CoreCodec/H.264 Codec "CoreAVC"

[LoRd_MuldeR]

DiAVC works for me on Win7 x64 too with MPC-HC 32bit.

Though I have to say the output looks different from other decoders, I'll have to investigate this when I find some time.

You are 100% sure that you aren't misinterpreting different Luma Levels as "different output" ???

[the_corona]

You are 100% sure that you aren't misinterpreting different Luma Levels as "different output" ???

No, I think actually 32bit MPC had different renderer settings than 64bit which I was used to seeing things as. I didn't really bother, just a quick install to see if it runs on Win7 x64. Disregard that remark for now.

[BetaBoy]

To go "off-topic" for a moment (:rolleyes:), .
No.. what I suggest is simple, take your OT discussion out of this thread.

[wayland]

maybe i misunderstand this "Current customer from the past 60 days are getting updates emailed to them now. Post 60 days users get the upgrade for $4.95 and those emails are going out now as well." but longterm customers have to pay $15 more for 2.0? (was originally $20 iirc not $10 plus $5 upgrade fee)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

maybe i misunderstand this "Current customer from the past 60 days are getting updates emailed to them now. Post 60 days users get the upgrade for $4.95 and those emails are going out now as well." but longterm customers have to pay $15 more for 2.0? (was originally $20 iirc not $10 plus $5 upgrade fee)

If you bought CoreAVC in the last 60 days, you get the 2.0 upgrade for free. If you bought it earlier, you can upgrade for $5. New users will have to pay $10 (after xmas it will be $13).

Please correct me, if I'm wrong...

[laserfan]

If you bought CoreAVC in the last 60 days, you get the 2.0 upgrade for free. If you bought it earlier, you can upgrade for $5. New users will have to pay $10 (after xmas it will be $13).

Please correct me, if I'm wrong...Where'd the $5 upgrade come from? I have 1.9.5 and just paid $9.95 to upgrade... :confused:

[wayland]

i think they are supposed to email you a code that gives a discount, i havnt had any email about it yet though. i dont really see a good reason for paying the upgrade fee, might as well just use a decoder without mv and weightp problems and save $5

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Where'd the $5 upgrade come from? I have 1.9.5 and just paid $9.95 to upgrade... :confused:

From this post:

Correct, we have an affiliate program in place. However the rate will be 15% for 2.0.

Also on price. Upgrades are $4.95 and the full version is $9.95 (discounted from $12.95 till xmas).

I think as a CoreAVC 1.9.x owner, you should have received an email with a unique code for reduced-price upgrade...

[laserfan]

I think as a CoreAVC 1.9.x owner, you should have received an email with a unique code for reduced-price upgrade...
Maybe I "jumped the gun" then. I did receive an email Subject: CoreAVC 1.9.5 Purchase Update
Dear <my registered name>,

Thank you for your purchasing CoreCodec products. We have recently upgraded our order processing system.

An account has automatically been generated for you in our new system.
To log on, use your email address (myregisteredemail), and your temporary
password of "secretpassword". This password is stored encrypted and can be reset, but not recovered, if lost.

In addition, we have imported your existing CoreAVC 1.9.5 purchases into this account.

The following CoreAVC 1.9.5 serial numbers have been associated with your account:
- XXXXXXXXXXXX -

You can log in to view your serial numbers and downloads at any time by visiting https://customers.corecodec.com/ .
So I went to the link, logged-in to my account, didn't see any "upgrade" link anywhere but clicked on "order" and completed the order w/20LAUNCH to get to $9.95.

Got this email 2 days ago and just bought the new version this a.m. (no further emails received).

So has anyone here gotten theirs for $5bucks? How? :confused:

[JEEB]

Maybe I "jumped the gun" then. I did receive an email Subject: CoreAVC 1.9.5 Purchase Update

So I went to the link, logged-in to my account, didn't see any "upgrade" link anywhere but clicked on "order" and completed the order w/20LAUNCH to get to $9.95.

Got this email 2 days ago and just bought the new version this a.m. (no further emails received).

So has anyone here gotten theirs for $5bucks? How? :confused:

I had the same thing, only mail I got was that purchase update one. Oh well...

[BetaBoy]

We are looking into the reports of users not getting the upgrade emails.

[Sharc]

Maybe I "jumped the gun" then. I did receive an email Subject: CoreAVC 1.9.5 Purchase Update

So I went to the link, logged-in to my account, didn't see any "upgrade" link anywhere but clicked on "order" and completed the order w/20LAUNCH to get to $9.95.

