Xvideo performance on Radeon 7500 vs Intel 915

[Thomas Hellström]

Michel Dänzer wrote:

>On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 19:00 -0500, Ken Mandelberg wrote:
>  
>
>>xine with -V xxmc
>>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>>32291 km        15   0  223m  46m  28m S 53.6  6.1   0:25.60 xine
>>  3954 root      16   0  197m  84m  46m R 28.3 11.1   7:37.75 Xorg
>>
>>With xv and xshm there is 0 idle. With xxmc there is about 15% idle, but 
>>in all three cases it drops frames (xshm is the worst).
>>    
>>
>
>The radeon driver doesn't support XvMC, so this is a little weird.
>Probably xine falls back to another output.
>
>
>  
>
Xine's xxmc driver falls back to Xv when it cannot use hardware decoding 
acceleration for a video stream, but it normally doesn't use as many 
frames in the frame queue as the Xv driver does, and may not enable the 
same deinterlacing. This could perhaps explain the difference.

>>(II) RADEON(0): Will try to use DMA for Xv image transfers
>>    
>>
>
>Does Option "DMAForXv" "off" make any difference?
>
>
>  
>
>>By the way I'm using your pre-downscale patch to get around the 1536 
>>pixel scaling limitation (pink bar). The quality seems ok (at least on 
>>the notebook lcd), and I saw the HD performance problem without it.
>>
>>Also, I tried moving down to 16 bit depth from 24 and didn't see a 
>>difference.
>>    
>>
>
>This all makes sense, as the bottleneck is probably the transfer from
>system RAM to video RAM. Integrated chipsets actually have an advantage
>there.
>
>  
>
I agree.
/Thomas



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20061127/3f7963af/attachment.html>