Comments Locked

51 Comments

Back to Article

  • Stereodude - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    [url=http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=328&type=...">http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=328&type=...]PC Perspective[/url]showed a much more dramatic reduction in CPU usage with an E6300, 7600GT, and the Interpreter. Seems things aren't quite lining up between the two reviews. Average CPU went from 82.8% down to 41.7% Only by using an x6800 and a 8800 GT* were similar results obtained in this review.
  • JarredWalton - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    Could be the USB interface is demanding more of the CPU. Unless two sites use identical hardware, you can't really compare the results and call one more accurate. Given that the HD-DVD for 360 is currently available at $200 (the internal drive used on that other review is apparently pre-release hardware), the results we show are at least indicative of what people looking to take that route will experience. I'm sure once Derek can get a PATA drive he can look at performance differences.
  • DerekWilson - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    I havent' read their review, but we did see ~41% with the x6800 8800gtx/gts.

    We didn't test the E6300 + 7600 GT with the interpreter, but i would think we'd see higher than 82.8% ...

    As always, it's not really useful to compare numbers from multiple sites, as we likely used different motherboard, ram, sections of the movie, etc...
  • DNW - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    Questions:

    (1) You need just the HD DVD player, not the Xbox, correct?

    (2) The back of the HD DVD player appears to have 3 connectors. Are these all USB connectors? If so, you hook up your the HD DVD player to your computer, and your computer to your television, correct? Does it matter how the computer is output to the TV? Is video-out sufficient, or do I need DVI, or HDMI etc.

    (3) What are the computer system requirements? I am asking because on one of my HDTV's, I have an old computer built 2-3 years ago from whatever spare parts I had laying around. Is this critical? My TV supports 1080p. Is getting that resolution dependent upon the computer?

    (4) The HD DVD player appears to come with a remote control. Will I use that remote to play/stop/start/pause/etc the DVD's, or will all that be done through the computer? In other words, is this a computer component or a home theatre component?

    For under $200 plus the cost of a Netflix subscription, I would like to 'get my feet wet' with high definition dvd's. Even if I use this configuration for just a few months, it will be worth the rather insignificnat investment required. I just want to make certain I understand it before I make the purchase. Thanks!
  • DerekWilson - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    1) just need the HD-DVD player.

    2) It is also a USB hub AFAIK... the mini connector hooks into the computer.

    3) you'll need a CPU at least as fast as the E6300 and a graphics card that can do some hardware decode acceleration if you want to avoid choppy playback and dropped frames. you'll also need usb 2.0 support (480Mbit), a graphics card that can output 1920x1080 @60Hz either over DVI or component (analog). A top of the line computer from 2 or 3 years ago will probably not cut it.

    4) the remote controls the XBox 360, not the HD-DVD player.
  • totalcommand - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    The fact is with the right H264 encoding HD films can easily be fit on DVD-9 discs with minimal loss of quality.

    The companies are just trying to create a new market by increasing format size, but it's really unnecessary unless we want 6hr+ of film on our discs. Not to mention, with a new market, they get new copy protections like HDCP, which lets them infringe on our fair-use rights.

    It really doesn't matter that Bluray has a 20Gb advantage over HDDVD - we don't need that extra space right now.
  • DerekWilson - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    some sort of "newness" is required -- standard DVD players can't play HD formats, as the players don't have the ability to decode H.264 ... Either we were going to get new players that use current DVD media or new players with new media. Since its a very good idea to future proof the design, more size is better -- and it just makes sense that if we require an update to player hardware we might as well also update our media to hold more data.

