Is NVIDIA's PureVideo False Advertising?

[imported_dna]

This is something that has been bugging me: NVIDIA advertises PureVideo as one of the features of the GeForce 6+ GPUs, boasting (among other features) accelerated H.264 decoding. However, in order to use these features, one is required to buy a "compatible" movie player, as there is no public API to harness the GPUs power.

Wouldn't you consider this as false advertising, as they mislead us into believing that, for example, H.264 decoding will work right out of the box?

Let me know what you think.

 

[xtknight]

There was a huge thread like 2 years ago about this. I would say that it is not false because they are only advertising capabilities of the chip. I mean, Intel has those ads about how great their Core 2 Duo is at gaming and how well it can handle music production, etc, etc, but you still have to pay to get the software. But I see no problem with their ads.

 

[TheRyuu]

Purevideo works in MPC and thats free.

 

[imported_dna]

That's very far from the truth -- as far as I know, the only PureVideo feature that can be employed by MPC is MPEG-2 decoding, and even that is done through the DXVA, which has public API.

If you try to play an H.264 file, it will complain that it is missing the codec.

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: dna
That's very far from the truth -- as far as I know, the only PureVideo feature that can be employed by MPC is MPEG-2 decoding, and even that is done through the DXVA, which has public API.

If you try to play an H.264 file, it will complain that it is missing the codec.

Can you give a link to a file that has H.264 coding so I can test it?
(anything will do. A movie trailer, w/e)

 

[imported_dna]

The HD trailers available here are h.264 encoded.

However, if you have QuickTime installed, MPC will "outsource" the rendering, as QT handles MOV files.

Nevertheless, decoding will still be S/W based.

 

[rbV5]

H.264 decoding using ATI's AVIVO costs extra for the decoder as well.

I don't like the idea of having to pay extra for hardware functionality either, but Nvidia is hardly alone.

Hardware mpeg TV tuner cards additionally require that you purchase the DVD decoder as well, which makes even less sense.

At least with the graphics cards, you can make the claim that shipping the h264 decoder requires that users who never plan on decoding H264 encoded files must also pay for functionality they could care less about. Let users who actually plan on using the feature pay for it.

The other issue concerns whether the hardware features even trump existing software solutions, or standalone hardware. You'll see that alot of users of purevideo or AVIVO hardware continue to swear by ffdshow+CPU for mpeg and CoreAVC+CPU for H264.

Anand's recent HD DVD article seems to show that most of these GPU solutions pretty lacking for serious use as well.

If you ask me, video decoding by all the vendors has bordered on false advertising from the beginning until today, and going forward. They simply have not delivered a product that can consistantly top software solutions, or deliver what they promise......at least certainly not for enthusiasts.

 

[Auric]

Well, Nvidia does not sell video cards and we are not their customers. Such features are advertised but so too are the requirements stated and it is up to the AIB whether they include a decoder. It is understandable that they generally do not however due to cutthroat competition (and thus slim margins), relatively insignificant user demand for the function and the relatively high cost of licensing.

To their credit, ATI does have a deal with Cyberlink to offer their decoder for $15 whereas the Nvidia "deal" is still $50 for a complete PowerDVD 6, versus the normal upgrade from a 6 OEM version (free with virtually every card and drive) to 7 Deluxe being only $30.

So, in some ways the H.264 situation is not unlike that with MPEG-2 a decade ago when there were no "free" decoders available. Microsoft provided a "DVD player" with Windows but not a decoder. Legally, royalties are still due so either the provider is paying them or breaking the law or in the case of libmpeg2, libavcodec and such are skirting the law by not offering compiled software directly but leaving that up to others and in any case not selling it.

But as said for H.264 whether legal Apple or quasi-legal libavcodec, none sport DxVA. At least be thankful there are free decoders even if lacking acceleration. BTW, the "free" MPEG-2 decoders likewise lack DxVA so by buying a decoder/player package you get both and while MPEG-2 SD content (olde timey DVD) hardly requires acceleration these days, it is nice to have for the HD variety.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: rbV5
The other issue concerns whether the hardware features even trump existing software solutions, or standalone hardware. You'll see that alot of users of purevideo or AVIVO hardware continue to swear by ffdshow+CPU for mpeg and CoreAVC+CPU for H264.

