Radeon HD 2900 XT lacks UVD video acceleration

I’ve just learned something that compels me to publish a major correction to our review of the Radeon HD 2900 XT GPU. I got the clear, distinct impression from AMD’s presentations, statements, and conversations with me at its Radeon HD press event that its new UVD video decode acceleration logic was present in its entire lineup of Radeon HD graphics chips, and I relayed that information to you in our review of the product, promising to follow up with tests of this feature at a later date.

True to my word, I set out yesterday to test HD video decode acceleration on a Radeon HD 2900 XT using an HD DVD drive and a version of PowerDVD supplied by AMD for such purposes. To my surprise, CPU utilization during playback on our Core 2 Extreme X6800 test system ran between 40 and 50%, well above what one would expect from a solution with full HD video decode acceleration.

Naturally, I contacted AMD to inquire about the problem. I received a reply from AMD’s David Baumann discussing the issue that ended with this revelation:

Be aware, though, that HD 2900 XT itself does not feature UVD, this is specific to 2600 and 2400, so the levels of CPU utilization you see should be somewhat similar to the previous generation.

The UVD logic handles the CPU-intensive bitstream processing and entropy decode acceleration portions of the HD video playback pipeline. These are the most notable video decode acceleration capabilities that would separate the Radeon HD 2900 series from its direct competition, the GeForce 8800 series, if the HD 2900 XT actually had them. Turns out it does not. As the email states, the video playback capabilities of the Radeon HD 2900 XT are essentially similar to those of the previous-gen Radeon X1950.

So the essence of our correction is that the Radeon HD 2900 XT doesn’t offer robust acceleration of HD video playback and will not likely reduce CPU utilization or power consumption substantially during high-definition video playback versus a GeForce 8800. We still intend to follow up with testing, but the lack of UVD logic on the GPU resets our expectations dramatically.

With that out of the way, I believe I ought to take a moment to explain how we came to believe the Radeon HD 2900 XT had full HD video playback acceleration, an impression formed by many layers of talk from AMD, starting with the Radeon HD name. Let me share a slide with you from a presentation titled “ATI Radeon HD 2000 Series and the Ultimate HD Experience,” given by AMD’s David Cummings, Director of Mobile GPU Marketing. The slide looks like so:

You can, of course, read for yourself that it says “Avivo HD technology makes full spec HD DVD / Blu-Ray (HD Disc) playback accessible at all price points,” but I just like repeating it. That gives one a certain idea, does it not? Now, let’s have a look at another slide showing what Avivo HD brings to video decode acceleration:

The bit labeled “Avivo HD” shows GPU acceleration of bitstream processing and entropy decode, and makes clear it’s distinct from the Radeon X1000’s Avivo video processing, which lacks acceleration of those stages.

Now, look at any specs list for the Radeon HD 2900 XT—say, this one from AMD’s website, and you will find listed among its specs “ATI Avivoโ„ข HD Video and Display Platform” and a bullet point under that saying “HD decode acceleration for H.264/AVC, VC-1, DivX and MPEG-2 video formats.” At the end of the day, one gets the impression that this GPU has Avivo HD, with all that entails.

Of course, AMD has left itself some wiggle room in its technical statements. The specs list above isn’t technically untrue—just imprecise. The dodge built into the Cummings presentation, with its talk of making HD video playback “accessible at all price points” seems to be that high-end CPUs can handle HD video playback without as much assistance from the GPU. But that’s a paper thin excuse, in my view.

To make sure this wasn’t simply a matter of me missing the boat—it has been known to happen, and I’ve got a few gray hairs promising more of the same in the future—I checked with a couple of other journalists who attended a separate Radeon HD press event the week after the one I attended. Both Marco Chiappetta from HotHardware and Ryan Shrout of PC Perspective came away from their meetings with AMD convinced the Radeon HD 2900 XT had full HD playback acceleration via UVD logic, as well. I was not alone in gathering this impression from AMD. To their credit, some reviewers did sort through the fog and identify the Radeon HD 2900 XT’s lack of UVD, but they were swimming against the tide of statements from AMD itself.

Nor could any of us have uncovered this fact prior to the publication of our reviews via testing, because AMD hasn’t yet delivered a driver that includes the support for the Radeon HD’s “full” multimedia capabilities. They initially targeted May 9 for that driver’s release. AMD now says the driver is due next week.

Comments closed
    • wierdo
    • 12 years ago

    Fortunately I’m still a DVD user so this is a non-issue for me, but kudos for pointing this out, this whole thing smelled fishy, and strikes me as deceptive marketing… I don’t understand why they’d do this though, I mean if their lower-end products can handle this then this is just stupid imho.

    • Stefan
    • 12 years ago

    Actually, this is great news for consumers, because the fallout of this PR disaster will force AMD to lower prices for the 2900 – thus forcing Nvidia to do the same. Truth to be told, this was simply a clever move on AMDs part to enter the price war on another front without unnecessarily alienating share holders.

    </cynism>

    • lethal
    • 12 years ago

    looks like this mess spilled all over to retail units too.

    ยง[<http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39884<]ยง

    • Wintermane
    • 12 years ago

    You still dont get it;/

    Everywhere gov minions and hords of lawyers are twitching to life and thier eye is centered on amd and the card makers who had the wrong info on the box.

    They all smell MONEY.

    It may seem like a minor thing but its the sort of yjing yjat reults in you comming ro work on monday to find security guards firmly escorting you around.. and out.

    • kc77
    • 12 years ago

    This is absolutely insane. While I do completely agree that AMD screwed up I firmly believe that most online tech magazines are taking this a little bit too far.

    To some degree they are being a little bit biased. While you could say I am a AMD fan I am able to step back and take a objective view on this. Did AMD’s slides and even some of their marketing lead people to believe that the 2900 should be capable of decoding H.264 …yes. Is it a little bit disingenuous to say that the card can decode H.264 yes, Have things like this happened before……. YES!!

    For some reason people have a really short memory. Because I could swear that the 6800 Geforce card went through this same thing. However, the difference is that everyone is treating this like AMD should be carried out back and shot.

    The fact that the inability to decode H.264 has warranted it’s own article on every site I can think of is bordering on being biased because when the 6800 couldn’t decode MPEG 2/4 it got maybe a paragraph or two in the conclusion section of articles and at best it’s own article on the Inquirer.

    Everyone just sat back and said I’ll get the refresh in order to pick up that capability. Instead everyone is acting like the sky is falling in regards to this. Why?