    the horrid drm and copy protection schemes are not a problem with the media as much as the MPAA -- had we stuck with standard DVD media, the industry could just have easily forced those wanting to play HD video on DVDs to adopt AACS -- because this is required in the data on the disks and the players -- not the physical media itself.
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    "Right now" is the key. All things being equal (and I'm not saying they are!), having more capacity is better. We'll see which one wins our long term, but there's a good chance the consumer has already lost.
  • trueimage - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    How are you "enabling" and "disabling" HW Accel... All I see is a checked hardware acceleration box that is greyed out. I have no idea if it is turned on or not, and I certainly can't uncheck it...
  • Renoir - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    You can't enable/disable while playing a video. Stop playback and then the checkbox will no longer be greyed out. Hope that helps. Took me a while to figure that out myself :-)
  • losthours - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    all i hear is how the ps3 is overpriced. but by the time you add the relative hardware to the xbox 360 you get the same price. so it looks like sony didn't dump you with a dvd drive you really didn't need and make you pay later. just a side note i'm note gonna buy either xbox or ps3 i'm gonna go with the wii if i buy one.
  • nah - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    How about recording a video to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray and seeing CPU utilization ?
  • artifex - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Thanks for the article!

    I haven't even read it, yet, but this is what I've been waiting for, since your earlier one. So thanks for getting it out so quickly!
  • Badkarma - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    All I see these days are articles about video playback of HD-DVD/Bluray. How about the HD Audio formats like DD+, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD? All these HDCP video cards with HDMI don't have connectivity to pass the PCM output of the HD audio soundtracks like the CE devices do. When is this coming?
  • DerekWilson - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    Actually, IIRC, all the HDMI cards we tested do have an audio input for pass through.
  • Badkarma - Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Actually, IIRC, all the HDMI cards we tested do have an audio input for pass through.


    Derek. The audio passthrough seen on all current HDMI cards are SPDIF which can only carry regular Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. HD Audio formats go hand in hand with the two new HD formats, but NO ONE has addressed how the HD audio formats like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD will be handled on the computer. I've scoured the internet for more information, but there doesn't really seem to be anything to be found. Can you please look into this? You can output TrueHD/DTS-HD via analog outputs on your soundcard if you have them, however, for those of us that would like to apply room equilization to the audio are SOL. There is nothing at the moment available that will allow TrueHD/DTS-HD to be passed as PCM audio via HDMI like the Toshiba HD-A1/2 CE devices.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - link

    Does anything use TrueHD DTS-HD audio right now? I don't know, but if the audio on BRD and HD-DVD is only DD5.1 or DTS, then passing them as something HD won't improve quality. While I can see video truly benefiting from higher bitrates, I don't think audio really needs more than about a DVD's worth of storage tops before any improvements can't be heard. But anyway, I don't have an answer to your question and am merely curious as to what the benefits are. (I don't really think BRD/HDDVD are better than other alternatives, but it's what we're getting from MPAA/RIAA so consumers are stuck.)
  • Badkarma - Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - link

    Almost every single HD-DVD has at minimum Dolby Digital + which has a lot more bandwidth than DD5.1. There are quite a few HD-DVD's with TrueHD soundtracks. Unfortunately, a lot of consumers think like you, audio doesn't matter, 5.1 is enough. HD audio goes hand in hand with HD video. It's a complete package.
  • artifex - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    In the case of the XBOX360 HD-DVD player, most of these HD audio formats aren't available, anyway. They should probably mention this in the article.
  • Renoir - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Very good question! I would also like to see more discussion/analysis on this situation
  • Eug - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Of course at a price of around $200 you can find standalone HD-DVD players for less money; you just can't use those with a PC.

    No you can't. The cheapest HD DVD player in existence is $499 retail. The 1st generation Toshiba HD-A1 is now less than $400, and the better 2nd generation Toshiba HD-A2 is $399 street in a few places.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Sorry - my comment there and I'll correct it, as the price I looked at was apparently bogus (was a single seller that might be a scam, not a real price).
  • XMan - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Some people on AVS Forums were having problems with Power DVD down-rezzing their movies to 540P with this drive and the software . . . did you have any issues with such during testing, or was it detected properly as a 1080P source?
  • Tujan - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    That Microsoft HD-DVD player is certainly a solid-state idea for playback of HD-DVDs.

    The USB 2 bus though,it has a bandwidth of 480 mbytes per second.

    Wich is faster than,a Sata II,that rarely gets its rated 300 mbytes second.

