Matrox buys Sigma Designs for $60 million

[Bixler]

SteveC: (and other S/W advocates)

I've heard this reasoning quite a lot lately, and, in fact, I have no real reason to dispute what you say.

But as I listen to these arguments, I'm reminded of similar advice from this knowlegable community regarding "WinModems", where the logic is that you should avoid these units because they require precious CPU resources. So why should we throw all that load on our CPU when doing DVD if we can offload the work to a dedicated chip?

Everyone seems to be promoting the Software decoders these days over hardware. Could we have a little honest, informative discussion of the advantages/Disadvantages of these two approaches? Personally, I'm a little suspicious of Intel and other Chip makers who seem to be desperate for a reason to promote machines with speed and power that just doesn't seem to be needed in the world of mainstream computing. If you can get 130 FPS how many more do you need?

[Dualbuzz]

Drizt, higher mental level means that noone can piss me off. And as for being slow, yes I have 2 old S3 cards in my computer for my dual-monitor config, thats why I'm on the market for the new video card.

BTW can anyone point me to the best (like MURC) Nvidia related forum?

[Gurm]

Dualbuzz:

Sorry, it doesn't exist. Nvidia forums are full of whiny little kiddiez whose shiny new cards don't work right, and other whiny little kiddiez whose shiny new cards DO work right, and pick on the other winy little kiddiez.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Brian R.]

As far as the Winmodem - DVD analogy, there is a good reason to not get a Winmodem that does not exist (for most users) for a DVD software solution. There are many times one downloads in the background or occupies the modem in the background. I doubt many people view movies in the background. They are obviously meant to be entertainment in their own right. Of course, some people watch movies while doing other work, but they are meant to be attention-getting and not background work.

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 01 August 2000).]

[Bixler]

Brian:

Fair enough. And I can see your point on the somewhat flawed WinModem analogy, but at least for me, I like to (1.) output to my television, and (2.) do other work on my PC. With the low processor overhead that Hardware decoding provides this is easy, even on an older processor (the real reason I went hardware in the first place.)

[Goc]

I think that with this Mhz (Ghz, whatever) war going on between Intel and AMD, people with restricted budget (like me in some ways) can get a processor that can whip a$$ doing almost anything... In example, I have a PIII 450@600 that can play DVD's and output them to TV via megacool DVD Max feature, while writing this post and downloading MP3's at the same time connected to the internet at 52000 bps via my Winmodem with Motorola chipset. Processor usage peak never exceeded 25 %, and the modem is maxed out because my brother is using the same line via LAN to surf and talk to some guy on ICQ (darn that typewriter sound ). And you can get a PIII450 that will almost certainly do 600 for what... 100$? 150$?
I guess that HSP solutions for periferal devices are indeed sometimes cool.

P.S. Winmodem owners should not ever, as in never use their modems for internet gaming because of their extremly high latency... You simply CAN'T get ping time below cca. 300 ms... DOH!

[Himself]

Guess what solution has the lowest cpu usage? A stand alone DVD player. It seems kind of retarded to route DVD through the computer if the target is a TV for video and your dolby stereo for audio.

The point of DVD drive on PCs is for storage primarily, IMO, that means games with no CD swapping. FMV games like Myst are not going to make a huge comeback any time soon, what else would the DVD aspect of it be good for?
Of course Myst is a bad example it was only using DVD for storage as well (if you don't count "the making of" stuff). Your typical game doesn't have or need 2 hours worth of high res cut scenes so they hardly need mpeg2 to store it. It's only the clue derivatives that are like that and the tired Dragon's Lair knockoffs, well maybe.

[MadCat]

Ive got a couple takes on this issue:

Sowftware Decoding: its free with your Matrox G400, and who doesn't like free? Consider this: im a college student living in cramped dorms. I dont have enough room for a TV nor can I afford cable, but thats what makes software DVD so great. It takes no money from me aside from the drive, and Ive got tons of people I can bum DVDs off of.

Upsides: cheap, and thanks to hardware motion compensation I can watch a movie and work without skipped frames.

Downsides: lower-quality than hardware, and no DTS/Dolby Digital 5.1 output.

Hardware Decoding: why? I mean seriously, even the Sigma Designs chipset doesnt look as good as standalone players, and a Hollywood Plus and a good DVD together approach the cost of a cheap standalone. Plus for the price of a good Dolby Digital 5.1 computer speaker system you could have a home component system thats more customizable AND you can hook up to a LOT more than your computer.

Hardware decoding is for a time when expensive computers shipped with PII 300s. Its just not necessary today. Unless of course for those who still own a TNT or TNT2, which have no hardware motion compensation.

Just my opinion.

------------------
This Signature Space FOR SALE / RENT

[xortam]

PC-DVD delivers progressive scan output. An equivalent stand-alone player would cost over $1000 USD. If you have a high-res display (data-grade FPTV, RPTV, etc.) with a VGA connector, you would clearly see a superior image over that of interlaced output from a common stand-alone DVD player.

Several sound cards will pass DD/DTS to an outboard decoder and their is no difference in quality versus a straight HT setup.

[Rob M.]

Originally posted by Goc:
P.S. Winmodem owners should not ever, as in never use their modems for internet gaming because of their extremly high latency... You simply CAN'T get ping time below cca. 300 ms... DOH!

That's your drivers. My friend has an acer sw modem, and for the longest time his pings were about 400, I told him to update his drivers, and his ping dropped regular hardware modem pings.. (120+)