Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 19th December 2006, 17:24   #2421  |  Link
Rectal Prolapse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 433
pankov, I feel your pain. I was not happy and vented my frustration here and got flamed for it.

Anyways, moving on:

toytown, it is possible that you still have an old version of CoreAVC kicking around in your system. Did you install any codec packs? I would do a complete search of your C: drive for coreavc.ax files (or whatever it is called) and unregister and delete them. Then reinstall CoreAVC 1.2.

Good luck!
Rectal Prolapse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2006, 11:03   #2422  |  Link
Hans Ohlo
Registered User
 
Hans Ohlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 123
one thing i like to be fixed is the following:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8547/coremessng9.jpg
the installer misses to remove the old entry in this software list. or it should tell me to remove the old version first (which the new version simply overwrites).
Hans Ohlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2006, 22:46   #2423  |  Link
toytown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 97
Quote:
toytown, it is possible that you still have an old version of CoreAVC kicking around in your system
I checked before i posted ,there is only the one dll for core installed and its the 1.2 version registered to myself. With the 97.xx (i think) drivers i would get about 55% total cpu usage and jerky playback, this led me to believe it was only using the 1 core (50% for the video, 5% for other useless windows tasks running).

When i downgraded back to the earlier WHQL nvidia drivers, my cpu usage whilst watching the movie dropped to around 40% usage. Whilst bringing up the statistics i also get about 1-5 dropped frames after running for several minutes. But the cpu never peaked above 60% total usage according to task manager.

This leaves me to believe that its only using 1 core and that taskmanager is only showing usage on both cores due to the task switching cores constantly.

Is it possible that there is a SUPER HIGH quality test mp4 i can use, that would simply not play on a single core machine, or even a method of seeing if the application is really using multiple cores?
toytown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2006, 23:36   #2424  |  Link
JohnnyFu
Registered User
 
JohnnyFu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Germany, Hamburg
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by toytown View Post
Is it possible that there is a SUPER HIGH quality test mp4 i can use, that would simply not play on a single core machine
Try this one: beyonce.at.the.bbc.1080mbaff.sample.ts
CPU usage is almost 100% the whole time on my 3500+@2.7Ghz (single core).

Do you have the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer installed ?

Last edited by JohnnyFu; 21st December 2006 at 23:40.
JohnnyFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 01:51   #2425  |  Link
JohnnyFu
Registered User
 
JohnnyFu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Germany, Hamburg
Posts: 111
I just wrote a support ticket. 5min later i had a reply.

Quote:
Ticket ID : 19982
Ticket Title : CoreAVC Installation

Dear ,

The Ticket is replied and the details are :

Status : Open
Category : Big Problem
Severity : Major
Priority :

Description :
Hello, I'm going to format and reinstall my Windows XP system now, as far as i know, after that, i will not be able to install CoreAVC again. This is unacceptable for me. I really hope you can provide a solution.... greetz Johnny I bought your product to support your company... don't throw it away.... otherwise it was the last time i supported you. I will not and can not buy a new license every 2-3 months when i clean up my system....

Solution :










Regards, HelpDesk Team
is this an error or do they kidding me ?
JohnnyFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 02:03   #2426  |  Link
jchunter_2
jchunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 15
CoreCodec is still taking orders for the CoreAVC codec and charging credit cards for the codec but not delivering anything.
jchunter_2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 02:29   #2427  |  Link
ChronoCross
Does it really matter?
 
ChronoCross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyFu View Post
I just wrote a support ticket. 5min later i had a reply.



is this an error or do they kidding me ?
you do know that as long as you use the same hardware and windows key you can reactivate automatically right?
ChronoCross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 05:05   #2428  |  Link
JohnnyFu
Registered User
 
JohnnyFu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Germany, Hamburg
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoCross View Post
you do know that as long as you use the same hardware and windows key you can reactivate automatically right?
no, i didn't know, thank you so... everything should be fine then.
JohnnyFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd December 2006, 05:19   #2429  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoCross View Post
you do know that as long as you use the same hardware and windows key you can reactivate automatically right?
The exact reason why i wont buy it.
I change HW very often...
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2006, 17:29   #2430  |  Link
Px
>>^^__^^<<
 
Px's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharktooth View Post
The exact reason why i wont buy it.
I change HW very often...
After my last upgrade I see that I don't need not coreavc, nor powerdvd hwa for now, ffdshow plays even 1080p 24 Mbps streams with 60%/40% cpu cores load.....
Px is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2006, 20:35   #2431  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
yes for low complexity streams (progressive) the difference is only 25% now
so you can allready playback 720p H.264 @ 30 fps with 800 mhz (MMX,SSE1) x86
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :)

It is about Time

Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late !

