'Splash' a new HD video player

ricky200 said:
Didnt work on my gtx.
More interesting is what does mean "works better than DXVA"? please explain cause i have no idea how cuda could be better than dxva :)
Click to expand...

I think you need to update your drivers or something, you seem to have all sorts of problems that nobody else has. CoreAVC's software decoding works flawlessly with any recent CPU and CUDA also works perfectly if you a) enable it and b) use drivers that support it.

DXVA has a lot of limitations. To start it won't work with every file, a lot of encoder settings throw it so it doesn't work properly or won't work at all - nVidia are a LOT better than ATi and others in this area though. Next it only works in limited colour spaces and with certain renderers only (you can't use Haali's renderer or madVR with it). Then you cannot add say ffdshow or other filters that allow you to do video processing into the chain if you want to use DXVA. And such a lot more, hardware dependence so some cards are less accurate than others, the overall tempermentality of it and driver issues etc.

CUDA is software decoding offloaded to the GPU which works faultlessly with everything, and uses less CPU than DXVA.
 
AbsenceJam said:
I think you need to update your drivers or something, you seem to have all sorts of problems that nobody else has. CoreAVC's software decoding works flawlessly with any recent CPU and CUDA also works perfectly if you a) enable it and b) use drivers that support it.

DXVA has a lot of limitations. To start it won't work with every file, a lot of encoder settings throw it so it doesn't work properly or won't work at all - nVidia are a LOT better than ATi and others in this area though. Next it only works in limited colour spaces and with certain renderers only (you can't use Haali's renderer or madVR with it). Then you cannot add say ffdshow or other filters that allow you to do video processing into the chain if you want to use DXVA. And such a lot more, hardware dependence so some cards are less accurate than others, the overall tempermentality of it and driver issues etc.

CUDA is software decoding offloaded to the GPU which works faultlessly with everything, and uses less CPU than DXVA.
Click to expand...

They did it on CUDA and thats nice but...
For standard sticking h.264 dvxa will do the same what cuda does, and notebook batteries will work probably much longer with dxva. I use Splash for HD videos so i dont care about any hallis or madvr. For me no need to have cuda decoding escpecially it is not free, and i got two of three PC's without nvidia.

the only situation i can imagine that this cuda is better is for some ultra hight bitrate h.264 files, that dxva will not decode smoothly. i wont pay to watch 1 file of 10000 others that work on dxva anyway.

thats my opinion :)
 
AbsenceJam said:
I think you need to update your drivers or something, you seem to have all sorts of problems that nobody else has. CoreAVC's software decoding works flawlessly with any recent CPU and CUDA also works perfectly if you a) enable it and b) use drivers that support it.

DXVA has a lot of limitations. To start it won't work with every file, a lot of encoder settings throw it so it doesn't work properly or won't work at all - nVidia are a LOT better than ATi and others in this area though. Next it only works in limited colour spaces and with certain renderers only (you can't use Haali's renderer or madVR with it). Then you cannot add say ffdshow or other filters that allow you to do video processing into the chain if you want to use DXVA. And such a lot more, hardware dependence so some cards are less accurate than others, the overall tempermentality of it and driver issues etc.

CUDA is software decoding offloaded to the GPU which works faultlessly with everything, and uses less CPU than DXVA.
Click to expand...

Less CPU usage matters very little here since DXVA (in MPCHC) uses 2-4% CPU if even that on a decent dual/quad system. That percentage is taken after playing any HD1080p video from any source (quicktime trailers, actual movies etc)

I use DXVA because videos load the instant that the player window has opened instead of the player opening then a second later the video plays (software decoding).
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
Less CPU usage matters very little here since DXVA (in MPCHC) uses 2-4% CPU if even that on a decent dual/quad system. That percentage is taken after playing any HD1080p video from any source (quicktime trailers, actual movies etc)
Click to expand...

True. On my machines Splash takes aprox. half of CPU that mpc-hc takes so it really doesnt matter.
 
ricky200 said:
They did it on CUDA and thats nice but...
For standard sticking h.264 dvxa will do the same what cuda does, and notebook batteries will work probably much longer with dxva. I use Splash for HD videos so i dont care about any hallis or madvr. For me no need to have cuda decoding escpecially it is not free, and i got two of three PC's without nvidia.

the only situation i can imagine that this cuda is better is for some ultra hight bitrate h.264 files, that dxva will not decode smoothly. i wont pay to watch 1 file of 10000 others that work on dxva anyway.

thats my opinion :)
Click to expand...

