ATI's Avivo Update - H.264 Acceleration & a Special Downloadable Surprise
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 16, 2005 3:09 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
To see if ATI's tool was really more efficient, we took three source videos: a WMV HD trailer, an MPEG-1 file and a DivX file and converted them all to 768kbps MPEG-4 files for use on a Sony PSP. We measured the transcode time in minutes on our same Athlon 64 3500+ system and have reported the results below:
When converting WMV HD to MPEG-4, ATI's Avivo Video Converter is a bit quicker than Nero Recode, completing the transcode 30 seconds less in time.
Our MPEG-1 source file was quite large at just under 1GB, so transcoding it took noticebaly longer. It was here though that ATI's tool truly shined, completing the transcode in just over 5 minutes compared to about 12.5 minutes using Nero. Again, this is with no GPU acceleration at all.
Finally, when converting DivX to the PSP format, we see once more that the Avivo Video Converter can accomplish the task in less than half the time of Nero Recode.
So, is ATI getting into the software business with the Avivo Video Converter? No. In fact, ATI is providing these algorithms and hooks to partners like Nero so that regardless of what software application you're using, you will get the best performance assuming that you have ATI hardware.
We should note that the Avivo Video Converter, despite not being GPU accelerated, will only work on ATI Radeon X1000 series of GPUs. ATI is still working on bringing a GPU accelerated version of the Avivo Video Converter to market, but that's still a while away.
Introducing the Avivo Video Converter
ATI’s Gift to X1000 Owners - Get the Avivo Video Converter, Today!
39 Comments
View All Comments
ShadowVlican - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link
how bout a review on the quality of the transcoded files? we all know that all encoders are not equal, that is why some mpeg2 encoders cost more than my carmongoosesRawesome - Saturday, December 17, 2005 - link
yea, i agree. speed is all well and good, but if the output sucks then why bother?JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link
Read the article.
PrinceGaz - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link
He's talking about ENcoding quality for transcoding purposes, not playback quality.If a test is done on MPEG2 encoding quality, I would suggest using CCE SP as the comparison encoder as it is generally considered the best available (though it is a touch expensive to purchase).
tfranzese - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link
Read a different article then. AT isn't the only place to cover this (FiringSquad had some IQ coverage).Andyvan - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link
I'm wondering if you have both a cheap ATI card and an NVIDIA card installed in your computer, whether you would be allowed to run the converter.-- Andyvan
Rys - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link
Yes, as long as one of the boards is an X1K, the transcoding tool will run. I currently have a GeForce 7800 GTX as my primary board, and an X1800 XL as the secondary one. The new driver, decoder and transcoding tool all run fine.synic - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link
read the article, it says X1000 or greater onlyAraemo - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link
"we will look at other performance comparisons upon request from you all"Just one: Compare DVD->Divx against AutoGK(Using the official Divx.com codec?) Does the ATI tool even support ripping from an actual DVD(Or decrypted DVD files) to another format? I am curious.
fnord123 - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link
Please compare against the Microsoft Windows Media Encoder (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9ser...">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9ser.... A lot of Media Center Extender and XBox 360 people are using it to recode their .avi files to .wmv (Divx isn't supported by 360/MCExtenders). It is a slow process so if the ATI accelerator speeds it up they will have a bunch of buyers!