H.265 - Are all existing IGPs and GPUs about to be rendered obsolete?

[VirtualLarry]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...5_video_standard_to_cut_bandwidth_use_in_half

H.265 is coming.

 

[moonbogg]

What impact would that have on playing a game?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I think high bandwidth connections are in more danger from this than GPU's....

 

[taltamir]

What impact would that have on playing a game?

None whatsover. And a PC would be able to decode it in software

 

[Spades45]

the answer to the question in your title is, and always will be, yes.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

the answer to the question in your title is, and always will be, yes.

A winner is you

 

[Tsavo]

the answer to the question in your title is, and always will be, yes.

Nothing is ever really obsolete; it's just that people are getting pickier and pickier about things.

 

[tweakboy]

No No No!!!

 

[VirtualLarry]

What impact would that have on playing a game?

I was actually thinking of the HTPC crowd, who depends on HW accelerated playback to keep everything smooth. Adoption of a new codec, means that existing IGPs and GPUs with hardware codec support are immediately rendered obsolete, requiring users to buy a new GPU with support for H.265.

 

[ShintaiDK]

CPUs can handle it. I use an i5 661 as HTPC CPU the last few years. So even in the case of lacking GPU decode ability I dont see the issue.

But with that said, GPUs should be able to handle most if not all with updated libraries.

 

[Tushaar]

I'm not familiar with H.265, but it being a more efficient standard, won't it make older GPUs and iGPUs more relevant? My ignorance apart, I can only see a positive here.

 

[Dstoop]

Approval of a new standard is great, but what matters is adoption of that standard. It's the same tired old "out with the old, in with the new" doom and gloom, unless everyone spends the money to implement the technology it doesn't do any good. In the interest of consumer protection and backwards compatibility, all these devices are still going to support other formats and companies are going to continue to broadcast in those other formats for a long time coming because people as a whole don't constantly stick with the latest and greatest thing. Companies will also need to support the new format, and why bother until it's more widely supported by devices owned by their customers.

Hell, they still sell brand new movies on DVD and they still make 720p TVs, and minimum system requirements still list P4s and Radeon X1900s. H.265 will be awesome for people whos systems and content delivery companies support it, faster streaming with less buffering and less impact on bandwidth caps, but it's certainly not going to put anything and everything else to the curb the day it goes live.

 

[Tweak155]

Approval of a new standard is great, but what matters is adoption of that standard. It's the same tired old "out with the old, in with the new" doom and gloom, unless everyone spends the money to implement the technology it doesn't do any good. In the interest of consumer protection and backwards compatibility, all these devices are still going to support other formats and companies are going to continue to broadcast in those other formats for a long time coming because people as a whole don't constantly stick with the latest and greatest thing. Companies will also need to support the new format, and why bother until it's more widely supported by devices owned by their customers.

Hell, they still sell brand new movies on DVD and they still make 720p TVs, and minimum system requirements still list P4s and Radeon X1900s. H.265 will be awesome for people whos systems and content delivery companies support it, faster streaming with less buffering and less impact on bandwidth caps, but it's certainly not going to put anything and everything else to the curb the day it goes live.

If you try and use common sense one more time, I swear to god...

 

[blackened23]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...5_video_standard_to_cut_bandwidth_use_in_half

H.265 is coming.

Not sure about the context of gaming, but for hdtv/blurays: the immediate thought in my head is - perhaps this will speed the adoption of 4k content.

 

[BrightCandle]

I strongly suspect you can decode H265 with software so it shouldn't be a problem. Its tablets, phones and atom based HTPCs etc they wont have the performance to decode it. So they will be replaced but I would doubt any real graphics cards sales will be created from the move to a more efficient and heavier encoding/decoding video format.

We actually haven't had h264 for that long, considering how long the original mpg2 was around I am surprised we got this update so fast considering in that period CPU performance hasn't moved much at all.

 

[moonbogg]

Not sure about the context of gaming, but for hdtv/blurays: the immediate thought in my head is - perhaps this will speed the adoption of 4k content.

I do believe you mentioned 4k content. This thread just went from 1 to 5 stars.

 

[blackened23]

I do believe you mentioned 4k content. This thread just went from 1 to 5 stars.

I want a 4k monstrosity uHDTV *and* 4k desktop monitor with 120hz. Gimme.

Also, i'm *really* confused about how the announcement of h.265 correlates to the irrelevance of GPUs? That isn't remotely close to happening in the next 5 years.

 

[KingFatty]

Maybe h.265 will have a higher license fee, and will force down the price of the license fee for h.264. So maybe everyone will keep using h.264, and h.265 will fall by the wayside and be a niche codec for 4K stuff only? So we enjoy lower prices on existing things, but will pay when we adopt 4K.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...5_video_standard_to_cut_bandwidth_use_in_half

H.265 is coming.

It depends on what the compression is at the cost of, if they're sacrificing quality to gain better compression then not much will change, but if the standard is for a compression type that uses significantly more CPU/GPU time to encode/decode then older hardware may struggle.

It's seems unlikely, even bad hardware by todays standards can handle full 1080p decoding in real time, modern hardware is peeling away in terms performance, not many real time apps will stress modern hardware these days.

In terms of games/graphics, nothing will change, standards take time to cycle in, by then everything will have adapted, most devices today are more general purpose devices anyway, especially mobile devices, new standards are usually nothing more than a software update away.

 

[Despoiler]

I want a 4k monstrosity uHDTV *and* 4k desktop monitor with 120hz. Gimme.

Also, i'm *really* confused about how the announcement of h.265 correlates to the irrelevance of GPUs? That isn't remotely close to happening in the next 5 years.