    For me I like AMD’s CPUs and have never really been a fan of ATI video cards and I have always bought Nvidia video cards and when I found out that the 6800 purevideo functionality was missing, while I was mad, was it a deal breaker ???…. no. Why is that?? Well because my CPU was more than capable of handling the stress of decoding Mpeg2/4.

    In regards to H.264 the same is true here.

    • KillerSneak
    • 12 years ago

    [DNA-ATi_HD_Video_Tweak]
    HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080MPEG2, %REG_SZ%, “1”
    HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080H264, %REG_SZ%, “1”
    HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080VC1, %REG_SZ%, “1”
    HKR,, HWUVD_DisableH264, %REG_SZ%, “0”
    HKR,, HWUVD_DisableVC1, %REG_SZ%, “0”
    HKR,, DXVA_NOHDDECODE, %REG_SZ%, “0”
    HKR,, SORTOverrideFPSCaps, %REG_SZ%, “30”
    HKR,, SORTOverrideVidSizeCaps, %REG_SZ%, “512000”

    Anybody tried these tweaks ?

    PS: sorry for double post, didn’t know the post was at the top. BTW Hi all

      • ECH
      • 12 years ago

      [DNA-ATi_HD_Video_Tweak]
      HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080MPEG2, %REG_SZ%, “1”
      HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080H264, %REG_SZ%, “1”
      HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080VC1, %REG_SZ%, “1”
      HKR,, HWUVD_DisableH264, %REG_SZ%, “0”
      HKR,, HWUVD_DisableVC1, %REG_SZ%, “0”
      HKR,, DXVA_NOHDDECODE, %REG_SZ%, “0”
      HKR,, SORTOverrideFPSCaps, %REG_SZ%, “30”
      HKR,, SORTOverrideVidSizeCaps, %REG_SZ%, “512000”
      What is this? What do you do with this information? Do you need to save it as some sort of file or what?

      I do believe the acutally file maybe (A BIG MAYBE)
      X:\ATI\Cat info here\Driver\XP_INF (it will be a *.inf file) or something similar
      which is the Cat installation sub directory. AKA the directory used to install your cat. But that would mean you would have to uninstall then reinstall using the information posted above. I honestly believe that another tweak maybe needed in order to get the install program to recognize and implement this.
      Please note I am taking a big guess here.

    • KillerSneak
    • 12 years ago

    [DNA-ATi_HD_Video_Tweak]
    HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080MPEG2, %REG_SZ%, “1”
    HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080H264, %REG_SZ%, “1”
    HKR,, DXVA_Only24FPS1080VC1, %REG_SZ%, “1”
    HKR,, HWUVD_DisableH264, %REG_SZ%, “0”
    HKR,, HWUVD_DisableVC1, %REG_SZ%, “0”
    HKR,, DXVA_NOHDDECODE, %REG_SZ%, “0”
    HKR,, SORTOverrideFPSCaps, %REG_SZ%, “30”
    HKR,, SORTOverrideVidSizeCaps, %REG_SZ%, “512000”

    Anybody tried playing with these tweaks ?

    • pedro
    • 12 years ago

    I’m going to be waiting a good long time before buying any new AMD CPUs that are offered up.

    • moose17145
    • 12 years ago

    You know lots of this kinda reminds me back when NVidia made driver optimizations for 3D mark so they would get a better score, even though their cards were sucking it up in games at the time. Guess idk if anyone else remembers that whole debockel, but i know lots of people were pretty pissed at NVidia about it all the same.

    • grenadier
    • 12 years ago

    Let me just say that I think it’s funny that everyone mocked the 8600GTS when it came out even though it’s the best card on the market for HD playback – not to mention that there are several different passively cooled versions floating around…

    People should have really given that card more credit.

    • albundy
    • 12 years ago

    well, first of all, your hardware is old and dated. You need at least a dual quad core cpu setup, at least 8 gigs of ddr-3 ram, at least 4 SLI GF 8800 ultras, and a couple of kilowatt psu’s to playback your movie. I hope I’m not being too unreasonable.

    • Wintermane
    • 12 years ago

    In general I try to stay away fromthe first gen cards of any dx version because.. well life happens…

    I also view any card based on a console gpu design.. even modded.. about as nicely as I view getting my testicles trampled by rampaging hippos.

    That amd managed to fall below even that expectation from me is.. freaky.

    • danazar
    • 12 years ago

    As a long-time ATI fanboy, I find this to be nearly unforgivable. I’ve long said that what gives ATI the upper hand is video quality and multimedia capability, and now we’re being told that on the high end, there’s nothing to differentiate the 2900 XT from the 8800 GTS it’s pitted against. Not only that, but having been keeping up with the rumors and leaks for the 2000-series for a long time as well as the launch, and I was sure that the 2900 XT would have the UVD features described. Truly it disappoints me to learn now, AFTER this card has been benched and reviewed and the first wave of initial press has been offered, that it definitively does not.

    I was likely going to invest in a 2600-series card anyway, and probably still will if it benches decently against the Nvidia equivalent… but I’m going to be a lot more likely to give Nvidia a chance at my money now and in the future, if this is the direction ATI is going.

    • flip-mode
    • 12 years ago

    The product marketing is certainly misleading. There’s really no excuse for that. What was previously a so-so product with only one redeeming quality is now simply not worth considering for any reason what so ever. Pretty sad.

    If anyone knows any big-wigs at DAAMIT please send them a link to this comment section and tell them to read it and tell them that confidence in the company is a an absolute all-time low. The company just can’t be trusted.

    Buyer beware, and early adopter beware, more so than ever. I still hope Phenom crushes and if it does I’ll buy one, but damn I hope this company takes a good hard look in the mirror and does something about its image.

      • stix
      • 12 years ago

      Just as easy to read the box and see for yourself. Plain as day. Not there fault is was misinterpreted. Says right on the spec sheet it does not.

      So non readers beware. You pay for your lack of attention.

        • flip-mode
        • 12 years ago

        Being an online buyer, I never see the box till I’ve paid. Seeing as HDV decode received major pimpage my ATI at the x2900 release event, and then it’s actually lacking on the first product of the series and you only know that by reading the small print, it is at best lame and at worst deceptive. In reality it’s a bit of both.

        The bottom line is about trust. It doesn’t matter that this already lame card is just a little bit lamer. It’s about the fact that people feel mislead. Whether or not that was the intent doesn’t matter does it? AMD needs to do better.

