My 6600GT can't keep up with VMR9. Why?

Hi recommend you read this tread..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=487837


IMO after performing extensive testing between the 6600GT and 6800GT..you might want to consider returning it for a 6800GT if you want to use VMR9 and heavy ffdshow tweaking - save yourself lots of time - I could not make it work smoothly.


It will probably work fine for overlay but since that's not what I was going for, I did not test that scenario.


I used a 6800GT + ffdshow 10/12/2004 SSE Version.. but you need to pay attention the CPUs as some versions work better for Intel, some for AMD b/c of SSE/SSE2/Assembler optomizations. Good Luck - Vincent

The 6600 GT can do VMR9 playback just fine , I have one doing it here right now [ and I only have an AMD XP 3200+ (OC'd 2500+ Barton) ] . I had issues with several driver sets before getting a good stable combination [ Including the 71.80 Quadros that many people seem to be so happy with ] . My MSI 6600 GT (8xAGP) is OC'd now but it performs VMR9 playback just as well in stock form [ which is only 500/900 on the (AGP) MSI ] . I am running WinXP SP1/DX9c , Zoomplayer Pro-WMV , FFDshow , latest Nvidia codec (with the Nvidia Post Processor) . Now I am only using Lanczos resize to 848x480 (which is the resolution that I use with my 4805 to be pixel mapped) and my playback is flawless with 0 dropped frames . I think many people are trying to resize too high or they are having driver related issues . I hear good things about the new 71.81 drivers but I have not tested them myself [ the 71.24's are supposed to be good as well ] .


--- The 6600 GT is plenty capable but it does take some tinkering to get it right [ it took me 2 different 6600 GT's and many hours of trial and error before everything finally clicked ] .


--------- Best Wishes ,

------------- Jason

I have the 66.93 drivers too, but the problem is still there.

In the Nvidia menu I can select the performance-quality of the card. I haven't set mine to high performance, but just on quality.

Also, is there any magic boxes that I need to untick in anu menus, to give less stress to my card?

Are you both using VMR9?


Dagamepimp, have you got a link with the version of your ffdshow?


What I don't understand is why the FX 5700 didn't have them issues....



Thanks

Dimitris

Jason:


848x480 is such a trivial resolution that just about any card from a 5700 on up could do it in VMR9.


Dimitris:


The issues with NVidia's implementation of VMR9 on their newer cards begin to rear their ugly heads at 720P and above when using DVI. Using VGA is somewhat less problematical. Doesn't matter which drivers, either.


The only answer for 720P and above over DVI is VMR9 renderless mode as implemented in MCE2005, Mediator, the NVidia nStantMedia player application that ships with the NVidia decoders, TheaterTek (coming real soon now), or Zoomplayer (currently alpha).


Many threads here on AVS have discussed this issue. Search for "VMR9 renderless".


Vern

Quote:
Vern ,


--- While 848x480 might be 'trivial' as far as Resolutions->GPU go I still experienced the tearing mentioned by others with certain driver sets [ on both my 4805 PJ (DVI) and my 21" CRT (VGA) ] . I do have a CRT monitor than can do 1600x1200 sitting here that I use for set-up before it goes to the Projector [ and I always set up a working 720p resolution for the CRT ] .


-------- Jason

Vern Dias,


that means that I will have to choose overlay on TT, and wait for an update?

Am I better off using the 5700 then with VMR9?


I will do the search you recommended, thanks


Dimitris

"I thought that it was my CPU that wouldn't let me resise in ffdshow

all that time. I have an AMD 64 3500+...."


It's both.. you need the CPU for ffdshow raw processing and the GPU to actually do the VMR9 properly.. is the way I see it now w/ AMD + nVidia combo.


Depending on which version of ffdshow you are using, you may or may not have an optimal version for your AMD CPU. It took me a while to figure this out. Most of the very recent (2005 for sure) versions floating around have compiler optimizations turned on but ONLY when it sees an Intel CPU in the stream... hence the AMDs run at 99% and the Intel runs at 55%, lots more headroom. That's why if I had to do it over, I'd choose a very fast Intel over AMD for that only reason.


The issue is SSE/SSE2 optimizations and Intel with its 3.2 GHz speed can tick those clocks off a lot faster than the AMD 64 chips 3200, 3500, ...


I'm using the 20041012 SSE version w/ my AMD 3200 and I can resize to 2x with some light sharpening. Search the ffdshow threads for "Andy" and you will find more about the versions. Vincent

Karnis,


That's perfect timing!

I was just browsing in the TT forum, and found the update!

I suppose I have to focus on choosing the right ffdshow version now.....


Thanks guys

Dimitris