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004

Last edited by CruNcher; 24th December 2006 at 20:39.
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th December 2006, 20:56   #2432  |  Link
KoD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 567
I would like to know where all these numbers come from. Does anyone care to provide some sample files and timed test runs with ffdshow and coreavc ?
KoD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th December 2006, 00:46   #2433  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoD View Post
I would like to know where all these numbers come from. Does anyone care to provide some sample files and timed test runs with ffdshow and coreavc ?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...647#post914647

0.4 tests single-threaded, 1.0-pre tests multithreaded. Only with dual core is the difference huge, and then only if you have something that can actually saturate the system, like hd-dvd.

Ignore fps in timecodec and concentrate on dfps, which measures total time to complete. (fps measures thread-time and gets faked out by the clock wonkiness in speedstep and c&q systems.)
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th December 2006, 18:35   #2434  |  Link
KoD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 567
What I would like to see are timed tests from Px and Cruncher that proves the numbers in their posts. I would definitely like to see how ffdshow benefits from the second core for Px and timed tests from Cruncher on that 800 Mhz machine with a 720p file. Let's keep on topic.

Last edited by KoD; 25th December 2006 at 18:38.
KoD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th December 2006, 16:19   #2435  |  Link
lexor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoD View Post
What I would like to see are timed tests from Px and Cruncher that proves the numbers in their posts. I would definitely like to see how ffdshow benefits from the second core for Px and timed tests from Cruncher on that 800 Mhz machine with a 720p file. Let's keep on topic.
how is any of that on CoreAVC topic?
__________________
Geforce GTX 260
Windows 7, 64bit, Core i7
MPC-HC, Foobar2000
lexor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th December 2006, 20:00   #2436  |  Link
Romario
Registered User
 
Romario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Qetchua mountains in Peru, and Klingon battlecruiser D'Mar
Posts: 393
BetaBoy gets what he deserves, really!
__________________
Live long and prosperLive long and prosperLive long and prosper
Romario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 01:43   #2437  |  Link
Px
>>^^__^^<<
 
Px's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoD View Post
What I would like to see are timed tests from Px and Cruncher that proves the numbers in their posts. I would definitely like to see how ffdshow benefits from the second core for Px and timed tests from Cruncher on that 800 Mhz machine with a 720p file. Let's keep on topic.
http://users.i.com.ua/~finish/HardwareMonitoring.hml
This is RivaTuner text log for playing first 1:47 of this file - http://multimediacom.free.fr/HD-DVD/H264/24Mbps/
Px is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 04:46   #2438  |  Link
ChronoCross
Does it really matter?
 
ChronoCross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Px View Post
This is in this thread why? Why don't you open a new thread for this as it's completely separate from coreavc
ChronoCross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 08:37   #2439  |  Link
Selur
Registered User
 
Selur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 7,259
little question:

Atm I'm running WinXP but I plan to check out Vista in a couple of weeks (MSDN AA), do I have to fear any problems installing my coreavc pro version on vista?
And If I switch back to WinXP (restore an image) will CoreAVC still run?

Cu Selur
Selur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 11:29   #2440  |  Link
JohnnyFu
Registered User
 
JohnnyFu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Germany, Hamburg
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetaBoy (16th November 2006, 11:47)
oh... FYI... current installer is not compatible with Vista... We will release a Vista capable installer later today.
that's all i know about Vista
Restoring an image wich includes an already activated CoreAVC should work i think. But i don't think you will be able to install/activate CoreAVC on Vista if it was activated on an XP installation before.

Last edited by JohnnyFu; 27th December 2006 at 11:33.
JohnnyFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
codec, coreavc, corecodec, coremvc, cuda, decoder, dxva, h.264, mvc, scam

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.