        • imtheunknown176
        • 12 years ago

        I buy online too and if you go to a site like newegg and read, most of the product pages for the -[

          • stix
          • 12 years ago

          Well thats the problem I do see your points don’t get me wrong… But half the time the sites that sell them have wrong info anyway…. And I am sure you can agree.

          It does pay to do a bit of research. As we know companies can be vague.

            • data8504
            • 12 years ago

            fanboy….

            • Semper1775
            • 12 years ago

            What was your first clue? haha…

            • stix
            • 12 years ago

            Fact getter more like it. When in doubt and have no arguement call them a fanboy even tho they own no AMD parts.

            Smart thinking. Now anything of importance ya can add or just flames that hold no fire?

    • snowdog
    • 12 years ago

    Interesting. The same pattern as Nvidia. Does it also fail to deliver dual channel HDCP like the the 8800, that is a more important deficiency if you want to watch blu ray on your 30″ super monitor.

    AFAIK only the 8600 (maybe 8500) actually deliver dual channel HDCP.

    • PerfectCr
    • 12 years ago

    ATI Rader[

    • mackintire
    • 12 years ago

    Just my two cents, but….

    I believe that the X2900 does support Avivo HD.
    correct me if I am wrong but, UVD is not always a requirement for Avivo HD.
    Once the drivers are optimised, I think that the GPU offloading will be near 1.5 times the performance of the Radeon X1950.
    So yes, H.264 at 1080P should be possible without extreme cpu usage once the drivers are finished.
    I am guesssing that without UVD the power usage WILL be higher, but the GPU should be able to do the job. TR might be getting all hot and bothered for nothing. I guess we will have to wait and see.

      • swaaye
      • 12 years ago

      I still want to know how the drivers can possibly be as awful as they are. What have they been doing? There has been bugged silicon out for months. Even partially working hardware should’ve gotten them further than they are right now. Unless there is actually something fundamentally wrong with the GPU, or some serious bugs still in it. It is just so unpredictable in its performance….

      As for the video functionality, well, I don’t really care at this point. I won’t watch movies on my monitors cuz even 24″ is still tiny. And there isn’t enough HD material out there for me to care anyway.The next line of cards will come when HD content matters more than it does now, and it will undoubtedly be even better than what’s on the 8600/2600 cards. So whatever.

      You know, isn’t it pretty ridiculous to use a video card as massive and as power inefficient as this to watch movies? It’s a 3D processing juggernaut with a teensy little video processor in the corner of the die……

      I also find it rather predictable and disappointing to see people always jump down another’s throat when they perceive something has been taken from them. Even if they don’t understand what it means. It’s like a riot or something. Heh.

        • Sargent Duck
        • 12 years ago

        Well, I can see the whole jumping down the throat bit. Imagine you buy a Lexus and it has no cup-holders, when the lowly Corolla has 4! Wouldn’t you be slightly miffed? Sure, in the grand scheme of things cup-holders aren’t important, but when you fork over $80, 000 +, you expect there to be cup holders. Could you imagine how much crap Lexus/Toyota would get from reviewers and consumers?

        RIOTS are always fun to watch.

    • DASQ
    • 12 years ago

    Does anyone really care? Who watches video that would make good use of UVD and game on the same machine at once?

    Anyone?

    Yeah, you, just you. The lowly 0.01% of the population.

      • hubick
      • 12 years ago

      Me.

      I have a Linux workstation I use for email, surfing, programming, etc – which is built using hand-me-down hardware from my Windows gaming rig, which has a nice 30″ 3007wfp Dell high res LCD and is hooked up to my home theater and besides being for gaming, serves as my primary television/dvd player (I live in very small apt).

      I have been waiting for this card, as my 7800gtx has trouble keeping up with modern games at 2560×1600. All my video watching is currently restricted to standard def DVD’s and TV, so I would like to get Vista with a hd-dvd/blue-ray combo drive for some sweet HD action. The 8800’s won’t do HDCP over the dual-link DVI though – making hd-dvd/blue-ray impossible – so this card is the first possibility to enable that stuff for me – making this article quite relevant to me!

        • DASQ
        • 12 years ago

        You watch HD video and play games at the same time?

          • tu2thepoo
          • 12 years ago

          The point is that if they do enable HD acceleration through the drivers it’s going to be through the shader hardware instead of a dedicated/power-miserly chip.

          If you relish the thought of the card revving up to near-full speed (with the requisite power draw and fan speed) just to play some h.264 trailers, more power to you.

      • A_Pickle
      • 12 years ago

      So, pay more, get less? Wow… AMD… I’m surprised…

        • sigher
        • 12 years ago

        Wasn’t it 720 million transistors on the r600? That’s a lot though, and heating up nicely, adding a UVD block might not have been a good idea, depending on how many space/transistor it actually needs, does anybody has a ballpark figure of that?

      • wierdo
      • 12 years ago

      Well you’re right, for most people this may be a silly feature since adoption of the new formats is slow and, imho, not that that attractive unless you have a sixty inch HDTV and you absolutely must see non-blurry zits.

      This is a bit overblown to an extent, but still, AMD’s marketing seemed to have gotten out of their way to hide this little detail, and that’s just stupid in my book.

    • PetMiceRnice
    • 12 years ago

    Personally, none of this really bothers me at all (possibly due to my total lack of knowledge on the topic), but I am sorry to see the additional damage that something like this has done to AMD/ATI. At a time when competition in the marketplace is very important for all of us, I hate to see it when one competitor or another comes out with a product that underwhelms the overall PC community. Although I still think the FX5800 was a worse fiasco.

      • WaltC
      • 12 years ago

      I don’t think this will matter one hoot in the scheme of things…;) TR’s just doing a bit of TR damage control because of having assumed UVD in the TR review. Of course, the problem was that there was a hurry to get out “a review” and so the “testing” had to wait, apparently. The info from ATi didn’t change from what I could see during that time, and when asked ATi explained that Avivo and UVD weren’t one in the same, which is sort of obvious I would have thought.

      Anyway, the primary difference observed by TR is that in the case of the 2900 HD, CPU utilization hovers in the “red zone” (slight snicker) of “40-50%” when doing UVD operations, which for some reasons alarms TR because it means that in the areas of “power consumption and cpu utilization” the HD 2900 is on a par with the GF8800s when doing UVD.

