Y, I was a little fast on the trigger there... the digg commentary consensus was that the
author was FOS as well.


--- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow that is one misinformed article, so wrong.
>
> If they actually said what resolution of h264 footage is too much for
> the CPU to handle, they would be closer to accurate. Certain
> exceedinly high HD resolution clips will struggle on certain machines,
> but not the latest fastest CPUs when used with the right h264 playback
> software.
>
> For, right now, Quicktime 7 PC Preview does not do a great h264
> playback job, but its a bug somewhere, rather than a real lack of CPU
> power. My not-a-dual-core AMD64 PC can encode h264 faster than my iMac
> G5, so Id expect it should theoretically be able to decode it faster
> too. Using an alternative to QT7, Nero Showtime, seems to confirm
> this, as higher res HD 264 playback much smoother using that software
> than QT7, same PC.
>
> I think I'll have to write to the author of that article, otherwise
> its supporting marchitecture of graphics card assisted decoding which
> isnt actually necessary for many faster PCs. Theres nothing wrong with
> shifting some decoding to the GPU, except historically the marketing
> of such graphics card features has been more prominent than the
> features themselves, they always make it sound more important, and
> more of a performance gain, than it has ever ended up being in real
> world conditions with real software.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve of Elbows
> --- In [email protected], t.whid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Found this via digg.com
> >
> > http://theinquirer.net/?article=24954
> >
> > "We were shocked when we found out that the Athlon 64, FX, dual core
> > X2, Pentium 4 or even dual core Pentium D won't be able to play this
> > content for you. It's simply too complicated for the poor CPU to play
> > back."
> >
> > ===
> > <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> > ===




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to