I don't have any doubt they do trump software-only offerings and there isn't really any standalone hardware outside of HD-DVD or BD format specific (although general media players are forthcoming). The honeymoon for Core is certainly over. The quality is poor, the promised DxVA has still not materialized and they introduced the hated online registration process. Even the most rabid former fans at doom9 have soured. Plus, the price is awful compared to aforementioned PowerDVD considering the myriad of A/V decoders included in the package. I don't really like PowerDVD the player, but the decoders are great with Media Player Classic

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: rbV5
Hardware mpeg TV tuner cards additionally require that you purchase the DVD decoder as well, which makes even less sense.

At least with the graphics cards, you can make the claim that shipping the h264 decoder requires that users who never plan on decoding H264 encoded files must also pay for functionality they could care less about. Let users who actually plan on using the feature pay for it.

On the contrary -- it makes more sense, as a tuner card is advertised to allow you to get the RF signal into your computer, and that's it.

As for paying for functionality, it is already there; if they provided an API, I'm certain that VLC and others would take advantage of it.

Originally posted by: Aauric
But as said for H.264 whether legal Apple or quasi-legal libavcodec, none sport DxVA. At least be thankful there are free decoders even if lacking acceleration. BTW, the "free" MPEG-2 decoders likewise lack DxVA so by buying a decoder/player package you get both and while MPEG-2 SD content (olde timey DVD) hardly requires acceleration these days, it is nice to have for the HD variety.

I remember reading somewhere that the DXVA API (in DX9) won't be extended to support H/W decoding of h.264, while it will be extended in Vista (DX10?).
As for H/W decoding of MPEG2, you are mistkan: I use VLC to play 720p & 1080i on an old GF 440 MX, and it manages pretty well. MPC can also be used, if you instruct it not to use the built-in decoder.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: rbV5
The other issue concerns whether the hardware features even trump existing software solutions, or standalone hardware. You'll see that alot of users of purevideo or AVIVO hardware continue to swear by ffdshow+CPU for mpeg and CoreAVC+CPU for H264.

I don't have any doubt they do trump software-only offerings and there isn't really any standalone hardware outside of HD-DVD or BD format specific (although general media players are forthcoming). The honeymoon for Core is certainly over. The quality is poor, the promised DxVA has still not materialized and they introduced the hated online registration process. Even the most rabid former fans at doom9 have soured. Plus, the price is awful compared to aforementioned PowerDVD considering the myriad of A/V decoders included in the package. I don't really like PowerDVD the player, but the decoders are great with Media Player Classic

I've had a number of issues trying to get Cyberlink H264 decoders that I purchased to work properly ever since I got my first AVIVO card (x1800 XL) thats been well over a year now. VLC worked the first time I used it, and every time since. The decoders are a PITA.

On the contrary -- it makes more sense, as a tuner card is advertised to allow you to get the RF signal into your computer, and that's it.

I can't recall a single TV tuner card marketed that way.

Edit: replied too soon.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Purevideo works in MPC and thats free.

To my knowledge, only MPEG-2 decode acceleration does, which is just a 3D GPU shader-accelerated function. PureVideo is all the post-processing, and additionally H.264 decoding which is done on the VP (video processor).

Never mind, dna beat me to it.

 

[BFG10K]

However, in order to use these features, one is required to buy a "compatible" movie player, as there is no public API to harness the GPUs power.

Huh? The PureVideo decoder has an API that any application can access, the application just needs to be written to take advantage of it.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

However, in order to use these features, one is required to buy a "compatible" movie player, as there is no public API to harness the GPUs power.

Huh? The PureVideo decoder has an API that any application can access, the application just needs to be written to take advantage of it.

Actually, the last time I checked there was no PureVideo documentation/SDK at all available to the public. Manufacturers have to get the code they need by contacting NVIDIA and I bet they have to be in some type of premier developer contract. It is not open to open-source/free software developers at all, unlike the NV Control Panel library. Not that ATI is any better. ATI doesn't even have documentation on its control panel library at all.

