HD Video Playback: H.264 Blu-ray on the PC
by Derek Wilson on December 11, 2006 9:50 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Introduction
In November, we published our first article featuring Blu-ray content. While we focused more on the capability of the cards we tested to play digital content protected with HDCP, we did take a preliminary look at hardware accelerated high definition video playback with the movie Click.
Our first glimpse of the processing power required to play HD content on the PC gave us a very good indication that Blu-ray movies using MPEG-2 should have no problem on a modern system, even without GPU acceleration. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is easily capable of playing back 50-60 Mbps MPEG-2 video at 1080p. Adding a GPU to the mix did make an impact, but the small boost in performance just wasn't necessary.
Today we will turn the tables around and look at what happens when H.264/MPEG-4 AVC meets Blu-ray on the PC. This combination is much more demanding than MPEG-2 encoded Blu-ray movies, as H.264 is capable of much higher compression at better quality which requires more processing power.
Before we get to our results, it is important to talk a bit about playback of HD media on the PC. BD and HDDVD movies are copy protected with AACS which uses HDCP to encrypt and decrypt the video signal when it's sent over a digital connection. In order to view one of these movies on an HDTV over either a DVI or HDMI connection, an HDCP enabled video card is required.
All video cards that have an HDMI connection on them should support HDCP, but the story is different with DVI. Only recently have manufacturers started including the encryption keys required for HDCP. Licensing these keys costs hardware makers money, and the inclusion of HDCP functionality hasn't been seen as a good investment until recently (as Blu-ray and HDDVD players are finally available for the PC). While NVIDIA and ATI are both saying that most (if not all) of the cards available based on products released within the last few months will include the required hardware support, the final decision is still in the hands of the graphics card maker.
It is important to make it clear that HDCP graphics cards are only required to watch protected HD content over a digital connection. Until movie studios decide to enable the ICT (Image Constraint Token), HD movies will be watchable at full resolution over an analog connection. While analog video will work for many current users, it won't be a long term solution.
Now that we've recapped what we know about watching HD content on the PC, lets take a look at why things will be a little different now that H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoded movies are here.
In November, we published our first article featuring Blu-ray content. While we focused more on the capability of the cards we tested to play digital content protected with HDCP, we did take a preliminary look at hardware accelerated high definition video playback with the movie Click.
Our first glimpse of the processing power required to play HD content on the PC gave us a very good indication that Blu-ray movies using MPEG-2 should have no problem on a modern system, even without GPU acceleration. The Core 2 Duo E6300 is easily capable of playing back 50-60 Mbps MPEG-2 video at 1080p. Adding a GPU to the mix did make an impact, but the small boost in performance just wasn't necessary.
Today we will turn the tables around and look at what happens when H.264/MPEG-4 AVC meets Blu-ray on the PC. This combination is much more demanding than MPEG-2 encoded Blu-ray movies, as H.264 is capable of much higher compression at better quality which requires more processing power.
Before we get to our results, it is important to talk a bit about playback of HD media on the PC. BD and HDDVD movies are copy protected with AACS which uses HDCP to encrypt and decrypt the video signal when it's sent over a digital connection. In order to view one of these movies on an HDTV over either a DVI or HDMI connection, an HDCP enabled video card is required.
All video cards that have an HDMI connection on them should support HDCP, but the story is different with DVI. Only recently have manufacturers started including the encryption keys required for HDCP. Licensing these keys costs hardware makers money, and the inclusion of HDCP functionality hasn't been seen as a good investment until recently (as Blu-ray and HDDVD players are finally available for the PC). While NVIDIA and ATI are both saying that most (if not all) of the cards available based on products released within the last few months will include the required hardware support, the final decision is still in the hands of the graphics card maker.
It is important to make it clear that HDCP graphics cards are only required to watch protected HD content over a digital connection. Until movie studios decide to enable the ICT (Image Constraint Token), HD movies will be watchable at full resolution over an analog connection. While analog video will work for many current users, it won't be a long term solution.
Now that we've recapped what we know about watching HD content on the PC, lets take a look at why things will be a little different now that H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoded movies are here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
86 Comments
View All Comments
Xajel - Monday, December 11, 2006 - link
I don't know why Anand these days does not care about AMD, I just hope they don't think that every body in the world has Core 2...I'm not fan of AMD, but the benefit of this kind of articles is to see how much power do you need to handle these scenarios, and I guess the magority of peoples today still have older CPU's
these test must in my opinion cover wider range of CPU's Pentium 4 (with HT and without ), Pentium D, Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2 even the Quad FX platform this will help reader very well knows if there system can handle these thing or not
michael2k - Monday, December 11, 2006 - link
I would hazard most AMDs won't be fine; if most Intel CPUs won't be fine and if the E6600 outclasses all AMD CPUs...But I was just looking at the AMD/C2D comparison from July, the newest AMD CPUs may do fine.
mino - Monday, December 11, 2006 - link
The same here?What about QuadFX ? (under Vista)
FX-70 at $500 it is at level with E6700...
AlexWade - Monday, December 11, 2006 - link
The HD DVD 360 add-on works on a PC, why wasn't that tested too?DerekWilson - Monday, December 11, 2006 - link
We are going to do a followup using the 360 HDDVD drive (actually, I'm working on it right now).ShizNet - Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - link
great! what file foot-print advantage's in h.264? 1/4? 1/6? 1/10 compare to MPEG2? and if so can't you store h.264 on 'ol DVD? i've read HD/BD has way more space to offer than movie along needs. for that reason HD/BD will include: games, extra 'endings', rating-film options, trails....great write-up as usual
artifex - Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - link
I would love to see that article include visual comparisons with a 360 running the HD-DVD adapter. If I buy the adapter, I may be using it on both.therealnickdanger - Monday, December 11, 2006 - link
Yeah, that it curious. Besides, if you're serious about HD-movies, all the highest picture-quality films currently are encoded using VC-1. Sure, H.264 has the potential to be the best, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet. VC-1 also takes less grunt to decode, so the article could pander to many more users than just X6800 owners......just a thought.
Orbs - Monday, December 11, 2006 - link
I'd love to see that tested and compared.Eug - Monday, December 11, 2006 - link
If an E6400 2.13 GHz is OK, is a T7400 2.16 also OK? The T7400 is faster, but it has a slower memory bus.