4k computer monitors will be great. TVs, not so much. Unless you sit 5ft or less away or have something like a 70" or bigger TV it won't look any better than 1080p.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

 

[Dstoop]

If you try and use common sense one more time, I swear to god...

I'm still holding my breath for over half of the mainstream cable channels to actually broadcast in something above 480i How many years has it been since they stopped making consumer SDTVs?

Up-scaling SD =/= HD

 

[imaheadcase]

I was actually thinking of the HTPC crowd, who depends on HW accelerated playback to keep everything smooth. Adoption of a new codec, means that existing IGPs and GPUs with hardware codec support are immediately rendered obsolete, requiring users to buy a new GPU with support for H.265.

Why if what they got now handles it fine? My brothers setup is 3 years old and never has had a problem.

The whole "new" thing is meant for mobile devices because bandwidth is hard to come by.

 

[blackened23]

4k computer monitors will be great. TVs, not so much. Unless you sit 5ft or less away or have something like a 70" or bigger TV it won't look any better than 1080p.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

Yeah, okay, if you say so. People said the same about 720p and 1080p. "We'll never need 1080p." - 2007.

The difference is pretty apparent if you actually view a 4k screen with 4k content.

 

[Lonyo]

I was actually thinking of the HTPC crowd, who depends on HW accelerated playback to keep everything smooth. Adoption of a new codec, means that existing IGPs and GPUs with hardware codec support are immediately rendered obsolete, requiring users to buy a new GPU with support for H.265.

Um... no, they are not rendered obsolete.
Something doesn't become obsolete just because a new version is released.

Consider (for a certain form of content) how long it took for DivX/XviD to disappear, and for SD videos to be h264. Even now it's not fully happened.
HD videos will be h264 for a long time, because it is mature and well supported, including on more devices than just PCs.

Also, h265 isn't really here yet, and the content isn't available anyway.
For most people, it has no bearing at all. 99% of things will stay as h264 for many years to come.

New technology like this does not make old technology obsolete. Was your HTML4 browser obsolete with HTML5 was released? No.
Was your SATA1 mobo obsolete when SATA2 was released? No.
Even PATA was not obsolete when SATA came out. It took many years as it was slowly phased out.

You included the key word in your own statement, then proceeded to completely ignore it... "ADOPTION of a new codec".
h265 has not been adopted, it's been specified. Until it gets properly adopted and widespread, which is years away, nothing is obsolete.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

4k computer monitors will be great. TVs, not so much. Unless you sit 5ft or less away or have something like a 70" or bigger TV it won't look any better than 1080p.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

The other factor that has not been considered is that 4K requires more bandwidth. More bandwidth means a better picture quality.

Even at 10 feet away from a 50" television, I can tell apart good high-birate 1080p and poor low-bitrate 1080p. The problem is compression artifacts. Macroblocks are bigger than pixels.

The plain fact is that a lot streaming providers will more likely give you higher bitrate for 4K material than for 1080p material. This will usually (albiet not always) give you a better picture quality, independent of angular vision ability -- the macroblock artifacts are MUCH bigger than pixels. Some streaming providers won't give you high bitrates without also giving you 4K. YouTube quality at 4K will be better looking than YouTube quality at 1080p, because those macroblock artifacts will be even smaller sized.

So, bring on 4K, even on a 50" TV 10 feet away, if it costs only $50 more!

Sometimes we'll hook our 4K-capable Xbox1080 with the Kinect3(R) camera, and we'll be standing in front of the sofa instead -- and makes us only 5 feet away. And we'llsee 4K.

So, bring on 4K, even on a 50" TV 10 feet away, if it costs only $50 more!

Sometimes we'll have kids sitting in front of the TV, on the shag carpet between the sofa and the TV. We'll play our vacation photos, and our kids will sometimes run up to the screen playing "Where's Waldo" -- and benefits of 4K will really show.

So, bring on 4K, even on a 50" TV 10 feet away, if it costs only $50 more!

Even at this viewing distance, Netflix 4K streaming at 20 Mbps will be less visible than the compression artifacts for Netflix 1080p streaming at 5 Mbps. Look at how cheap HDTV's have become, in some cases cheaper than what a 27" tube TV used to cost. 4K is not going to stay expensive for decades.
Remember: Macroblock artifacts are bigger than pixels

So, bring on 4K, even on a 50" TV 10 feet away, if it costs only $50 more!

And there will be home theater videophile 4K streaming formats, especially in tomorrow's gigabit Internet connections. The more 4K TV's out there, the more demand there is for videophile streaming, and vice-versa. And of course, maybe we'll still also get to keep a physical media format, for die-hards that want to stick to a disc format.

So, bring on 4K, even on a 50" TV 10 feet away, if it costs only $50 more!

The image quality at low/starved bitrates of only 1 to 2 bits per second per pixel (e.g. YouTube overcompression, non-"SuperHD" Netflix) is still noticeable on a 50" TV 10 feet away. 4K at the same bitrate ratio (quadruple bitrate) will look noticeably better on at 4K on a 50" TV 10 feet away. Ideally, they should instead give you quadruple bitrate while staying at 1080p to go fully BluRay quality, but they'll prefer to give you 4K instead in order to also boast about the resolution improvement (and you'll still benefit from the higher bitrate and less visible macroblocks even on 50" TV 10 feet away)

So, bring on 4K, even on a 50" TV 10 feet away, if it costs only $50 more!

HDTV became popular less than a decade ago.
Today's 40" 1080p HDTV's are cheaper than 32" CRT TV's 20 years ago.
4K isn't going to stay expensive after a few years...