Got this email 2 days ago and just bought the new version ..
Same here....

[blubberbirne]

We are looking into the reports of users not getting the upgrade emails.

:thanks: i hope i get my email this year :mad:

[DigitalDeviant]

No upgrade link here either.

[BetaBoy]

We are looking into the reports of users not getting the upgrade emails.

For any people that did not get the discount code you can email me directly: info@corecodec.com and I will issue you a unique coupon. Please provide your original purchase email address as this will need to match your current CoreAVC order.

[ranpha]

For any people that did not get the discount code you can email me directly: info@corecodec.com and I will issue you a unique coupon. Please provide your original purchase email address as this will need to match your current CoreAVC order.

I haven't got the upgrade e-mail either, so I have sent you an e-mail for the coupon so that I can grab myself a second copy.

[BetaBoy]

Coupons sent to all those you sent in their purchase info to me so far.

[RiCON]

So I tried to install CoreAVC through Wine, to use it on Mplayer, like I used with 1.9.5. But something changed that broke that possibility.

As the development of coreavc-for-linux seems to be kinda dead, is there any way CoreCodec could explain to get it to work again?

It's essential that I get it to work as ffmpeg-mt is not fast enough to run on the netbook for which I especifically bought CoreAVC.

Everything from coreavc-for-linux compiled just fine. It's just a problem with the .ax not detecting the serial registered through registercodec. I tried registering the new serial and even the user, but it doesn't seem to work.

Any ideas?

[Mixer73]

Next version of my Win7DSFilterTweaker tool should be able to assist you with bypassing the evil MS stuff ;)

Awesome CLSID. With some time off work soon I feel I might be able to do "risky" stuff with my 7 box ;)

Btw I gotta say you're involved in all my favourite projects, :thanks:

Yeah... we have been thinking about an option to treat other containers as .mkv but I think its out of the scope of what 'we' should do.

I can understand this 100%, there's only so much you should be doing as part of a commercial installer.

Coupons sent to all those you sent in their purchase info to me so far.

Well done - whether its $10 or $5 CoreAVC is a great product and very affordable. Thanks for all your hard work.

[lnatan25]

No.. what I suggest is simple, take your OT discussion out of this thread.
I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm. :rolleyes:

Or you tuck your head in the sand on purpose?

[yesgrey]

Here are my test results using an Intel E2160@2.7GHz with 1080p material:
ffdshow
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 4s, fps: 479.6, dfps: 41.2
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 479.6, dfps: 54.2
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 647.4, dfps: 52.4

ffdshow-mt
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 719.4, dfps: 66.8
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 563.0, dfps: 67.4
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 588.6, dfps: 64.4

CoreAVC 1.9.5
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 719.4, dfps: 71.2
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 588.6, dfps: 73.2
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 616.6, dfps: 72.7

DiAVC alpha
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 588.6, dfps: 81.9
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 681.5, dfps: 80.9
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 479.6, dfps: 82.5

CoreAVC 2.0.0
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 498.0, dfps: 81.4
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 404.6, dfps: 81.9
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 2s, fps: 462.5, dfps: 80.9

[BetaBoy]

We keep seeing Timecodec reports again and again on Doom9 with multi-core systems. Everyone needs to understand that timecodec does not produce accurate results for multi-core systems (single core however does produce accurate results), and as such any reports are not correct. Both Haali and I both have stated this a few times here. I have pinged Haali to see if he can mod it to accurately represent true 'dfps', although I suspect that would require a lot of work to make it accurate against all the AMD and Intel CPU's.

[Keiyakusha]

But even if result is not accurate, it should be not accurate in the same way for all decoders. So we still should be able to say "this one is faster than that one".
Anyway maybe yesgrey3 or someone can do another comparison using graphstudio?

[BetaBoy]

But even if result is not accurate, it should be not accurate in the same way for all decoders. So we still should be able to say "this one is faster than that one".
Anyway maybe yesgrey3 or someone can do another comparison using graphstudio?
Not at all, as each decoder will likely handle threading priorities differently and throw off the 'dfps' count.

[laserfan]

Maybe I "jumped the gun" then. I did receive an email Subject: CoreAVC 1.9.5 Purchase Update

So I went to the link, logged-in to my account, didn't see any "upgrade" link anywhere but clicked on "order" and completed the order w/20LAUNCH to get to $9.95.