    Thanks to tabbed browsing:
    The H.264 playback from the USB attached device of the HD-DVD(480mybtespersecond)was about even with the H.264 playback of the X-men on the Sata II device.(300mybetspersecond)

    ...This does approach the type of impact we saw on Blu-ray, but bitrates were more consistent on this HD-DVD title. We didn't see any real spikes above the average bitrate, and CPU utilizat....

    Im betwixt of just what the ideal of emphasis is here.True just show the analysis of the cpu usage among several different video cards. Question being ''can the pc put out the necesary performance for the HD-DVD,or BR disks".

    H.264 is used in one instance,and VC-1 in the other on the media(HD,BR).And MPEG2,will be on BR,as much as the better of the two will be more modern H.264.
    I dont see that the size of the disk has anything to do with the bandwith.They are each what is it 4.5 inch disks across.
    But I do see that in reference to frames they may be obsolete in the future.If it is true that such 'programming'in 'compression'conducts i/o to better terminology.

    I guess it is to have 'something'to show for what is the 'new disk readers.Nobody has these Nvidia GPUs,so this is just technical bliss to me.

    Any 'bus can do any of the formats.Some better than others.So HD-DVD,and BR-DVD H264 disks are not created alike.
    I gues codecs however are also not created alike.

    AND WE USED AN HDTV TO DO ALL OUR TESTS.Wow-lollipop.(with WHAT CONNECTORS)

    All in good spirit.

    Happy Holidays.
  • DerekWilson - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    our Blu-ray player is PATA
  • Tujan - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    Yes I've seen the applicability of 'device'where MPEG4 was almost completely Apple.

    H.264 doesn't necesarily mean *HDCP. Above and beyond the topic of your review - the necesity of playback for a content authored disk.

    When authoring for HD-DVD,or BR ,hopefully there will be some players in that space for the computer. By players I mean more than a single playback 'device in the software creation area. Of course everybody knows .wmv in WMP. and .mov is Apples player. And before sourjorning on creating content on the computer,one must consider 'format=playback device.

    But the codecs are a different animal altogether. The one area in wich 'device isn't necesarily something of noticable distinction from what we see at the computer in 'file association.

    HDCP,and such isn't necesarily a codec.But I do not see that for example MPEG4 being something as a readily available choice for 'device as far as the computer goes.

    Wouldn't be ahead of myself to consider that for the platform on the computer along with the cpu,gpu,op-system the programs available on a market wide relationship to the HD,BR drives must be available.In the area of consumer authoring.

    So MPEG4,MPEG2,and H.264 are 'formats.Each requiring a 'codec ? Well I'll just retire my topic for now.

    Thanks for replies.
  • Frumious1 - Monday, December 18, 2006 - link

    Okay man, I have to just say this. Lay off the fucking apostrophe key! Whew! Glad I could get that off my chest.

    I realize you are not a native English speaker, but you keep putting in random symbols for no apparent reason. If you want to put something in quotes, like it might not actually be what the word indicates, that's one thing, but you don't do that. Take this:

    "Yes I've seen the applicability of 'device' where MPEG4 was almost completely Apple."

    What the hell is that even supposed to mean? That you've seen MPEG4 used by Apple as a coded? Great. So have we, and that doesn't change anything about the standard. Just like you get AVI files that are really MPEG4 video, you can have a MOV file from Apple that uses H.264.

    Even worse is the last sentence:

    "So MPEG4,MPEG2,and H.264 are 'formats.Each requiring a 'codec ? Well I'll just retire my topic for now." The apostrophes add nothing to the meaning and in fact detract from it. The simple answer is that yes, MPEG2 and MPEG4 (of which H.264 is a part) are formats that require specific support via a codec. Xvid and DivX are also MPEG4-based codecs.

