...and nothing else in any of the computers hasn't been dropping in price since the products were first released? $50/£25 in costs isn't going to effect final prices or profit margins significantly IMO.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Adding H.264 Hardware Decoder Chip to Macs?
- Thread starter mrgreen4242
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This might just be me being stupid but $50 (or 50 as it's going to be converted into) is a bit of a price to pay for faster ripping of DVD's... or is there more to this that i'm missing???
HD iChat?? with a new isight??
Didn't Cringely suggest Apple price down the Mac minis to a schweet price point to invade the livingroom. That sorta happened with AppleTV. Think about it. Nearly the same form factor. Low price. Front-Row capable.
H.264 is the cornerstone of Apple's home invasion strategy, so it makes good sense to include a cheap yet powerful dedicated encoder/decoder chip.
Cringely has a whole bunch of wild ideas, but it's the crazy people like him who can see the future clearly.
H.264 is the cornerstone of Apple's home invasion strategy, so it makes good sense to include a cheap yet powerful dedicated encoder/decoder chip.
Cringely has a whole bunch of wild ideas, but it's the crazy people like him who can see the future clearly.
The ATi Mobility Radeon 9600 has MPEG-2 hardware encode acceleration. Even the nVidia FX 5200 has an MPEG2 encode assist engine (scroll further down the same link).
The ATi Radeon 9600 and 9700 were in every single 15" PowerBook G4, and in all but the first revision of the 17" PowerBook G4. The FX 5200 was in every single 12" PowerBook G4 except the first revision.
One the desktop side, the Radeon 9600 shipped in heaps of Power Mac G5s, iMac G5s and even the final version of the eMac. The FX 5200 shipped in heaps of Power Mac G5s, iMac G5s, and the last revision or two of the iMac G4.
Altogether that represents millions of Macs. Apple never enabled hardware-accelerated MPEG-2 encoding on the 9600/9700/5200. Therefore it's neither obvious nor a foregone conclusion that Apple will necessarily avail hardware features in GPUs of the present or future. So far it hasn't happened. It would be nice if that were to change.
So far, Apple has seen fit to leave MPEG-2 decoding and encoding in software and on the CPU(s).
It's not so amazing, because Cringley talks about exactly that in his column, which is conveniently linked in the original post.
Maybe because it's too lazy to write the drivers or that it has seen no need to.
Anyway if you did your homework you'd see that you need the ATi Rage Theatre chip as well. That's the chip that does the mpeg2 encoding.
Personally though i don't want to spend 50 quid for an extra chip in my Mac when i know the graphics card will do it for me. Plus i know apple is all about margins so i don't think they'll put that powerful card to waste.
Nvidia is launching it's mobile 8 series GPUs with Santa Rosa, has anyone thought of the possibility of Apple using them? The new unified shader architecture can be used for way more than simply pushing pixels and would be ideal for grinding those H.264 files and freeing up the CPU.
This move also points to the possibility of DVD ripping in iTunes, like CDs. I don't see why this isn't already a feature with all the emphasis Apple is putting on Movies/TV shows. Especially since if you live outside the US you don't have access to either on the iTunes store (making things like Video iPods and the
TV pretty much useless).
This move also points to the possibility of DVD ripping in iTunes, like CDs. I don't see why this isn't already a feature with all the emphasis Apple is putting on Movies/TV shows. Especially since if you live outside the US you don't have access to either on the iTunes store (making things like Video iPods and the
TV pretty much useless).Sorry if this has been covered already , but this may also have iPhone and iChat potential conferencing implications. I suspect Macs and iPhones will be able to work together seamlessly in this area soon.
What's the betting they don't name this chip 'Alitivec ]['
Supposing that you're right about the encoding happening on some marketing-speak "Rage Theatre" chip (which whatever it is appears to be built into the 9600 based on the Anandtech article), since the ATi 9000 or 9200 there has been hardware accelerated MPEG-2 decoding. Apple's never availed that either.
To the second point, that's been asked and answered with respect to the Mac mini / MacBook lines. Economies of scale take hold at some point and who knows, it could become a relatively minor component cost.
I would love one in mine......as its a media centre (or will be) it will help encode my TV recordings and DVD quicker
To me, this is like Apple adopting the Amiga philosophy a few decades late. Amiga worked around the limits of chips of their day by having several specialized chips. One for graphics, one for sound, General CPU, etc. Apple has mainly used general purpose chips, combined with feature rich operating systems. That's why Macs were "slow" for so many years. Yes they were better and you could get to work sooner and were inclined to work more complex tasks, but the computer itself was always making you wait for something.
Times have changed and even the general purpose chips now rarely make you wait on consumer level tasks. Adding specialized chips for heavy processing tasks is smart, so at least we do not go back in time and become familiar with the NEW watch.
Rocketman
Times have changed and even the general purpose chips now rarely make you wait on consumer level tasks. Adding specialized chips for heavy processing tasks is smart, so at least we do not go back in time and become familiar with the NEW watch.