Got this email 2 days ago (Dec 18th)and just bought the new version this a.m. (no further emails received).
Subject: CoreAVC 1.9.5 Purchase Update
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:06:11 -0800 (PST)
From: CoreCodec Inc. <noreply@corecodec.com>
To: <my email>
Dear <my registered name>,

Thank you for your purchasing CoreCodec products. We have recently upgraded our order processing system.

An account has automatically been generated for you in our new system.
To log on, use your email address (myregisteredemail), and your temporary
password of "secretpassword". This password is stored encrypted and can be reset, but not recovered, if lost.

In addition, we have imported your existing CoreAVC 1.9.5 purchases into this account.

The following CoreAVC 1.9.5 serial numbers have been associated with your account:
- XXXXXXXXXXXX -

You can log in to view your serial numbers and downloads at any time by visiting https://customers.corecodec.com/ .

So has anyone here gotten theirs for $5bucks? How? :confused:
What bonehead(s) in your company are responsible for this: after getting the above two days ago, I tonight received the following:
Subject: Upgrade to CoreAVC 2.0 for $4.95!
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:56:26 -0800
From: CoreCodec, Inc. <support@corecodec.com>
To: <yours truly, removed to protect my innocence>

CoreCodec, Inc.

Dear <my name>,

You are receiving this email because you have purchased CoreAVC 1.X.

We are pleased to announce the immediate availablity of a discounted upgrade to CoreAVC 2.0.

To purchase, simply log into your client portal and access your licenses at

https://customers.corecodec.com/clientarea.php?action=products

then click the license you wish to upgrade, and click upgrade. This will generate an invoice for the upgrade.

Upon payment, your license will be automatically upgraded to CoreAVC 2.0.

Thank you.

A little late CoreCodec, Inc.! I know it's only $5 bucks, but what a way to make your customers feel like jerks for responding to your first "come on"! How'd you manage to mess this up??? :devil:

[BetaBoy]

Not boneheads at all, but we apologize for your inconvenience. We sent another round of emails for those that had already been sent, but bounced back to us. If you already paid for it send me an email: info@corecodec.com and we will make up the difference.

[G_M_C]

I've got one question; How is the 32-64 bit / new windows migration arranged with you guys ?

I'm on 32-bits Win XP right now, but plan to upgrade to Win 7 in Q1 2010. When I buy CoreAVC now, wich would be Win XP32, will my license give me the abillity to also migrate CoreAVC to Win7/64 bits when i upgrade ?

[tormento]

I have just bought coreavc2 and I have 2 questions:

1) Why is not possible to install it in a custom directory?

2) How (on hell) is possible to change codec priority? I have tried every single codec modding program out there and CoreAVC does take the decoding process.

Oh, yeah, on my PC even tagging the preferences does not show the tray icon..

[BetaBoy]

1 - will be an option in a future release.
2 - Uncheck the preference for 'codec' priority in the decoder properties page.

On the tray... what OS are you running?

[dimitrik]

I just got my upgrade email - can't wait to install and test the new decoder. It helps me run MC7 x64 on my HTPC, I will be one happy guy.

By the way for those interested in speed comparisons, there is a major thread on this, which is the ideal place for those questions.

MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 decoder comparison (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=99402)

I think its more relevant to discuss the specific features of this release here, good or bad, which will ultimately help both old and new customers.

[JohnnyFu]

I can confirm MC7 recognizes MKV files without any modification with CoreAVC 2.0 installed. Thanks!

Looking forward for ATi GPU support!

[tormento]

2 - Uncheck the preference for 'codec' priority in the decoder properties page.

On the tray... what OS are you running?

2) Tried, not working.

Windows ult 7 x64.

[Disabled]

We keep seeing Timecodec reports again and again on Doom9 with multi-core systems. Everyone needs to understand that timecodec does not produce accurate results for multi-core systems...

I wonder, how do you benchmark your decoder? Does the graphstudio benchmark provide correct results? I tested all decoders (CoreAVC 1.9.5) with graphstudio and timecodec and while the absolute numbers varied a little, the results were absolutely comparable...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Side-note: In all my tests the "dps" value seems to correlate perfectly with the "real" decoding time and also with the subjective decoding experience.

And I assume TimeCodec does measure the (real) decoding time correctly. That really shouldn't be too hard to do ;)

[tommy_vercetti]

I can confirm MC7 recognizes MKV files without any modification with CoreAVC 2.0 installed. Thanks!

Looking forward for ATi GPU support!