    I'm not at all sure what the specific differences are between the various MPEG4 flavors, but I can say that I've seen very high quality DivX HD encodes (720p) that don't have any HDPC bullshit. That's why I love the Internet: I can just forget about all the junk that Hollywood is trying to force on us and download what I want... for free! Oh yes, I'd love to download episodes of Lost at $2 each and get a POS low resolution version - that's so much better than a 400MB widescreen HDTV rip, don't you think? Even better would be 700MB 720p rips (DivX HD), but it seems the TV video ripping scen isn't that clever yet. Hooray for computers, though, because eventually the people will catch on.
  • Tujan - Monday, December 18, 2006 - link

    I use apostrophes for emphasis. Or for a breather . I woulduse italics. But if italics is the only tool for emphasis,and I am not quoting something already stated use of the ' is to emphasize. Something you would have to take a breather to.

    Yeah I retired the topic. Since I have been looking into the playback of given file types wich require certain 'players' - most of wich from a certain, and limited propriety to do so.

    Most of the recent digital cameras utilize a given 'format. Even though a person buying a camera may be aware of this . They may not be aware that there is only perhaps a single propriety wich can 'playback' the format. So here in puchasing a camera,some forethought is this computer related software dilema.

    I have not seen the chart . But there is certainly only several specific software programs available for the computer at the present time. When there is such a highly publisized (think specific) screen dimension in wich devices can in fact create. Yet will not be able to actually participate to because of the limited availability of the software conductive to the specification. For now I might say 'format,but then-and when , it is usually a codec.

    Since we here are discussing HD-DVD,and BR. For me it will be the involvement of the designation space available for storage . AND playback. For MPEG2 there is very little consumer available software to create and utilize it. MPEG4 is completely,if not impossible to re-edit. And the playback is still limited. Yet for both a storage medium is present.

    So then you not only have format = playback device desired . But you have 'filetype of x certain codec. Wich the proprieties of them are not making available. If only in a limited copacity of 'enterprise. Somebody above mentioned the studios doing their thing.

    If you've got the chart,I'd like to see it. Program Name,Proprietor Name,Format type,Codec Required for playback,and storage medium supported. You'll be able to voice no more than 6 or seven available software programs for editing. Naming the codecs you will have perhaps 2 or 3,or none - in the case of BR.

    With .mov if its MPEG4,or a derivative there is still the ideal of what your device creates within its storage medium. Making that decision before you know it is very,very limited as a communication medium. Or for portable storage.

    I understand the realization of the discussion in the new 'formats,as discussed for H.264. They are always considered as formats. So format=playback device, .. playback device = codec/propriety. Its certanly relevant.

    Of course the ubiquity of Divx is self explanatory.The other formats are exactly as self explanatory - in that you need to look out for the equipment that is needed to use them. Sometimes your told what you need. As in the case of the computer whats available is extremely limited. While the proprietaries continue to monopolize in their own fashion - rather than a standard wich one could consider ubiquitous.

    If I'm a starter,whats granny looking up to now.?
  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    I can't say I actually understand your point in most of that post, but let me clarify a few things at least.

    USB 2.0 is 480 megabits per second (not megabytes!). SATA-2 is technically 3.0 gigabits per second with 8/10 encoding, resulting in real bandwidth of 300 megabytes per second. So, SATA-2 is at least four times faster than USB 2.0, and realistically USB 2.0 is not as reliable in terms of connectivity and bandwidth so you typically max out at closer to 300 megabits for USB 2.0. Given that the maximum throughput we've seen on a Blu-ray disc was only 41 megabits (and average was a much lower 18 mbps), obviously even 300 mbps is more than sufficient.

    In terms of CPU usage, H.264 uses more CPU power for higher bitrates, not less. That means a disc with a 10 mbps average bitrate will use less CPU power to display than something that has a 20 mbps bitrate. It's also why looking at downloaded H.264 QuickTime movies that are only 480p resolution doesn't correlate well with viewing 1080p BRD/HDDVD titles.