      Personally, I fail to see an issue with this level of cpu utilization and power consumption while doing UVD when we consider the simple fact that when playing 3d games the power consumed and the cpu portion utilized goes way way up from there for both the 2900 and the 8800…;) After all, the HD 2900’s primary purpose is 3d acceleration and the product should therefore not be confused with a stand-alone HD player.

    • Wintermane
    • 12 years ago

    Look people the BIG STORY is that it looks like many in amd didnt know it didnt have it. Qw have to wonder how many high up were told it did have it oked the presentation.. and woke up to this…

    Heads will roll most likely.

    • green
    • 12 years ago

    my main complaint here is that ati/amd have had time to:
    – hear people complain about 8800 video playback
    – hear how the 8800 drivers for vista were awful
    – find out what ‘more’ people wanted out of ‘next-gen’ tech
    – get it working with ‘released’ vista
    – fix up their design to beat the 8800

    so what did they do with the time?
    with their competitor having a product out for around 6 months ahead of them they decide to offer an ‘equivalent’ product

    future driver releases better unleash a hell of a lot of potential from this card

      • shalmon
      • 12 years ago

      couldn’t have said it better myself…

      they must’ve been sitting on bar stools pounding back shots and drowning their sorrys after reading the 8800 reviews or something

    • Prospero424
    • 12 years ago

    Why on EARTH would you release a new line of video cards with the subtitle “HD” and include HD playback acceleration with everything BUT your flagship product?

    In what world does that make sense?

    Oh, and to you people who say it’s no big deal and that you don’t need h.264 acceleration: have you ever tried to play back a 1920x1080x60fps full-hd h/x264 movie? Why don’t you go try that out with a few of the samples that are available and let us know how that works out for you. Enjoy the unbearable stutter.

    Most people can’t even decode a movie at that resolution at only 24-30 fps in software alone.

    Also, some of us use multiple displays, with a movie playing back on one display while we perform other tasks on the other display, some of which require processor time. It’s revolutionary, I know.

    The bottom line is that the decision to cripple the 2900 in this way was odd at best, and idiotic at worst. To add insult to injury by being intentionally deceptive in some lame effort to ward off the inevitable by just hoping the first (and most important) round of reviews would just miss this inconvenient little fact makes it even worse.

    This isn’t how you win friends in the media, AMD. Whoever made that marketing decision should be *[

    • rythex
    • 12 years ago

    I’m sorry but what is the big flipping deal? If I’m watching videos I’m most likely not doing anything so CPU intensive that I think to myself “wow I wish this video wasn’t taking 40% of my CPU cycles”

      • My Johnson
      • 12 years ago

      The deal is that the cpu wastes more energy than a dedicated processing engine and makes it more difficult to design systems as dense as possible. It also effects the user experience if an OS can’t handle the cpu being occupied so much.

      • barich
      • 12 years ago

      Do you have a Core 2 Extreme? That’s a quad core processor. If decoding HD on a quad-core Core 2 (die, Intel marketing department!) is that CPU intensive, it’s easy to see how it might drop frames on a slower CPU (such as one that the average person might actually own).

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 12 years ago

    Remember the purevideo on Geforce 6800s, this is nothing compared to that. Yet, it seems like it’s getting an equal amount of outrage.

    • Vaughn
    • 12 years ago

    #49 While I agree with what you say, its still very damn misleading.
    and I also disagree with sahrin. Damage and some of the other reviewers were all told the same thing and given the same information.

    If anyone is at fault here its AMD.

      • cobalt
      • 12 years ago

      Oh, I’m not trying to excuse it, just explain it.

    • Vaughn
    • 12 years ago

    As much as i like AMD, they just got caught with their pants down. It ain’t looking pretty either!

      • FubbHead
      • 12 years ago

      Caught with their pants down in below zero celcius. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • indeego
    • 12 years ago

    Guess we can see the beginning fruits of AMD’s purchase of ATI. GG guysg{<.<}g

    • Kopi
    • 12 years ago

    What evil came upon ATI? I am very disappointed! HD2900 is begining to go down in history as the most overhyped piece of crap. I was looking forward to replacing my 1900XT with R600 but guess what? ATI messed it up. I do not rejoice at ATI’s woes, in fact i pray that their R650 stomp whatever Nvidia has to offer, this way competition will have a chance. If Nvidia becomes a monopoly in video card industry, then we are all screwed. I know intel is planning on jumping into the picture, i hope they come in a very big way. I will love to have 3 options whenever i buy a video card.

    • shank15217
    • 12 years ago

    we certainly now know that this product is squarely aimed at 8800 gts and nothing and i mean nothing else hehe…

    • Sniper
    • 12 years ago

    HD 2900 XT – Shiny golden turd.

      • Krogoth
      • 12 years ago

      8800s series hardware video acceleration isn’t exactly stellar ether.

        • barich
        • 12 years ago

        Sure, but nVidia never said it was. ATI sort of did.

    • lolento
    • 12 years ago

    Almost every review site reported that the HD 2900 XT has the new AVIVO implementation…even Tom’s video review.

    AMD has f***ed up everyone by not releasing a black and white specification, paper launching unreleased products, and not issuing corrections when the reviews came out.

    • Vrock
    • 12 years ago

    Hmm, the 2.4ghz Pentium IV in my HD-A1 seems to decode VC-1 and MPEG-2 just fine. It doesn’t take that much horsepower, really.

      • pedro
      • 12 years ago

      Yes, but I don’t think that’s the point here…

        • Vrock
        • 12 years ago

        What I was trying to get at is that any modern CPU shouldn’t have a problem decoding any of those codecs. Yeah, the Radeon should have that capability, but it’s not really a big deal if it doesn’t.

          • Prospero424
          • 12 years ago

          MPEG-2 and XviD and VC-1 are one thing, but h/x264 are another entirely.

          For instance, my 3.2Ghz P4 can’t play back any 1080i/p x/h264 file because it’s just not fast enough, even when using the most efficient pure-software decoder out there: CoreAVC.

          MPEG2 and Xvid, it can handle. But the only machine I have that can decode 1920×1080 h/x264 content in software is my Athlon X2 3800+, and that’s only by using a multi-threaded decoder. Most decoders aren’t. And even so, it still just BARELY manages it at 24-30 fps. Any more and it chokes.

            • Vrock
            • 12 years ago

            It must be the OS overhead, then, because AFAIK all the Blu-ray players on the market are less powerful then the average PC (with the possible exception of the PS3) and they decode AVC (along with audio, too) just fine.

