xvimagesink would be
>> better. Any explanation?
>>
> $ gst-inspect ximagesink
> Plugin Details:
>   Name:			ximagesink
>   Description:		X11 video output element based on standard Xlib calls
>
> $ gst-inspect xvimagesink
> Plugin Details:
>   Name:			xvimagesink
>   Description:		XFree86 video output plugin using Xv extension
>
> Based on what i read on wikipedia, xv extension [0] is more
> sophisticated than xlib [1]. And of course, it will use more cpu. One
> feature on xv extension that not in xlib, is scaling. Just try to
> resize the window manually, you'll see the different ;)
The point of xv is to defer the processing to hardware. It usually uses
less cpu. But then xv is just an interface and in times of OpenGL most
drivers emulate the xv interface. It should still be faster the plain x
though.

Stefan

> CMIIW
>
> --
> Haikal
> _______________________________________________
> gstreamer-devel mailing list
> gstreamer-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/gstreamer-devel