    If you want to watch HDDVD, and you don't have an Xbox 360, you can just go out and get a standalone player for around $125 (no idea on quality, but HDMI is included). BRD players are quite a bit more expensive, to the point where if you can actually find a 20BG PS3 for MSRP ($500) you might as well go that route and get the console for "free". Except you can't find such PS3 prices right now and probably won't be able to for another 3 months. Our best advice is that if you're not dying to get BRD/HDDVD support as soon as possible, just continue to wait and we'll continue to provide analysis on the market and which hardware is best suited for this sort of content.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Correction: HD-DVD players start at around $350 it appears, so getting the Xbox 360 drive and using it with a PC would be far cheaper. Stupid froogle searches and price hacks....
  • Tujan - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    Im definitely looking for the data side.

    You mean the bit rates for H.264 are not 'standardized' yet ?!!

    Consider this:

    A medium .. The CD .

    If I play Led Zepelin compared to Vivaldi . Led Zepelin is going to run my batteries out. ...

    BlueRay,HD...

    If I buy a high bitrate H.264 I will also need two extra Energizers to power the disk.(Or Duracell ,..put 'your brand here ______)

    and

    I work at a firm,and my boss cant figure out the reason everybodies notebook battery has gone south. He just knows that the CAD work is completed. Although it had been finished nearly a week ago . And only the BR,HD disks are evidence of it.

    I create a BR,HD disk from scratch on a writer.And send them to the relatives.They write back,and uncoincedently to your notice 'each of them ,replacing the batteries after watching them.

    Broadcast Radio HD...

    40,000 watts in any other format of broadcast .Equals 40,000 watts. 40,000 watts in H.264 eqauls a power outage in 6 broadcast areas.

  • plonk420 - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    the mediums (HDDVD(-video or whatever) and BRD(-video or whatever)) have standards for bitrates, however, (AFAIK) .. i WISH i knew them, but i don't. DVD(-video)'s theoretical limit for continuous transfer is around 9.8mbit (i've heard of mastering houses having encoders that can peak over 12-15+ mbit for the video alone in a really small timeframe), but replication houses will reject anything substantially over 8mbit.
  • JarredWalton - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    Actually, MPEG-2 and MPEG4 level 10 (H.264) all have various options available. Ever wonder how a program can "shrink" a 9GB dual layer DVD to fit on a 4.5 GB single layer DVD... and yet that DVD is still playable on any DVD box? H.264 is a standard, and if a device fully supports the standard you can play any H.264 content. Here, though, we have a problem where a higher bitrate H.264 disc will require more computational power to play.

    As far as laptops and battery life go, I'd be surprised if anything currently available will get more than two hours of BRD/HDDVD playback off a battery. Of course, if you're just watching a movie on your laptop, the difference between DVD and BRD/HDDVD isn't going to be *amazing* (despite what the marketing might say). Better, yes, but if you demand more battery life you'll probably want to stick with DVDs for a while.
  • Johnmcl7 - Saturday, December 23, 2006 - link

    I would have thought the difference in quality would be more noticeable in laptops than most other places as many laptops have high screen resolutions - my 15.4 and 17 inch laptop screens are both 1920x1200 and with certain DVDs look quite poor as there's so much upscaling compared to lower resolution screens which seem ok with DVDs.

    I agree on batterylife though, while watchiing DVDs I normally have the CPU and GPU on their lowest power mode whereas HD DVD/BR is going to need everything running full pelt which is likely to tear through the battery a lot faster.

    John
  • abhaxus - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Seriously guys, at least a blurb in there would have been nice. I understand that this is just an overview of HD-DVD/BD performance, mainly for GPU buyers. But in this particular case I need to know if I'm wasting my money if I buy something like a 7900GS vs a X1900GT/X1950Pro. Judging by your BD article, my X2 3800 @ 2.5ghz wouldn't work very well with the ATI cards.

    Your reviews usually make it impossible for us to NOT make an informed decision. Now it seems to be the opposite.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    I believe Derek mentioned that we will include a CPU comparison in our next major CPU review. I'm currently working on Part 2 of our AMD Brisbane coverage, but after that I should have some time to work on a comparison of BD/HD-DVD decode on modern day CPUs. The only issue with doing a CPU comparison is that the only metric we've really got to compare with is CPU utilization, which only tells us what's playable and what isn't, not which CPUs are going to be better at decoding H.264/VC1/MPEG-2. Regardless, ask and you shall receive, it'll be next on my to-do list right after Brisbane part 2 :)

    Don't be too hard on Derek, I don't let him near my CPUs. Those GPU guys always rob me of my fastest test parts ;)

    Take care,
    Anand
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, December 17, 2006 - link

    Thanks very much Anand and the team, for all your excellent reviews and technical info. I love this site.