Rocketman
A dedicated chip can help in two ways:
In mobile devices: cutting down power consumption (1W instead of 35W) and leaving the CPU free
In desktop devices: vastly increasing the performance and leaving the CPU free
i.e., you get a lot more performance per Watt with a dedicated chip than by using the CPU, and you can also get much greater performance.
Personally, however, I think that Apple will be utilising unified shaders in the GPUs in their systems to aid in decoding and encoding. This may mean that AMD/ATI will be supplying graphics chips across the board, possibly even chipsets if Intel's integrated chipsets aren't suitable for this task.
In mobile devices: cutting down power consumption (1W instead of 35W) and leaving the CPU free
In desktop devices: vastly increasing the performance and leaving the CPU free
i.e., you get a lot more performance per Watt with a dedicated chip than by using the CPU, and you can also get much greater performance.
Personally, however, I think that Apple will be utilising unified shaders in the GPUs in their systems to aid in decoding and encoding. This may mean that AMD/ATI will be supplying graphics chips across the board, possibly even chipsets if Intel's integrated chipsets aren't suitable for this task.
This is great news. As Blue Ray and HD-DVD battle it out Apple is going to come in and steal the show. The future of High Def delivery is not going to be disk based, it will be downloads.
The new disk formats will be great for archival but that's all. The next Apple TV will have at least a 100gb HD to allow for more storage of high quality
H.264 content.
The new disk formats will be great for archival but that's all. The next Apple TV will have at least a 100gb HD to allow for more storage of high quality
H.264 content.
To reinforce the specialized chip concept you only have to look back at cards like those from Matrox. In mid 90's I edited a season of TV shows for ESPN on a Quadra 840 with full real time editing, cross fades and many special effects. No rendering and straight to tape for broadcast. All done by a card plugged in the PCI slot. The Quadra alone could barely play a quick time movie! I want a similar card, (built in by Apple not 3rd party, Matrox charged an arm and a leg for the software) that even handles 1080i HD, well i can dream right? Or maybe that's what's coming at NAB
It does look like AVIVO has encoding capabilities too, if you have a look here:
http://ati.amd.com/technology/avivo/technology.html
Apparently, it's pretty quick too:
Though what I'm not too certain about is whether this is the same AVIVO hardware that's included in the X1600 or if the AVIVO converter is actually just a piece of software that's been fudged together with the hardware in the marketing under "AVIVO"
http://ati.amd.com/technology/avivo/technology.html
Apparently, it's pretty quick too:
Though what I'm not too certain about is whether this is the same AVIVO hardware that's included in the X1600 or if the AVIVO converter is actually just a piece of software that's been fudged together with the hardware in the marketing under "AVIVO"
We'll see about that. Not saying it can't happen (It probably will fairly soon) but for now I'm betting that disk formats are here to stay for a while.
People like to have their content mobile. Music worked so well because you have the iPod. People don't really have anyway to move their movies around (say to a friends house) unless it's on a DVD (or some disk format). iPods don't count here, as they arn't DVD quality, nor does a group of people want to hook it up to their TV (if they don't have to). It's way simpler to pop in a DVD instead.
One day though, this'll change. We just gotta have the right device to do it.
Cringley is only half a rung above Dvorak for idiotic trolling. This is just more BS. All Macs currently sold can do 1080p decoding without skipping a beat, so why in blazes would Apple put in a dedicated hardware decoder? They're already offloading it to the video card as much as they can. There's no need for one. Performance baseline my foot. I don't remember Apple ever using a hardware encoder for MPEG-2 (Hardware decoding, yes, but that was before they figured out how to do it in software without a hiccup, and they killed support for them in OS X), so why would they do it now? Hardware H.264 decoding is done in video, and encoding will aided by it very soon. The big boys will still buy hardware encoders for their Mac Pros, but I don't see Apple doing it anytime soon. Cringley is once again smoking crack.
A Reach
I'll list some points then get to my take:
I gotta wonder if Cringely's rumor is a shadow of the real story.
I guess, like a lot of people, I had hoped the PowerPC could keep up simply so Apple hardware would have an edge due to it being built for Apple's needs. I had no idea a little company like Parallels would come along and change the whole game. So, the Intel change has been a good thing for getting people to buy a Mac. Surprisingly, I have watched people migrate in pieces so Parallels is barely running (oh, I should surf the web and get mail on the Mac side since it's safer). It looks like the next generation of Intel hardware will be lower wattage and more cores.
Apple has been using the GPU to do a lot of acceleration (Core Image/Video/Animation). It would seem to cut down on Apple's costs for software development to get the needed programming down to as few chips as possible (Software costs a lot to develop). Also, GPU-type operations can be parallelized. Video encoding is something Apple is very interested in. Particularly if the encoding can be done in realtime at high resolutions. I guess I really wonder if Apple is getting NVIDIA to build it a custom GPU built for Apple's needs (low power, encoding, Core *). Put 1 GPU in the mini and 2 or 4 in the Mac Pro. Use the same GPU across the line and just increase the number for the more expensive systems. Apple is selling a lot more boxes these days and this could be pretty viable for a GPU maker.
