The H.264/AVC/MPEG4 discussion thread

[Starks]

1. AFAIK, VIA and Transmeta don't make desktop/laptop processors anymore.
2. VIA C3 lacks essential instruction sets.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Nei

then you blame it on my CPU, but in fact it is 1GHz,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIA_C3
Read. All decoders are heavily assembly optimized, and guess what happens when the CPU manufacturer decides to kick out some instructions and emulate them in microcode instead for power usage reasons? Also note that the instructions-per-clock timing is significantly different from an Athlon or a Pentium, which can have a rather big impact.

Take a look at this benchmark, for example (the MPEG4 encoding part). The 1 GHz C3 is outperformed by a factor three by a Celeron with about 2/3rds the clock frequency. Of course, this is encoding, not decoding, but you get the idea.

You CAN'T compare the clock frequency of a C3 to the clock frequency of a Pentium, Celeron or Athlon like that. They're completely different creatures with completely different behaviors.

[Nei]

Isn't the fact just that h.264 isn't as compatible as you initially claimed, and you now try to justify that ?

[emptyeighty]

Originally Posted by Nei

Isn't the fact just that h.264 isn't as compatible as you initially claimed, and you now try to justify that ?

You can't possibly think that when someone is talking about a 1GHz CPU that they're talking about a C3. Pentium yes, Athlon yes, even Celeron. But C3 just isn't used widely enough to justify that kind of thought.

[Nicholi]

You seem to be looking at it all in the wrong light. Your computer is the thing incompatible here, it is not sufficient for any CPU intensive tasks. None. You only get to play very moderate SD files as a side benefit because they already have very low requirements. An Intel or AMD 1.0GHz processor will be more then enough in this same situation.

I also somehow doubt your CPU is good for anything besides writing in MS Word. Since that is what it was built for. A cheap energy efficient system for someone to do their school/office work on.

[Mentar]

Doesn't have anything to do with compatibility, Nei. Just with insufficient hardware on your end.

So you have successfully convinced me that the VIA_C3 is insufficient for h.264 playback on Windows Vista. No really, I believe you. And because your ancient system which is probably used by 0.0001% of all anime fans out there is too slow, you've dealt h.264 the death blow. Damn, you got us all

In any case, mirroring my experiences with Fluff's, I was also doubting your initial claims, and for very good reason. Sorry for not figuring in time that you belong to the 0.0001%.

So my advice is: Get a better computer. Or watch avis. Good luck

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Nei

Isn't the fact just that h.264 isn't as compatible as you initially claimed, and you now try to justify that ?

Sigh. What are you trying to prove? That you can't play H.264 on a crippled system with a "1 GHz" CPU that could be outperformed by a real CPU with half the clock frequency, even if you weren't running an operating system that is likely taking at least 10-20% of your total CPU time when you're not doing anything with it?

Anyway, okay, I guess I'll have to admit that h264 isn't compatible with slow CPU's. Oh, wait, didn't we know that already...?

[Nei]

Note that I never even said anything about my computer, it was just you guys immediately claiming "It's not possible that Vista works where h.264 doesn't" and concluding "h.264 doesn't work --> must be user fault"
I said right from the start that it was too weak to play h.264
Also, it sure is more use than writing in Word, it does Internet, Chatting, Programming, Typesetting, DVD playback, TV, some games, and any standard resolution XviD Drama or Anime

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Nei

Note that I never even said anything about my computer, it was just you guys immediately claiming "It's not possible that Vista works where h.264 doesn't" and concluding "h.264 doesn't work --> must be user fault"

That's not true.

To quote your initial trolling note:

Originally Posted by Nei

Windows has vastly different hardware requirements than h264 though.
Vista still works fine where your h264 releases are already unwatchable.

Of course it's still your right to ignore minorities

The "minorities" part should better be taken literally, with your very special CPU ^_^

It was the rest of your initial note which was so silly - and wrong. You made the broad sweeping claim that Vista works fine where h264 releases are unwatchable, a claim which is mostly wrong.

Logic, my friend. Try it one day. For YOUR statement to be true, you should prove that it's true for EVERY computer - which is obviously nonsense. But it should be true at least for the majority of systems - which it isn't. A single example of an outlandish CPU hardly in use will not cut the cheese.

[Sylf]

All right, you don't think my point was valid? Then go read my post again. I did mention that I was aware of those people who'll be unable to play our releases. And you happen to fall under that VERY small number of minority. Yes, I was wrong about being able to play h.264 on any PC that can run Vista. But it still doesn't make any difference that you are in those minority of fansub fans who refuses to upgrade for whatever odd reasons.

But with a proper set up, you can still decode the video. Just not in real time. If you want to keep your beloved C3, go ahead. Just learn how to transocde the video to a format that's compatible for your system, and watch it that way. There are plenty of people who has taught themselves how to make DVDs. Making ASP/AVI isn't much different. Actually, easier. So before you whine any more, learn to deal with the changes the rest of the world is undertaking.

Edit: dammit ppl - you all type too fast

[Starks]

Nei, why are you even running Vista?

[ender]

Starks: because it's so new, almost nobody else is running it, so he's special?

[Nei]

Mentar, I suggest YOU learn logic instead of flaming me. Everything I said is true. Windows Vista works fine here, h264 playback doesn't. And that happens to be precisely the only thing I initially stated.