            Maybe instead of complaining to AMD about not supporting HD decoding in hardware, we should complain to MS for designing an operating system with such high system requirements? ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • Prospero424
            • 12 years ago

            AFAIK, all the set-top players that support 1080i/p AVC decoding have at least /[

            • Vrock
            • 12 years ago

            Ah, good point. Forgot about the hardware decoders on those players.

    • santiagodraco
    • 12 years ago

    There’s nothing that Scott needs forgiven for. Hell if anything he’s being too kind to ATI.

    Far as I’m concerned if the 2900 goes 65nm AMD should be forced to swap out all user’s boards who want full UVD without cost, shipping or otherwise. This “lack of precision” on their part was clearly intentional and designed to improve the launch of the boards.

    Nail them to the wall far as I’m concerned.

      • danny e.
      • 12 years ago

      agreed. it was most certainly planned by some marketing droid.

    • geo
    • 12 years ago

    How about page 20 of that same presentation, Scott?

    Nevertheless, where I come down is if one guy gets it wrong you can maybe tell yourself he wasn’t paying close enough attention. When three or four seasoned webbies get it wrong (and B3D’s review had the misinfo as well), then it’s time to look in the mirror and admit you could have done a better job at communicating.

      • Damage
      • 12 years ago

      Slide 20 says the HD 2400 and 2600 feature AVP and UVD and talks about the 2900 using shaders to do post-processing (handled by AVP on the 2400/2600). It comes after two prior slides talking about AVP and helps explain why the 2900 lacks AVP (shaders!). It does not say the 2900 lacks UVD explicitly, but as I said in the post above, it does look like AMD left some wiggle room.

      As you noted, many of us came away with the wrong impression, even folks who attended different events. Presentations are often iffy, which is why we ask a lot of questions. Not often to do many of us come away with the wrong idea like this.

    • paulpod
    • 12 years ago

    The 2400/2600 have UVD because they are in the 65nm process. The 2900 is 80nm and there was no room or power budget left.

    When the 2900 goes to 65nm it will get UVD.

    That said, since when is this sleazy marketing anything new.

    I bought an x1900 based on the lies about AA and have yet to play a game with AA because the drivers don’t support it in a way that any developers can use.

    The only reason I use ATI/AMD is for Theater Mode dual video display… in the player window on the monitor and fullscreen on a second device. That is cool and does work.

      • LiamC
      • 12 years ago

      My understanding is that the 65nm 2900 was supposed to be *the* version and 80nm would never have seen the light of day. Then bugs were found in the 65nm version that required a respin of the silicon, which is why 2600/2400 et. al went missing from all the reviews. 80nm was the fallback position to avoid a PR catastrophe. I’m agreeing with you that UVD most likely will be working in 65nm.

      • wierdo
      • 12 years ago

      Interesting point. But AMD could have communicated that better to reviewers if so.

      Sleazy marketing is nothing new, but it’s bad PR when the sleaze gets caught, and rightly so.

    • gratuitous
    • 12 years ago
      • Ricardo Dawkins
      • 12 years ago

      Just in case:

      y[

        • Flying Fox
        • 12 years ago

        Hey that was a really positive post! Why is that gone? ๐Ÿ™„

        • PerfectCr
        • 12 years ago

        Yeah this dude really needs to just go away. What’s the point of posting something then returning hours later only to delete what one wrote?

          • danny e.
          • 12 years ago

          indeed. he is much more annyoning then shintai was.

    • totoro
    • 12 years ago

    Nice catch Scott, thanks for being straight.
    Is the review going to get an addendum?

      • Damage
      • 12 years ago

      I’ve added a note to the Avivo section of the review linking to this news item and slightly modified the conclusion to exclude mention of UVD.

    • Reldey
    • 12 years ago

    Meh, im dissapointed, maybe this relates to the price gouging in video cards. i mean for $400+ your not getting your value if it cant even *assist* in playing an HD video.

    Maybe it is good there are lawsuits going against them now,,,

    • Bensam123
    • 12 years ago

    Ha, there is another nail in the coffin. Looks like Bensam is bailing ship for NVidia this time around.

    God I hate their control panel though.

    • PRIME1
    • 12 years ago

    Time to remove the “HD” from the 2900XT.

      • Usacomp2k3
      • 12 years ago

      Awesome!

      • data8504
      • 12 years ago

      This deserves to come back to the top…

      • Jigar
      • 12 years ago

      X2 …

    • Shinare
    • 12 years ago

    Why does it make sense to remove this feature from a high-end part? I must have missed that explanation somewhere. The way I see it, a faster, better card would be more able to handle the increased load on the GPU for HD playback. If it hinders the GPU then why is it on lower end cards anyway?

    ATI is fastly loosing me as a loyal customer. I’ve been a loyal customer basically because of IQ and it just happens that when I’m finally ready to buy a video card, they always have the better price::performance ratio. Unfortunately, it seems that this time around, the performance just is not there, but the price and the marketing speak still is which makes this a COLD deal. I wish I could go back and change my vote in the poll from lukewarm to ice-cold.

    • redpriest
    • 12 years ago

    Personally, I think the big thing that no one else has consistently harped on *nvidia* about is the lack of HDCP support over dual-dvi. Obviously, it’s possible since ATI does it. But for the nvidia users (me included, I have 2 8800 GTXs), we have to use freaking hacks and weird tricks just to play owned BluRay/ HD-DVD content on a 30″ monitor (My favorite involves having to drop down to 1280×800 on a 30″ monitor – at that res, the pixels are the size of bananas)

    Where’s the outrage over this?

      • Madman
      • 12 years ago

      It sucks that there is no support from NVIDIAs side, but if you want to complain, then it’s the fucked up copy protection of the modern age that needs to be destroyed.

      Hackers have no problems, why should you? Answer – because you are fair citizen and you deserve to be butt owned!

      • santiagodraco
      • 12 years ago

      There’s nothing that Scott needs forgiven for. Hell if anything he’s being too kind to ATI.

      Far as I’m concerned if the 2900 goes 65nm AMD should be forced to swap out all user’s boards who want full UVD without cost, shipping or otherwise. This “lack of precision” on their part was clearly intentional and designed to improve the launch of the boards.

      Nail them to the wall far as I’m concerned.

