Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I am a little bit puzzled as to how some of the codecs manage to have
>> slightly lower CPU load than completely uncompressed video. Obviously
>> this is impossible - unless you're seriously telling me it takes 14% CPU
>> to transfer 7.9 GB of data from HD to RAM?
> 
> 	Those were the _lossy_ codecs.

...and?

In the uncompressed case, you take some data on disk and copy it to the 
framebuffer. In the compressed case, you take some data on disk, copy it 
to RAM, perform a vast amount of highly compute-intensive work on it, 
and *then* copy it to the framebuffer. Obviously the latter shouldn't 
use less CPU power than the former.

Post a reply to this message