We had a look at this,
We think it can be done, but might take a one year full time equivalent
of a c programmer to actually do it.
And when its done, cards might have changed.
The big problem is the lack of documentation and the early stage of the
research. All algorithms should be ported to it, so far only some basic
operations can be done.
Zoa
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 14:11, trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
According to http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1880749,00.asp
ATI is delivering a GPU enabled transcoding method that cuts video
transcoding down to 1/5 the time it would take the cpu. This might also
be applied to audio codecs in theory (I havent looked into it enough).
This has come up several times over the years. YES a GPU might be able to
take some CPU load off but you now add latency because you're shipping data
to and from main memory to the GPU and back. It's also been stated that AGP
transfers are optimized for memory to the video card and not the other way
around, so you may add more latency than you expect.
Using the GPU for video codec work makes sense because once it's off on the
video card it ain't coming back. This is most certainly not the case with
audio. :-)
Nobody can really truly say until there are some benchmarks run, and nobody's
stopping anyone from exerting the effort. It just takes someone curious
enough to acutally go do it.
-A.
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