There is a NVIDIA decoder filter others app can use, but it is a paid product that the user needs to have a license to. The free developer still has no access to the GPU other than through NVIDIA's retail decoder.

 

[TheRyuu]

I really don't have a problem with Purevideo not working in H264 stuff.
I'll use Quicktime or ffdshow to decode it then.
No bigge. The video linked to before really isn't all that demanding CPU wise.

 

[Matt2]

I watch movies on my 50" DLP TV. However, I've been dying to try AVIVO.

This is an important topic for those wanting to run HD content on HTPCs.

Has there even been a PureVideo vs. AVIVO shootout recently?

The last PureVideo review I saw (the one that Cookie Monster started a thread about) it looked like PureVideo had been improved since its introduction.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: dna
As for H/W decoding of MPEG2, you are mistkan: I use VLC to play 720p & 1080i on an old GF 440 MX, and it manages pretty well. MPC can also be used, if you instruct it not to use the built-in decoder.

Got linkage? A quick goggle does not turn up DxVA in VLC. No doubt MPEG-2 is undemanding but that does not mean acceleration is active.

As for PV vs AVIVO in general I think the latter still maintains ATI's historical lead because without acceleration, their hardware utilizes less CPU for all video playback. DxVA MPEG-2 is still lower and Nvidia only manages to meet ATI for DxVA H.264.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It's probably a patent licensing issue, nvidia would have to pay $x extra per shipped card, 99% of which would never be used for accelerated H.264 decoding.

At work we've had to leave MP3 support out of a product because we'd have to pay $1.50/copy for every installed copy of our software even if only a few people used it.

We'd either have to raise prices or deal with a (say) $5 "add on pack" to add support, which is more trouble than it's worth.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Auric
Got linkage? A quick goggle does not turn up DxVA in VLC. No doubt MPEG-2 is undemanding but that does not mean acceleration is active.

I guess I'm wrong about DXVA in VLC, but they are using some H/W acceleration, otherwise I would not be able to watch 720p or 1080i MPEG2 on a P3-600mhz.

DVDs might be an easy job for old PCs, but a 720p60, 19Mbps HDTV show is much more demanding.

 

[Wreckage]

You are more paying for the codec than you are for Purevideo or AVIVO.

AFAIK Quicktime and WMP both make use of Purevideo for free.

 

[Auric]

Quick test: 1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps, 65.00 Mbps (17.56 Mbps Average) on P3000 and Cyberlink decoder with/without DxVA = 25/45%. So, certainly advantageous for multi-tasking. Lo-def MPEG-2 CPU usage is borderline negligible.

In the olden days the commonly desired viddy features were motion compensation and iDCT for acceleration of MPEG-2. Nvidia always trailed the industry in both features and quality (particularly scaling). By the GF440 though it prolly had caught up at least as far as being able to claim the bullet points. So, if it does sport such then you should try a DxVA decoder (with MPC) to see the difference as it could be more significant with that CPU.

Specs can be looked up but to confirm capabilities:

1. Run dxdiag.exe
2. Choose "Save All Information"
3. Open the exported dxdiag.txt file
4. Search for text "Video Accel"

finding a result such as:

ModeMPEG2_A ModeMPEG2_B ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D ModeWMV8_B ModeWMV8_A ModeWMV9_B ModeWMV9_A

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
You are more paying for the codec than you are for Purevideo or AVIVO.

AFAIK Quicktime and WMP both make use of Purevideo for free.

Que?

Yeah, when a codec is purchased there are no royalties going to Nvidia or AMD for any proprietary IP (only to MPEG the organization) so you aren't paying for PureVideo or AVIVO... you did that when you bought the card. Although Nvidia does also market their own MPEG-2 only decoder under the PureVideo name.

Those are just marketing names for certain features of the GPUs. So yeah, when you play video some of those features are made use of "for free", or at no additional cost. But the QuickTime decoder certainly does not make use of the DxVA feature and WMP in this sense is strictly a player as no such decoder is even included.

In short, what are you on about?