{ "numMessagesInTopic": 11, "nextInTime": 450, "senderId": "xt7EuEA1YjkXpdvxnJc5tCDVb-8RfUCc_vFUPkvFEhyN0o4-SwLW-9NtwWWWl5Nlhc6rmBBBTb92Gx46h5_O9PioFLvFWKNJWuYZGVMYPA", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: Installation report: FireGL X1-128, new driver, w2k, result: 3840x2400, 33.72Hz genlocked", "from": ""fluppeteer" <yahoo@...>", "authorName": "fluppeteer", "msgSnippet": "Sorry this is a bit long, people... [DirectX memory cost] ... expectations, and ... memory ... functionally ... *Nod*. There probably are *some* overheads,", "msgId": 449, "profile": "fluppeteer", "topicId": 419, "spamInfo": { "reason": "0", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 192443393, "messageBody": "
> The numbers you postulate match reasonably close to myexpectations, and
\n
> were a significant portion of why I mentioned that it could be amemory
\n
> size issue. I, obviously, could have stated it better. I did notfunctionally
\n> intend to imply that I thought ATI was doing anything particularly
\n> unreasonable with respect to memory usage, merely that all
\n
> was not yet available in that mode.*Nod*. There probably are *some* overheads, depending on what
\n
\n
> On the other hand, in the past have seen many boards supporthardware
\n
> acceleration and/or DirectX with significantly less memory thanfour
\n
> times the base amount needed for the display format.16-bit Z would actually take you (just) under the 128-bit limit;
\n
\n
> > You should(2
\n> > have better luck with the 256 meg board (unless you want
\n> > to run two T221s, in which case you may have the same problem).
\n>
\n> I expect that I will. ATI has not previously supported 3840x2400
\n
> DVI) mode with the FireGL X1-128. However, it is supposed to be*Nod*. Probably, if it's cutting it fine, it's better for them to
\n> supported with the FireGL X1-256.
\n
\n
> The 256MB board is not currently in this system because it isAh, I sympathise (we've had some not-quite-full-length
\n> slightly too big for this case. Swapping out of this case has
\n> been planned for quite some time.
\n
\n
> > If you're very lucky you might get better behaviour in fullnot "very
\n> > screen mode.
\n>
\n> Tried it several times during the testing process. We were
\n
> lucky". 8-)Ah well, worth a try. :-)
\n
\n
> I expect it does depend on the application. I also agree that3D
\n> significant portions of the data structures generally needed for
\n
> applications are under most cases not necessary for video. Thiswas in
\n
> fact one of things I was actually testing for to see if therelatively
\n
> limited subset of capability necessary for hardware-acceleratedMPEG
\n
> decompression was implemented for the FireGL X1-128 in 3800x2400,33.722 Hz.
\n
> Oh, and yes, you do generally want double buffering so you canwork in
\n
> one buffer while displaying the other one, with the normal swapduring
\n
> the vertical blanking period.Okay. I was just thinking (not that I've ever written a video
\n
\n
> In general, the main thing is the capability to double buffer.This
\n
> hides the data updates from the end-user. Such buffers can alsobe used
\n
> to permit better synchronization between audio and video. In mostplane is
\n> instances, depending on the implementation, a separate overlay
\n
> used. If an overlay plane is used, then it is usually doublebuffered
\n
> (and the main display may not be). In size, the overlay plane canbe up
\n
> to the full resolution of the display.Ah - I should have thought of that (although, if you trust the
\n
\n
> There are, of course, many other data structures that arenecessary.
\n
> The largest of these is usually the pre-scaled video, which canalso be
\n
> double buffered. How much memory is actually required dependscan be
\n> significantly on the implementation as there are many things that
\n
> done to optimize both memory usage and speed. Additional buffersmay,
\n
> or may not, be required depending on how the application performsframe
\n
> rate conversion, de-interlacing, etc.Understood. Thank you - I'll go and read up on the subject. :-)
\n
\n
> video card, the information I provided was not intended to beviewed as
\n
> negative for the ATI product line. There are several things whichSorry - my personal interests (pixel shader 3, dual link,
\n
\n
> Actually, I view the fact that it can display 3840x2400 @ 33.7 Hzdifference in
\n> genlocked as a significant positive. At least for me, the
\n
> feel of the user interface between 25 Hz and 33.7 Hz issignificant.
\n