      • cobalt
      • 12 years ago

      If NVIDIA had announced the 8500 and 8600 at the same time as the 8800 and touted how their “8000 series” featured a full-pipeline front-to-back HD-accelerated video-decode, and THEN we figured out the 8800 didn’t have it, then I assure you we would all have been irritated with NVIDIA as well.

      • Richteralan
      • 12 years ago

      I guess you have to be clear that,
      NVIDIA doesn’t make their own CARD.

      They sell GPU chips to various IHVs.

      It is DEPENDS ON IHVs to add HDCP support.

        • Forge
        • 12 years ago

        Actually, Nvidia does make their own cards for the great majority of the range, via Foxconn at the moment. The lower end cards are sometimes still designed and made by the IHVs, but the high end cards for the last generation or three are almost entirely Nvidia’s design and Foxconn’s manufacturing. Any gripes about HDCP support *do* in fact lay entirely on Nvidia’s shoulders. The 6800 series onward are predominantly Nvidia’s work, from the PCB layout on up. The 7950GX2, for example, was shipped to IHVs as a completed product, the only thing eVGA did to mine was put a sticker on the HSF and box it.

        That said, WinDVD and PowerDVD both force downsample all HDDVD and BDROM output to half-size irregardless of HDCP being present or not. 960*540 FTL, especially when 1280*720p and 1920*1080p rips of that same material are widely available. The legit folks lose again, and the pirates are the only free users.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 12 years ago

          2 things.

          1) irregardless isn’t a word, it’s just regardless. One of my pet-peeves.

          2) Are those the only two options for playing Blu-ray or HDDVD?

          • Richteralan
          • 12 years ago

          I guess you don’t know how NVIDIA do about their “reference design cards”.

          Yes NVIDIA do manufacturer their “reference design cards.

          However,

          1. Of course NVIDIA design their own reference cards? If not, who else? lol

          2. NVIDIA doesn’t sell those “reference design cards” under “NVIDIA” brand name. Those cards are selling under, i.e. eVGA/BFG/Leadtek/ASUS/bla bla bla brand name.

          3. These “reference design cards” has reserved space on PCB for IHVs to add HDCP crypto ROMs. Do not think IHVs just wrap’n’pack reference cards from NVIDIA. IHVs are allowed to modify a certain numbers of optional capabilities with reference PCBs.

    • Taddeusz
    • 12 years ago

    From what I understand the 8800’s don’t actually have any better video acceleration than the 7000 series cards. AFAIK, the more advanced HD acceleration wasn’t released until the 8500/8600 cards. Meaning, the 8600 GTS has better H.264 accelleration than an 8800 GTX. That’s what I’ve seen from video benchmarks anyway.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 12 years ago

    +2 Accountability points pour vous

    • herothezero
    • 12 years ago

    Another example of the failure to execute…

      • Lord.Blue
      • 12 years ago

      This is not only a DAAMIT problem, but an NVIDIA one as well. The 8800s do NOT have the video acceleration that the 8600, & 8500 series of cards do. I guess they think that most people will be using the 8600 & 2600 in their HTPCs and not uber level gaming cards.

        • Sahrin
        • 12 years ago

        I think the assumption is that there is sufficient computing horsepower (in either the GPU’s 100+ Shader Processors, or the CPU’s FP stack) to process HD content in an “enthusiat” computer (you’re talking a high-end DC or QC part and a 500 dollar graphics card with at leat 32 Pixel Shaders) – compare that with an HTPC or a more basic model – with perhaps a mid-range or low-end DC, more likely a solid single core – and worst case a Sempr0n or Celeron which does not have anywhere near the available resources as a real “rig” does.

        Even most enthusiasts waste the VAST majority of their CPU time.

        (Unless they’re running F@H – which you all damn well better be).

    • Krogoth
    • 12 years ago

    Oh great, this is the same as NV40s infamous broken “Purevideo”.

    HD 2900XT’s value has dropped more again.

    • JJCDAD
    • 12 years ago

    Does enabling UVD somehow degrade the gaming performance of the card? They want their top-end product to have the most fps as possible right? Why else leave it off the card?

      • lolento
      • 12 years ago

      The reason they left it off is because R600 is a 2-year old GPU.

      ATi worked on it at the same time as the Xbox 360 GPU.

      At that time, they were probably going for pure performance win instead of a feature win.

        • swaaye
        • 12 years ago

        Where’d you pull that nonsense from? Let’s just make stuff up!

          • lolento
          • 12 years ago

          I was in discussion with MS at that time about the manufacturability of ATi’s design.

          I worked for both ATi and MS’s mutual contract manufacturer.

          R600 was about 6 months behind the Xbox360 C1 gpu in terms of tape-out date.

          Check it.

            • swaaye
            • 12 years ago

            Well, that’s interesting. Sorry for being an ass. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • Flying Fox
          • 12 years ago

          Actually, the R600 first taped out in the middle of last year. And considering the complexity of today’s high-end GPUs, tag on at least another year of design, simulation and verification work before the tape out. You get about 2 years. =)

      • SPOOFE
      • 12 years ago

      I’m guessing it’s business. The mid-range segment is their largest selling spectrum of products; I suppose they figure that only the hardcore gamers with extra scratch to burn would get the high-end video cards anyway… by offering a “bonus” feature in the midrange that doesn’t exist in the high-end, they can jack up the price of their midrange – with the accompanying larger sales numbers – and justify it by hyping the video decode.

      It looks like a pretty consistent decision ‘mongst the Big Two. Maybe I’m just high and pulling together nonsense.

    • digitalwanderer
    • 12 years ago

    Good find, good story.

    Thanks Scott.

    • ew
    • 12 years ago

    Anybody who will spend $400 on a graphics card already has a CPU that can playback HD video. So it makes sense not to include it on the high end cards. It doesn’t make sense that they would send mixed signals about it being there though.

      • Sargent Duck
      • 12 years ago

      True, but a GPU is better at it. And it also frees up the CPU to do other things.

      • danazar
      • 12 years ago

      Yes, but if you’re investing in a high-end GPU that is power-hungry at idle *[

    • Spotpuff
    • 12 years ago

    Marketing is all lies. Vote with your wallets!