I guess this can be chalked up to me dreaming, but it does seem kinda logical.
PS: Anyone think of how the settlement with Apple Corp will change the kind of sound hardware that can be incorporated into the Mac?
I'll list some points then get to my take:
- Apple has been already been working with NVIDIA on iPod chips
- AMD bought ATI
- AMD is listed as a takeover target
- Apple seems pretty set with Intel
- Apple has been pushing a lot of processing into the GPU. To the point that Lightroom might outperform Aperture on systems with more Intel cores.
- Cringely has this rumor of encode hardware for H.264
- a cut version of OS X is rumored to be migrating to iPod (already iPhone)
- Cringely listed the added cost as $50 per unit
I gotta wonder if Cringely's rumor is a shadow of the real story.
I guess, like a lot of people, I had hoped the PowerPC could keep up simply so Apple hardware would have an edge due to it being built for Apple's needs. I had no idea a little company like Parallels would come along and change the whole game. So, the Intel change has been a good thing for getting people to buy a Mac. Surprisingly, I have watched people migrate in pieces so Parallels is barely running (oh, I should surf the web and get mail on the Mac side since it's safer). It looks like the next generation of Intel hardware will be lower wattage and more cores.
Apple has been using the GPU to do a lot of acceleration (Core Image/Video/Animation). It would seem to cut down on Apple's costs for software development to get the needed programming down to as few chips as possible (Software costs a lot to develop). Also, GPU-type operations can be parallelized. Video encoding is something Apple is very interested in. Particularly if the encoding can be done in realtime at high resolutions. I guess I really wonder if Apple is getting NVIDIA to build it a custom GPU built for Apple's needs (low power, encoding, Core *). Put 1 GPU in the mini and 2 or 4 in the Mac Pro. Use the same GPU across the line and just increase the number for the more expensive systems. Apple is selling a lot more boxes these days and this could be pretty viable for a GPU maker.
I guess this can be chalked up to me dreaming, but it does seem kinda logical.
PS: Anyone think of how the settlement with Apple Corp will change the kind of sound hardware that can be incorporated into the Mac?
its obvious that apple is going to use this so you can convert your movies into iTunes format and upload them to iTunes as part of a new service that lets you download user made movies (of course, protected stuff won't be allowed, and copyright stuff won't either how they ar eoging to do that I dont know)
I don't know If I agree with the "1080p without skipping a beat". My mini certainly can't decode AVC at 1080p without a few stutters here and there. Cringley explained exactly why Apple would do such a thing. It creates a baseline of performance for AVC encoding and decoding in EVERY Mac. Sure you could add a more expensive GPU but show me a GPU that consumes a single watt of power that can encode 720p/24 AVC video like the 3Dlabs DMS-02 can. Frankly I'd rather there be a dedicated chip for the encoding/decoding task so that my GPU can be fed with the task of User Interface rendering.
I really haven't heard many plausbile reasons why Apple couldn't or shouldn't do this that don't involve slandering Cringley. I'd rather read Cringley's "pie in the sky" stuff rather than a bunch of posts from people that can't think outside the box.
Agreed. Cringely may not always be right (by any means), but he's always intriguing, and far better informed on the baseline technical issues than 90% of his compatriots in tech journalism. It's becoming a rare treat to read a column from somebody who is actually thinking instead of simply regurgitating press releases.
I don't see the value?
If they add a hardware chip then isn't this the same thing as a pci encoder card for real-time encoding?
What I mean is that almost every hardware encorder is for real-time broadcasting (3mbs).
For really great quality then a software encoder does a much better job. With software you can have 2-pass encoding with rate correction. This is something I have never seen with hardware encoding.
This chip would add benefit for decoding and watching streamed video, but I am interested in speeding up Handbrake and such.
Just my $0.02
If they add a hardware chip then isn't this the same thing as a pci encoder card for real-time encoding?
What I mean is that almost every hardware encorder is for real-time broadcasting (3mbs).
For really great quality then a software encoder does a much better job. With software you can have 2-pass encoding with rate correction. This is something I have never seen with hardware encoding.
This chip would add benefit for decoding and watching streamed video, but I am interested in speeding up Handbrake and such.
Just my $0.02
Leopard is going to "significantly" improve h.264 encoding and now Quicktime will support Transparent Alpha Channels. The issue though is that even in the consumer space we're moving to HD and Apple's Champion is h.264/AVC which on avg is 8x more difficult to encode as compared to MPEG2. I guess it's a matter of choosing to utilize the GPU more or look at a dedicated media processor. The Apple TV only supports MPEG4 video..a severe limitation but if Apple can improve transcode speed then near realtime transcoding and delivery can make most QT supported codecs playable on the ATV.