You can try with just the Haali Splitter, it works the same, just it gets rendered by the default codecs in Windows 7 x64

[BetaBoy]

I wonder, how do you benchmark your decoder? Does the graphstudio benchmark provide correct results? I tested all decoders (CoreAVC 1.9.5) with graphstudio and timecodec and while the absolute numbers varied a little, the results were absolutely comparable...
Timecodec is good for benchmarking devel diff's of before Vs. after to see if it has a positive/negative impact on performance. Also from what I was told graphstudio also has the same threading problem, which would explain why they numbers are close for both.

I'm trying to chat with Haali more on it to get more details on what is and is not, and what we can do to get more accurate benchmarks.

[BetaBoy]

2) Tried, not working.

Windows ult 7 x64.

This seems to be a bug with Shark's Codec tool based on the reports coming in. Removing it seems to resolve the issue till he releases a fix.

[Shark007]

This seems to be a bug with Shark's Codec tool based on the reports coming in. Removing it seems to resolve the issue till he releases a fix.

Since i have not had a chance to test 2.0 (until now) my x64 components use x64 ffdshow as an H264 default. You will need to open the x64 settings application on the Config TAB, use the center dropdown to choose 'FFDshow Video' and set H264/AVC to disabled. I will add provisions to my x64 release to accomodate x64 CoreAVC a.s.a.p.

EDIT: version 2.2.8 of the x64 Components (http://www.majorgeeks.com/VistaCodecs_x64Components_d5535.html) accommodates the use of CoreAVC x64.

[BetaBoy]

Shark007... thank you!

[Cyber-Mav]

ok i bit the bullet and upgraded to coreavc 2.0 here are my results:

q9650@3.6ghz vista ultimate x64


720x304 1mbit

coreavc 1.9.5
User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 4s, fps: 4918.2, dfps: 1073.8

coreavc 2.0
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 6170.1, dfps: 1396.5
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 6284.4, dfps: 1396.5
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 5751.8, dfps: 1408.0

divx
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 7892.0, dfps: 1705.0
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 7069.9, dfps: 1705.0
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 3s, fps: 8277.0, dfps: 1696.8

diavc alpha
User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 2s, fps: 3393.6, dfps: 1814.9
User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 2s, fps: 3201.5, dfps: 1814.9
User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 2s, fps: 3232.0, dfps: 1805.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------

720p 2.5mbit

coreavc 1.9.5
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 11s, fps: 2177.1, dfps: 542.8

coreavc 2.0
User: 3s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 10s, fps: 1878.9, dfps: 606.9
User: 3s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 10s, fps: 1820.7, dfps: 605.1
User: 3s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 10s, fps: 2088.7, dfps: 604.2

divx
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 4s, real: 11s, fps: 1480.1, dfps: 579.5
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 4s, real: 11s, fps: 1480.1, dfps: 581.2
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 4s, real: 11s, fps: 1418.9, dfps: 578.7

diavc alpha
User: 5s, kernel: 0s, total: 5s, real: 10s, fps: 1139.8, dfps: 604.2
User: 5s, kernel: 0s, total: 5s, real: 10s, fps: 1213.8, dfps: 606.9
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 5s, real: 10s, fps: 1250.7, dfps: 606.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------

720p 5.7mbit

coreavc 1.9.5
User: 3s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 14s, fps: 1861.7, dfps: 473.0

coreavc 2.0
User: 3s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 14s, fps: 1815.3, dfps: 485.6
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 4s, real: 13s, fps: 1602.6, dfps: 487.7
User: 3s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 14s, fps: 1822.9, dfps: 485.6

divx
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 4s, real: 14s, fps: 1439.1, dfps: 480.8
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 4s, real: 14s, fps: 1406.7, dfps: 481.3
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 4s, real: 14s, fps: 1371.5, dfps: 481.8

diavc alpha
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 5s, real: 13s, fps: 1271.8, dfps: 504.0
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 5s, real: 13s, fps: 1317.8, dfps: 505.8
User: 4s, kernel: 0s, total: 5s, real: 13s, fps: 1337.9, dfps: 502.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------

