[tyranuus]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

Whether you have a modern card or not is completely irrelevant. All that matters is if you have a video decoder ASIC that supports h264, or if you do not. What kind of GPU you have is completely unrelated to this topic, since video decoding is not done by the GPU, and there are only like four or five different video decoder ASIC models out there, so it's not like you have a lot of variation. Their performance is very similar as well; the only one that is notable at all is that one model that got used on some of NVidia's cards that has some bug that makes it unable to decode certain h264 resolutions.

Whilst what you're saying is to some extent true, you have the simple fact that older cards tend to support a smaller range of files (I'm not just talking x264 here). Newer cards tend to support a wider range of files, making them better suited to use inside a media PC. I've seen varied levels of dxva accelleration between cards during testing, so trying to argue there is no difference between new cards and older card generations seems a little fundamentally flawed (and yes I'm talking h264 mkv here). Newer ASICs sometimes have bugfixes in compared to older generation devices, which you highlight yourself. You're also ignoring the possibility of using hardware accellerated filters on the video to try and improve the picture.

As an example, a HTPC review I read a little while ago flagged up that whilst all current 5*** series could decode 1080p with no issues, with an additional hardware denoise filter on top, whereas with Nvidia, the GT210 wasn't actually strong enough, you needed a GT220 or above.

I might be wrong here, as this isn't my 'area', but additionally, a quick flick around Wiki (apologies I know its not a great source) and the web would suggest there are quite a few more than 4-5 various different chip designs out there capable of decoding h.264, and available in ASIC form for integration into larger devices.

You cannot get them to decode faster, nor can you get them to decode bigger images or things outside level 4.1. It's fairly easy to create encodes that are incompatible with hardware decoding chips; some fansub groups do it intentionally.

When you have hardware manufacturers claiming hardware accellerated l5.1 then that raises a flaw in your argument, how well or how exactly it does so are other sides of the coin, but the simple fact remains you have players and cards capable of leverage hardware decoding against l5.1. ATI as an example have been claiming 5.1 hardware support since early 2010.

Haali's renderer is a video renderer only. As in, it only deals with video. Additionally, it only deals with rendering uncompressed video, not decoding it, so it most certainly does not have issues with "some files and input formats", and even more certainly it doesn't have issues with audio.

(what the hell is a "HD audio codec" anyway)

Admittedly my bad there, I was referencing Haali's splitter, which does, or did, have some known issues with high def audio codecs. I tend to think EVR will still remain the most popular renderer however.
Seeing as you seem fairly clued up, I'm actually kinda surprised you had to ask what I meant by HD Audio though, seeing as its one of the more common ways of referring to DTS-MA/DDTHD. An increasing number of people are running MKVs with embedded DTS-MA/THD ripped straight from the bluray, especially as its now so easy to do so, and space is no longer a constraint like it used to be.

As an example, people mention some of the issues here whilst discussing other issues:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1247893

Anyway, the moral of this story is that hardware accelerated video decoding is a toy. It's useful in small plastic toys like cellphones and set-top multimedia boxes, but in a real computer where you have a real CPU at your disposal, it's fucking retarded to limit yourself to the performance of a small, slow and dumb 400MHz ASIC tacked on to your graphics card. Whoops, that 15mb decoding buffer needed? Too big for the poor widdle chip. Welp, no video for you.

I still think you're being overtly hardheaded. I concede software decoding is much more flexible, but you give the impression that hardware decoding is pointless/useless, whereas in reality, hardware decoding has made HD video playback a real possibility on a wide range of machines, which haven't a hope in hell of playing via the CPU smoothly.
A HUGE number of people out there have machines, even relatively modern ones (lower Core2 or equivalent X2 as an example), that couldn't handle decent HD rips well, especially not 1080p ones without dropping frames. We're not just talking toys here, but a wide range of otherwise perfectly reasonable desktops and laptops, that simply don't have enough raw grunt to deal with 1080p effectively. If the machine is suitable for the other intended uses (most likely internet and office work), then what makes more sense - overhaul the system for several hundred pounds/dollars, or fitting a cheap video card with a built in decoder that'll do the work for you? Even with limitations, I don't call that a joke, I call it progress.

Additionally, a weaker CPU and capable decoding card can be run passive or with low speed fans, in many cases quite successfully, whereas a more powerful machine tends to produce more heat and will usually require more potent cooling.
Either way you look at it, there are some real benefits to hardware decoding, and stating they are only useful for mobile devices seems rather shortsighted, people's machines and thier usage patterns or design aims can be as individual as the user. Personally, I tend to use relatively high end PCs or laptops, and even then, being able to decode video with minimal heat and noise generated whilst doing so is still pretty appealing!