Starks, why should I not run Vista? It feels faster than XP, the new security system convinces me, and the updates they have done to Explorer for Windows 6.0 are alone reason enough for me to prefer my Vista install over my XP one.

ender, many people are beta testing Vista already.

Sylf, I stated right in my initial note to your claim, that you are of course free in your choice (even though I personally dislike it ). And that Microsoft is much more careful in forcing people to accept changes.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Nei

Mentar, I suggest YOU learn logic instead of flaming me. Everything I said is true. Windows Vista works fine here, h264 playback doesn't. And that happens to be precisely the only thing I initially stated.

Not at all, no. Maybe that's what you WANTED to say. But that's not what you actually wrote.

I repeat what you wrote one more time and spell out in terms which should be sufficiently clear even for you to comprehend. Please try your best to understand it, because otherwise you'd have to become the first graceful addition to my ignore list for almost a year.

Windows has vastly different hardware requirements than h264 though.

This quote as you made it is flat-out wrong. Hardware requirements indicate a certain processing power which is required for satisfactory usage. Microsoft itself states that a Pentium-III CPU with 800 MHz are the minimum requirement for "Vista Capable". This would actually be exactly the cutoff for normal h.264 encodes using CoreAVC.

You however do not possess a CPU of this class. Its effective power is below that. Yes, it may boot Vista, and you may be able to do some basic tasks on it, but I'd want to bet that this comp will not be too fun to really work with under Vista anyway. Just like it will still probably play h.264 videos, just lagging so that the enjoyment is drastically reduced.

In general, experience from people who spent literally hundreds of hours helping people set up their systems shows that IN GENERAL, 800 MHz P3 is sufficient. The fact that YOU couldn't get it to work on your peculiar hardware does not disprove that.

Vista still works fine where your h264 releases are already unwatchable.

... on your system, and pretty much on your system only. Again, you failed to make this critical qualification, and instead made a broad-sweeping and thus incorrect statement. In general, Vista-enabled systems are sufficient. And I'd love to see how "fine" vista really works on this cpu

[Nei]

Let's try again, shall we:
Windows Vista requirements:
- 1GHz VIA C3 is fine
h.264 requirements
- 1GHz VIA C3 does not suffice.

I think it's therefore pretty obvious that Vista has much lower hardware requirements than h.264 in the configuration you use it.
Sorry if you cannot understand this very basic logic :-/


TheFluff, timeCodec finished, here is the result
User: 1659s, kernel: 12s, total: 1672s, real: 6258s, fps: 21.0, dfps: 5.6

[Starks]

Originally Posted by Nei

Let's try again, shall we:
Windows Vista requirements:
- 1GHz VIA C3 is fine
h.264 requirements
- 1GHz VIA C3 does not suffice.

I think it's therefore pretty obvious that Vista has much lower hardware requirements than h.264 in the configuration you use it.
Sorry if you cannot understand this very basic logic :-/


TheFluff, timeCodec finished, here is the result
User: 1659s, kernel: 12s, total: 1672s, real: 6258s, fps: 21.0, dfps: 5.6

Vista doesn't have lower requirements... It just has sterner cut-off points with regard to compatibility.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Nei

Let's try again, shall we:
Windows Vista requirements:
- 1GHz VIA C3 is fine
h.264 requirements
- 1GHz VIA C3 does not suffice.

I think it's therefore pretty obvious that Vista has much lower hardware requirements than h.264 in the configuration you use it.
Sorry if you cannot understand this very basic logic :-/

Let's try again, shall we:
Windows Vista requirements:
- 733 MHz Pentium III does not suffice.
H.264 requirements:
- 733 MHz Pentium III is fine (as reported by Sylf).

I think it's therefore pretty obvious that H.264 has much lower hardware requirements than Vista in the configuration you use it.
Sorry if you cannot understand this very basic logic :-/

Ahem... Your logic holds up... for your system and your system only. Or, actually for the small minority of people who have a C3 as their main system, too. However, most people with a C3 are sensible enough to mount it somewhere where it's actually useful, like in an extremely mobile laptop system or a low-powered home server. NOT in a desktop system running Vista (or should I assume you indeed have a laptop with it?).

Originally Posted by Nei

TheFluff, timeCodec finished, here is the result
User: 1659s, kernel: 12s, total: 1672s, real: 6258s, fps: 21.0, dfps: 5.6

My God. That is even worse than I thought. Vista's gotta be eating a LOT of resources considering that it took about one and a half hours for the entire file to be rendered, but the TimeCodec process used less than half an hour of CPU time...

[Nei]

Do you have any proof that Vista won't run on a 733 MHz Pentium III?
Even though the fact sheet says it requires an 800MHz CPU to be Vista "capable", my C3 has a P-rating of 500MHz.
It would seem highly likely that Vista will run just fine on a 733MHz P3.

[DryFire]

Why are you even running Vista on that? You should use someting like Windows 2000 or maybe linux.

[Nicholi]

The 800MHz cpu requirement for being Vista capable probably is what they deem optimal for the OS being useful vs a burden to the user. Which most likely includes being able to click the Start Menu and not waiting over a minute. /me lawls

I wonder how long it takes a C3 just to open Internet Explorer.