1080p 4.5mbit

coreavc 1.9.5
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 27s, fps: 741.5, dfps: 297.1

coreavc 2.0
User: 11s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 26s, fps: 685.2, dfps: 303.1
User: 11s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 26s, fps: 699.9, dfps: 303.1
User: 12s, kernel: 0s, total: 12s, real: 26s, fps: 631.5, dfps: 303.1

divx
User: 13s, kernel: 0s, total: 13s, real: 28s, fps: 588.2, dfps: 288.4
User: 14s, kernel: 0s, total: 14s, real: 28s, fps: 565.4, dfps: 287.7
User: 14s, kernel: 0s, total: 14s, real: 28s, fps: 572.2, dfps: 288.9

diavc alpha
User: 12s, kernel: 0s, total: 13s, real: 26s, fps: 605.9, dfps: 302.8
User: 14s, kernel: 0s, total: 15s, real: 27s, fps: 535.8, dfps: 301.7
User: 13s, kernel: 0s, total: 14s, real: 27s, fps: 574.7, dfps: 301.4

new coreavc 2.0 is deffo faster than 1.9.5 was. however on my laptop the pentium m740, coreavc 2.0 is around 1fps SLOWER than 1.9.5 is in all the timecodec benches i ran.

however im currently running benches on my opteron cpu and the results so far are very very interesting indeed. i will post results in few mins when testing is done.

//also how do i get my results embedded in a code box like others do?

[yesgrey]

//also how do i get my results embedded in a code box like others do?
select the results and click the "#" icon when creating/editing a message.

[Cyber-Mav]

select the results and click the "#" icon when creating/editing a message.

thankyou my good man.

[the_corona]

Well, it sure seems all those optimizations only made it faster than 1.9.5, but not really faster than the competition.

BetaBoy, if timecodec is as you claim not accurate at all and shouldn't be used to judge a codec's performance, then how can you claim CoreAVC to be the "world's fastest H264 software decoder"? How do you measure that? Or don't you and just put that up there for good marketing? Or was timecodec "good enough" while it showed CoreAVC to be the fastest in the past?

In either case, a bit questionable buiseness practice if I may say so.

[Cyber-Mav]

Well, it sure seems all those optimizations only made it faster than 1.9.5, but not really faster than the competition.

BetaBoy, if timecodec is as you claim not accurate at all and shouldn't be used to judge a codec's performance, then how can you claim CoreAVC to be the "world's fastest H264 software decoder"? How do you measure that? Or don't you and just put that up there for good marketing? Or was timecodec "good enough" while it showed CoreAVC to be the fastest in the past?

In either case, a bit questionable buiseness practice if I may say so.

wait till i get my opteron pc results up. its very interesting indeed.

[BetaBoy]

AMD opteron users have seen the great decrease in overall speed with CoreAVC 2.0 from the reports so far.

the_corona... take your continued attacks/flames elsewhere, its really getting old.

[JohnnyFu]

Opteron or AMD CPU's in general?

[Cyber-Mav]

opteron is just more cache memory than regular athlon64, so i would assume all athlon 64 users would get similar speed to opteron. i almost finished benching the codecs on my opteron pc, just a few more runs to go then i install coreavc 2.0 and bench that and i will post up the results. but as of now coreavc 1.9.5 is showing amazing results for me.

[BetaBoy]

Opteron or AMD CPU's in general?

typo.. decrease. But we still have a bunch of ppl testing and are getting mixed results. So I'll hold off on more reports till later this week.

[Dark Shikari]

I'm guessing that a good bit of the new SSE2 assembly code is slower on A64 and should probably be disabled there.

[Cyber-Mav]

and here are the results:
opteron 170 @ 2.6ghz win7 x64

720x304 1mbit

coreavc 1.9.5
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 10s, fps: 2232.6, dfps: 519.7
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 10s, fps: 2293.0, dfps: 518.9
User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 10s, fps: 2651.2, dfps: 519.7

divx
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 10s, fps: 1895.8, dfps: 484.8
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 10s, fps: 2203.6, dfps: 491.1
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 10s, fps: 2356.6, dfps: 490.4

diavc alpha
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 11s, fps: 1608.3, dfps: 460.5
User: 3s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 11s, fps: 1385.1, dfps: 460.5
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 3s, real: 11s, fps: 1696.8, dfps: 462.4

microsoft dtv-dvd
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 16s, fps: 42419.6, dfps: 323.2
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 16s, fps: 48479.5, dfps: 323.5
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 16s, fps: 56559.5, dfps: 321.1

coreavc 2.0
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 10s, fps: 2293.0, dfps: 514.9
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 10s, fps: 2389.8, dfps: 522.0
User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 10s, fps: 2651.2, dfps: 518.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------