    • yfital
    • 12 years ago

    Im suprised it was only noticed now, i already saw this running around the web…
    it was clearly stated that only the 2400/2600 will have the full UVD support.
    i dont think AMD was vague about it, i just truly didnt understand their reasoning, plus, i think that everyone thought that if the 2400/2600 has it, why wont the 2900 has it…
    but in any case, this is just another reason not to take the new AMD, dont get me wrong, i take whats better, $ for V, but their last GFX solution ( high end atleast ), just isnt sufficient.

    i hope their next one will be better… ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Sahrin
    • 12 years ago

    I have a lot of respect for TR and for you personally, Scott – but I don’t agree at all with your implication that AMD misled users. Were they vague – yes, but you, along with most of the hardware press – took what they told you and “ran with it” – without getting confirmation from AMD. The fact that AMD was willing to come forward and answer your question directly “2900 XT does not have Avivo HD” indicates that they weren’t trying to mislead anyone. Were they perhaps deliberately vague – yes, but at the same time – they did not try to lie to anyone. I do not say this to take anything away from your integrity or talent – but you made a mistake, you didn’t completely check your facts on everyone. It happens. You admit you did – and that’s the first step. But trying to blame AMD for your error is slightly disingenuous, and takes a lot of honesty and all of the honour out of this apology.

      • bthylafh
      • 12 years ago

      You’re discounting the possibility that AMD had someone else talking to the press during and before the launch, or that they officially changed their story recently.

      • cobalt
      • 12 years ago

      Note that the current official spec sheet for the 2900, as he linked, still says at this moment “HD decode acceleration for H.264/AVC, VC-1, DivX and MPEG-2 video formats.” It says it has ATI Avivo HD. No footnote or anything. If you look up Avivo HD on AMD’s website, you’ll find this link: ยง[<http://ati.amd.com/technology/avivo/features.html<]ยง -- which says "smooth video playback with UVD". Just to repeat that: AMD currently says that the 2900 has Avivo HD. AMD currently says that Avivo HD has UVD. But the 2900 does not have UVD. I suppose it's possible one might not consider this a lie, but I have a hard time figuring out how this is not at least slightly misleading.

        • Lord.Blue
        • 12 years ago

        Or maybe the 2900XT does not have it and the 2900XTX respin will?

        • Sahrin
        • 12 years ago

        Decode Acceleration != UVD – I read that line and think, “they’re using the shaders as offload engines” – not that there is dedicated hardware.

        The link you introduce does appear to be misleading (use of “Radeon HD 2000 series” for instance) – until you scroll to the bottom and see “Not all features on all products” – it’s a marketing page, that uses terms interchangably. I don’t expect to get reliable information, and the first place I check is the “legalese” which will clarify and frame the information on the page.

          • moose17145
          • 12 years ago

          Sahrin, i honestly cannot believe you are blaming TR for doing a poor job checking their facts, and then blaming them for “pinning it on AMD” when they did NOTHING of the sort. They came out, apologized (Which is more than they should have done right there imo), and then they proceeded to explain how and why they came to the conclusions they did so that they would let us know they were not simply dropping the ball on this one. By calling up the other reviewers as well, was just verification that this was not an isolated case of “whoops i snoozed off there for a few minutes”. Also given the relatively short amount of time they have to push a review out the door i cannot blame them for not checking more closely at first. They are literally in competition with other hardware sites, and the one that can push a half decent review out the door the fastest is usually going to get the most hits (plus I am pretty sure this is not a part time thing for them anymore, they make a living off this, so it has to get out and it has to do it fast).

          As for AMD, they did lie, regardless of what you say. They said that all their products would fully support UVD at ALL price points… not “all price points less than 400 dollars retail”. So as far as I am concerned they outright lied right there. TR has handled this exceptionally and they deserve to be rewarded for coming out and being even half as honest as they have been, despite the fact that almost every review i see someone bitches about something, or complains they didn’t see a specific app benched, or something.

          So on that note, keep up the good work TR! the VAST majority of us really do appreciate all you guys’ hard work and patience! Also, don’t feel bad about being fooled by AMD… they fooled us all they did with their sly fiendish ways. Yesterday it’s releasing a inferior product (even though the card does still have some damn neat tech inside of it), then now lying to your potential customers. I mean honestly, what’s next? Growing a Mustache and tying maidens to railroad tracks?!?

      • lolento
      • 12 years ago

      If AMD deliberately lied, they would be in deep trouble.

      The WORST thing they could do legally is deliberately vague.

      • Prospero424
      • 12 years ago

      I think it’s perfectly safe to blame AMD for being intentionally deceptive with their presentations on HD video acceleration. They clearly were trying to create the impression that the full range supported this feature when the flagship product itself did not.

      You can blame reviewers all you want for making assumptions, but to say that AMD deserves none of the blame is outright lunacy. They knew full well what they were doing, the reviewers did not.

        • stix
        • 12 years ago

        Thats the job of the reviewer to GET THE FACTS and they failed and to try to make it look better they blame AMD. As they should know all companies are vague in this respect.

        Good apology ruined by tryin to save face.

        Bad review job. You know your job is to get the facts, you failed. I even knew it did not before you.

          • Prospero424
          • 12 years ago

          As I said: there is fault here to be accepted by both parties. It’s those fanboys who want to put all of the blame on the reviewers for the crime of “falling for” AMD’s deceptive marketing whom I have a problem with.

          Yes, the reviewers should have read more of the fine print, but this wouldn’t have been necessary if AMD hadn’t been intentionally deceptive regarding a very important, high-profile feature that they KNEW everyone expected their flagship product to support.

          There’s no spinning around that fact.

            • stix
            • 12 years ago

            Name a company that does not skirt around details in some way??

            Case closed they failed to deliver a complete review. There job is just that to get us the details. No fanboy at all. Just hate the blame game when it comes down to them not doing there job and just “Going with it”.

            If all review sites did that we would be in trouble.

            • Prospero424
            • 12 years ago

            “Name a company that does not skirt around details in some way??”

            Even if it were true that all companies engaged in this sort of deception at product launch (which it isn’t) the “they all do it” excuse still doesn’t make it right.

            “Case closed”

            • Flying Fox
            • 12 years ago

            q[<...I relayed that information to you in our review of the product, promising to follow up with tests of this feature at a later date. True to my word, I set out yesterday to test...<]q The "review" explicitly said that "UVD testing" is to be a follow-up, and that's exactly what Damage was doing. And he found that there is no UVD at all. How's that "not checking up"? He was checking up and found a problem!

            • Sargent Duck
            • 12 years ago

            A couple of things.