I just told you why CUDA was better, you did ask... No it won't use more battery, don't make stories up. DXVA won't be here for much longer I hope, CyberLink added CUDA and soon Stream as well and others are working on it for their decoders.
 
mrk said:
Less CPU usage matters very little here since DXVA (in MPCHC) uses 2-4% CPU if even that on a decent dual/quad system. That percentage is taken after playing any HD1080p video from any source (quicktime trailers, actual movies etc)

I use DXVA because videos load the instant that the player window has opened instead of the player opening then a second later the video plays (software decoding).
Click to expand...

On a notebook, Atom system etc it's very relevant. Videos all open at the same speed on my machine. :confused: Any delay will be down to the software you use.
 
Quite an impressive player, performance-wise - handles HD MKVs over wireless without skipping, which VLC never could do..

However, it's missing a few key features that would make it a keeper, such as cropping/pan/zoom options. It'd also be nice if it utilized Win7/Vista's Aero interface.

Definitely one to keep an eye on though :)
 
Just had to register, cause I cant stand such bull****s about CUDA.
CUDA is no better than DXVA. Moreover, CoreAVC CUDA decoding is a mistake.
They need to work a lot on it. Takes more CPU than this Splash player with dxva and does not decode all the files that I can decode using Splash or MPC-HC.

AbsenceJam: forget that dxva will be replaced with CUDA/STREAM decoding. This is sooo bull**** :)

Anyway, it's not CUDA thread, if you (AbsenceJam and ricky200) want to talk about CUDA - make new thread.

bledd, thanks for a tip on this player. I like it a lot. Don't know about previous releases but 1.0.1 works just perfect.
 
John_sall said:
Just had to register, cause I cant stand such bull****s about CUDA.
CUDA is no better than DXVA. Moreover, CoreAVC CUDA decoding is a mistake.
They need to work a lot on it. Takes more CPU than this Splash player with dxva and does not decode all the files that I can decode using Splash or MPC-HC.

AbsenceJam: forget that dxva will be replaced with CUDA/STREAM decoding. This is sooo bull**** :)

Anyway, it's not CUDA thread, if you (AbsenceJam and ricky200) want to talk about CUDA - make new thread.

bledd, thanks for a tip on this player. I like it a lot. Don't know about previous releases but 1.0.1 works just perfect.
Click to expand...

Can someone translate this for me?
 
uv said:
Quite an impressive player, performance-wise - handles HD MKVs over wireless without skipping, which VLC never could do..

...
Click to expand...

Well, I thought it is not possible to play 1080p over wireless.
Thanks uv for this info. I did some testing and Splash really plays smoothly 1080p (mkv, mp4 etc) over wireless. This is impressive. Splash opens file very fast and seeking through the file is almost as fast as with a file on local hdd. Vlc can't play it. Mpc-hc - can't play and opens file more than 10s :/

I noticed stutters from time to time with AVCHD files. 1080i 24Mbps. Its still possible to watch but video is not perfectly smooth. Low bitrate 1080i works ok.

I also tested Splash with DVB-T Tuner (pinnacle).
Utilizes gpu very well and changes channels quite fast.
Not much more to say as Splash Lite offers only basic features for tv (simple zapper). Anyway it is much better than "software" included with pinnacle tuner :/
 
Seems quite unstable and the playback quality looked no better than KMPlayer to me. I do like the UI though so it if ever becomes fully free, I will likely try it again.
 
I'll stick with GOM, tis the only player I know that saves the point of playback, so when next watched again, it starts where you left of
 
Neolink said:
Seems quite unstable and the playback quality looked no better than KMPlayer to me. I do like the UI though so it if ever becomes fully free, I will likely try it again.
Click to expand...

There is no playback quality difference for progressive streams I think.
But there is quite big difference for interlaced videos.
Splash does better deinterlacing and video is much smoother.

DragonWoLf: there are many players that can resume playback (KMPlayer).
 
Another bloody player with silly amounts of versions. This sort of thing happened with Zoom Player and it got to the point where I couldn't even remember what version name I had paid for.

I presently use KM Player but will take a look at Splash. So far nothing pretty much matches KM I find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom