HD-DVD Playback - On the Xbox 360 & on NVIDIA GPUs
by Derek Wilson & Manveer Wasson on December 15, 2006 9:21 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
HD-DVD Playback Performance
First we'll take a look at Serenity, our VC-1 title. This graph represents average CPU utilization over the course of video playback for about a minute. We ran each test 3 times and took the best score of the three. Runs were fairly consistent with the occasional anomaly that appeared to be an errant background process taking up CPU time.
These benchmarks show that, as with Blu-ray, the GeForce 8800 series come out way on top. CPU usage is reduced by quite a bit, and even the 7900 GTX and 7950 GT do a decent job. The rest of the pack is only marginally beneficial, but with the already low CPU utilization this VC-1 title displays, GPU acceleration isn't that necessary anyway. Differences in these slower cards could just be getting lost in the noise. Even without GPU acceleration, an E6300 is able to play Serenity without pegging the CPU.
With our H.264 title, we do see higher CPU utilization. This does approach the type of impact we saw on Blu-ray, but bitrates were more consistent on this HD-DVD title. We didn't see any real spikes above the average bitrate, and CPU utilization was pretty consistent over the course of the movie. Once again, the 8800s lead the way with the rest of the pack trailing off. With The Interpreter, our recommendations for CPU and GPU are back up to the level we saw with Blu-ray: buy fast hardware if planning on playing HD-DVDs on a PC.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
We would be using retail players if any were available, but they aren't. Currently the only way to get a copy of a player that supports HD-DVD or Blu-ray is to buy a system or a drive that comes with it. Cyberlink is currently only offering their software through OEM channels.ssiu - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
Does VC-1 look worse than H.264? (If they are comparable, then why use H.264 when VC-1 takes so much less power to decode?)Are these 720p or 1080i or 1080p videos?
DerekWilson - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
All of our HD video tests so far have been done using a 1080p tv with 1080p movies.It's hard for us to do a direct image quality comparison right now because HD movie players don't allow any image capture or video clips to be saved. From what we know about H.264, it has a high potential for image quality, especially on Blu-ray where disks are currently up to 50GB in size.
therealnickdanger - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
Given the current releases on both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, VC-1 has superior sharpness - H.264 tends to soften the image more than VC-1 at any given bitrate (hence the Blu-Ray nickname in some circles "Blur-Ray"). The implemetation of H.264 is more currently more complex and less efficient in many cases. Many argue the VC-1 codec to be superior only because it has the backing of Microsoft, who is working much harder behind the scenes to improve its functionality and efficiency, whereas H.264's support and tools are not as advanced. If and when H.264 receives the same treatment as VC-1 in terms of financial investment and support, then the more advanced features of H.264 can be realized. It's way too early to make a call on which codec will "win" in the end, but I don't think we'll know for a very long time. Lucky for us, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD support both... so the consumers win either way.plonk420 - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link
where, pray tell, did you hear about this superior sharpness of VC-1? in reviews i've read, H.264 is pretty much identical PQ. the technology pools between VC-1 and H.264 overlap a good percentage, as well as even prosumer solutions having existed for at least year before the first BRD (or even HDDVD) players came out .. well, besides the piss-poor Quicktime.i can't say i can compare VC-1 vs H.264 on a standalone, but i've worked with both, including H.264 encoder betatesting and playing around with VC-1 a little bit as well...
rcabor - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
I doubt its selling at a loss, since you dont need one for gaming, I cant see where microsoft would make any money with software.Xorp - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
Good review cept, H.264 will probably more towards being equal with VC-1 in terms of releases. I don't think it's going to replace VC-1 in the long run.nicolasb - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
Doesn't the fact that the XBox 360 has no digital video output rather limit its safety as a long-term investment for video playback? What happens when the disc publishers decide to switch on the protection flags that prevent output in any analogue format at any resolution beyond 960x540? Something with an HDCP-enabled digital output would surely be safer?ajira99 - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
I think that by the time any content-protection flags are enabled (if ever), there will be affordable, standalone players that will do a better job than either the Xbox 360 or PS3. I'm pretty satisfied with the HD-DVD addon -- the 360 is an adequate DVD player when I'm away from my computer, and the PC compatibilty of the drive is a definite plus.Of course, Microsoft could just wait and put out an updated 360 console w/CPU die shrink and HDMI in a year or so.
Furen - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link
I believe the HDCP-requirement was scrapped from the spec, which is why MS can get away with having a non-HDMI solution.More importantly, I wonder if MS is in anyway subsidizing the cost of the drive... If so then Microsoft may be getting screwed pretty badly by people who buy the drive to use it on a computer.