            1) If it were only TR’s review that was in error, then yes, blame Scott. But it has been made clear that many reviewers were duped, then there is clearly an underlying issue. For example, 1 person walks down a hall and trips. Ok, he just can’t walk. Then 3 other people trip in the same spot. Ok, maybe some people from the funny farm got loose. And then 20 people all trip in that same spot. Upon further investigation, someone tied piano wire across the hall. Now, who’s to blame. All the people for tripping (the reviewers), or the person who strung the wire, and mislead people (AMD)

            2) The second saving grace for Scott is that he said he would further review this UVD. If I remember correctly, he didn’t actually test it in the review. He reported what AMD told him, and then at a later date reviewed the feature. News companies do this all the time. “An airplane has blown up, and we’ve been told from a source inside the Pentagon it was a terrorist”. Hours later “oops, our source was wrong, someone was smoking” We accept that in the news, so why can’t you accept it in reviews?

            3) Scott never claimed that it was there, or working. He merely passed the information that he knew at the time on.

            4) He apologized. He’s not perfect, I’m not perfect, and neither are you. I’ve made mistakes and screwed up, so has Scott, and so have you. Perhaps a good example is a report. Ever do a report for school, hand it in, only to have the teacher ding you on a technicality you missed (a date, or a name, something minor). It’s your job to fully research the topic properly, and if you didn’t get 100% on every single report you’ve ever written in school, then you just made the same mistake Scott made.

            5) Are you paying him? As a result of this mis-hap, are you out any money? Have you lost a single cent as a result of this mistake?

            • lolento
            • 12 years ago

            This is clearly AMD’s scheme differentiate their top of the line product with Nvidia’s top of the line product. There is no one else to blame.

            Without this scheme, AMD would be left with a lame duck that was hyped for two years…

            I wonder how many people went ahead and bought the card because they think the HD 2900 XT has the edge over 8800gtx (or even 8800gts) in HD video processing?

            • stix
            • 12 years ago

            All the good review sites got it right. See them blaming AMD?
            Case closed

            • Prospero424
            • 12 years ago

            Okay, which sites were these?

            Because as far as I can tell, there are two types of reviews on every major hardware site I can think of: those who spoke as if the 2900 had UVD, and those who just didn’t mention the video playback acceleration features at all.

            So why don’t you run down the list of those sites whose reviews specifically state that the 2900 doesn’t include UVD.

            We’ll wait.

            Oh, and if these reviewers should have “known better” how come the headline “Radeon 2900 lacks UVD” is present on sites from Anandtech to Tom’s hardware to The Inquirer to Rage3D to Ars Technica, all crediting Scott with the discovery?

            And how come four of AMD’s own AIB board partners are currently advertising UVD on their 2900 boxes?

            I’m sorry, but the evidence is overwhelming: AMD failed to communicate accurately the capabilities of its product both to the press and to its own partners. You can argue over to what degree it was intentional, but to continue to dispute that very basic fact displays clear irrationality.

            • Flying Fox
            • 12 years ago

            q[http://www.superobscureihavenoideathisreviewsiteisouthere.com?<]ยง =D

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 12 years ago

            I believe you mean ‘their’ not ‘there’

            • stix
            • 12 years ago

            I am surprised at your wit, I was gonna change it but figured some smart ass would get enjoyment from correcting it.. Here’s a cookie ๐Ÿ™‚

            Not even gonna correct the error in your post.

            • danny e.
            • 12 years ago

            troll. go away.

            • stix
            • 12 years ago

            I am the troll? He changes the subject at hand and offers nothing new and I am the troll? I have been on topic discussing it rather well. Since I have a different opinion than some here that makes me the bad guy???

            Thought these were here to discuss and speak your mind on the subject at hand. Not to call people names and correct there ๐Ÿ™‚ grammar. As that just shows who the troll is.

          • sigher
          • 12 years ago

          I too knew about the missing full UVD already for a while, so yeah it’s odd that a reviewer didn’t, you’d think he browsed around on other sites to get some info on what others noticed.
          On the other hand it could be argued it was good he didn’t plagiarize the work of others I guess.

          But it’s not the first time claims were made about video capability that was highly questionable, both by ATI as well as nvdia.
          For instance, the much heralded ‘video quality’ of ATI made me quite surprised about the bad scaling of the video-in the x1900 does, I’d say it was the worst scaling in history, yet the pressstatements are all ‘best in the industry’, well no, philips and the former brooktree made better scaling video chips 15 or 20 years ago already.

          So why do the reviewer all just repeat nonsense? Lack of effort I think, I’d say we all know presspackages are full of it and deliberately written in a way to glorify themselves, any kid knows that, and so should any journalist/reviewer.

          • Thorburn
          • 12 years ago

          Its easy to say its the reviewers responsibility, but the reality is getting info from PR can be an absolute nightmare.

          Some members of AMDs own PR team incorrectly confirmed to reviewers that the 2900 parts DID have UVD support in the lead up to launch, you can only post up information that is as accurate as the source you get it from.

          This wasn’t necessarily meant to mislead, it was simply confusion within the PR team itself!

            • stix
            • 12 years ago

            Again they are not to listen to PR they are to get the facts themselves. As TR did but a little late in the game.

            But even some makers mislabeled the cards as HIS and Saphire did. They all admit to making the mistake themselves tho. They say they did not look into it enough and confused the 65nm card with the 80nm card.

            They took it like a man and did not bite AMD’s foot. Tho AMD could have been a bit more forward.

            If all reviewers just took PR word for it we would all be in trouble!! Oops TR just did.

            • sigher
            • 12 years ago

            Well everybody slips up some time though, plus he said he would get into the UVD details later, so it’s not THAT bad.

            • Thorburn
            • 12 years ago

            And as proof of the fact I myself have made a mistake, this apparently wasn’t the case.

    • JoshMST
    • 12 years ago

    Yeah, this was a big shocker to me as well. Everything that AMD had told me pointed to the HD 2900 XT being UVD equipped. Sure takes away a big selling point for their high end offering.

    • DukenukemX
    • 12 years ago

    The important thing is that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is hacked while bit-torrent flows like a river through the internet. So long as there’s H.264 acceleration then everything is fine.

    • Inkedsphynx
    • 12 years ago

    It’s allright Scott. We all make mistakes, and you guys around here do an awesome job.

    I am dissapointed that there’s one more potential advantage the 2900HD had, now gone down the tubes.

    • alex666
    • 12 years ago

    Scott, you’re forgiven . . . ๐Ÿ™‚ But seriously, how could one NOT get confused with all that obfuscation.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This