720p 2.5mbit

coreavc 1.9.5
User: 9s, kernel: 0s, total: 9s, real: 39s, fps: 681.2, dfps: 164.5
User: 8s, kernel: 0s, total: 8s, real: 38s, fps: 727.0, dfps: 165.9
User: 8s, kernel: 0s, total: 8s, real: 38s, fps: 738.7, dfps: 164.9

divx
User: 12s, kernel: 0s, total: 12s, real: 44s, fps: 503.0, dfps: 144.9
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 10s, real: 43s, fps: 608.7, dfps: 146.6
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 10s, real: 43s, fps: 600.7, dfps: 146.3

diavc alpha
User: 11s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 40s, fps: 544.3, dfps: 158.4
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 40s, fps: 577.1, dfps: 157.4
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 40s, fps: 582.0, dfps: 157.3

microsoft dtv-dvd
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 64s, fps: 29390.8, dfps: 99.0
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 65s, fps: 37406.5, dfps: 98.5
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 65s, fps: 29390.8, dfps: 98.7

coreavc 2.0
User: 8s, kernel: 0s, total: 8s, real: 38s, fps: 732.2, dfps: 166.2
User: 8s, kernel: 0s, total: 8s, real: 38s, fps: 724.4, dfps: 167.2
User: 8s, kernel: 0s, total: 9s, real: 38s, fps: 710.7, dfps: 166.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------

720p 5.7mbit

coreavc 1.9.5
User: 9s, kernel: 0s, total: 9s, real: 47s, fps: 693.3, dfps: 143.3
User: 9s, kernel: 0s, total: 9s, real: 47s, fps: 716.0, dfps: 143.4
User: 9s, kernel: 0s, total: 9s, real: 47s, fps: 696.7, dfps: 143.2

divx
User: 12s, kernel: 0s, total: 12s, real: 52s, fps: 526.5, dfps: 129.2
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 52s, fps: 615.3, dfps: 130.2
User: 11s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 52s, fps: 590.4, dfps: 130.8

diavc alpha
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 50s, fps: 588.0, dfps: 136.4
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 50s, fps: 601.8, dfps: 136.3
User: 10s, kernel: 0s, total: 11s, real: 50s, fps: 587.2, dfps: 136.0

microsoft dtv-dvd
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 76s, fps: 19021.6, dfps: 89.7
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 75s, fps: 33653.6, dfps: 90.2
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 75s, fps: 29166.5, dfps: 90.0

coreavc 2.0
User: 8s, kernel: 0s, total: 8s, real: 46s, fps: 771.6, dfps: 146.0
User: 9s, kernel: 0s, total: 9s, real: 46s, fps: 731.6, dfps: 145.6
User: 9s, kernel: 0s, total: 9s, real: 46s, fps: 718.4, dfps: 145.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1080p 4.5mbit

coreavc 1.9.5
User: 25s, kernel: 0s, total: 25s, real: 96s, fps: 318.4, dfps: 84.5
User: 25s, kernel: 0s, total: 25s, real: 96s, fps: 319.0, dfps: 84.4
User: 25s, kernel: 0s, total: 25s, real: 96s, fps: 316.5, dfps: 84.3

divx
User: 28s, kernel: 0s, total: 28s, real: 114s, fps: 285.6, dfps: 71.2
User: 27s, kernel: 0s, total: 28s, real: 114s, fps: 290.8, dfps: 71.2
User: 32s, kernel: 0s, total: 32s, real: 116s, fps: 253.5, dfps: 70.3

diavc alpha
User: 26s, kernel: 1s, total: 27s, real: 104s, fps: 296.3, dfps: 78.5
User: 26s, kernel: 1s, total: 28s, real: 104s, fps: 291.3, dfps: 78.3
User: 26s, kernel: 1s, total: 27s, real: 104s, fps: 297.5, dfps: 78.5

microsoft dtv-dvd
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 175s, fps: 20135.5, dfps: 46.6
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 175s, fps: 18697.2, dfps: 46.6
User: 0s, kernel: 0s, total: 0s, real: 174s, fps: 23796.5, dfps: 46.9

coreavc 2.0
User: 24s, kernel: 0s, total: 24s, real: 96s, fps: 332.8, dfps: 84.2
User: 25s, kernel: 0s, total: 25s, real: 96s, fps: 317.3, dfps: 84.3
User: 25s, kernel: 0s, total: 25s, real: 97s, fps: 317.7, dfps: 84.0


already coreavc 1.9.5 is the fastest decoder on the dual core opteron cpu i have. but the new coreavc 2.0 has left me well and truly disapointed.