    This decoding stuff is pretty interesting, that faster GPUs actually decrease CPU utilization. I guess that means the GPU is doing as much processing as it can.
  • abhaxus - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Thanks for the quick reply, I definitely understand that the CPUs would be more difficult to compare than the GPUs. You guys are a firefox homepage tab for me, I'll keep checking back religiously as always :)
  • BeefyB - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    The review is using beta software, can anybody else actually get this? I've been looking around and the best currently available software that I could see is that a person can buy the japanese version of windvd. If the hd dvd software is available, can somebody point us to it? If it isn't available, it seems like a worthwhile thing to mention in the review.
  • DigitalFreak - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Supposedly the retail version of PowerDVD that plays HD-DVD & Blu-ray will be out this month.
  • DerekWilson - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    We would be using retail players if any were available, but they aren't. Currently the only way to get a copy of a player that supports HD-DVD or Blu-ray is to buy a system or a drive that comes with it. Cyberlink is currently only offering their software through OEM channels.
  • ssiu - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Does VC-1 look worse than H.264? (If they are comparable, then why use H.264 when VC-1 takes so much less power to decode?)

    Are these 720p or 1080i or 1080p videos?
  • DerekWilson - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    All of our HD video tests so far have been done using a 1080p tv with 1080p movies.

    It's hard for us to do a direct image quality comparison right now because HD movie players don't allow any image capture or video clips to be saved. From what we know about H.264, it has a high potential for image quality, especially on Blu-ray where disks are currently up to 50GB in size.
  • therealnickdanger - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Given the current releases on both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, VC-1 has superior sharpness - H.264 tends to soften the image more than VC-1 at any given bitrate (hence the Blu-Ray nickname in some circles "Blur-Ray"). The implemetation of H.264 is more currently more complex and less efficient in many cases. Many argue the VC-1 codec to be superior only because it has the backing of Microsoft, who is working much harder behind the scenes to improve its functionality and efficiency, whereas H.264's support and tools are not as advanced. If and when H.264 receives the same treatment as VC-1 in terms of financial investment and support, then the more advanced features of H.264 can be realized. It's way too early to make a call on which codec will "win" in the end, but I don't think we'll know for a very long time. Lucky for us, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD support both... so the consumers win either way.
  • plonk420 - Saturday, December 16, 2006 - link

    where, pray tell, did you hear about this superior sharpness of VC-1? in reviews i've read, H.264 is pretty much identical PQ. the technology pools between VC-1 and H.264 overlap a good percentage, as well as even prosumer solutions having existed for at least year before the first BRD (or even HDDVD) players came out .. well, besides the piss-poor Quicktime.

    i can't say i can compare VC-1 vs H.264 on a standalone, but i've worked with both, including H.264 encoder betatesting and playing around with VC-1 a little bit as well...
  • rcabor - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    I doubt its selling at a loss, since you dont need one for gaming, I cant see where microsoft would make any money with software.
  • Xorp - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Good review cept, H.264 will probably more towards being equal with VC-1 in terms of releases. I don't think it's going to replace VC-1 in the long run.
  • nicolasb - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    Doesn't the fact that the XBox 360 has no digital video output rather limit its safety as a long-term investment for video playback? What happens when the disc publishers decide to switch on the protection flags that prevent output in any analogue format at any resolution beyond 960x540? Something with an HDCP-enabled digital output would surely be safer?

  • ajira99 - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    I think that by the time any content-protection flags are enabled (if ever), there will be affordable, standalone players that will do a better job than either the Xbox 360 or PS3. I'm pretty satisfied with the HD-DVD addon -- the 360 is an adequate DVD player when I'm away from my computer, and the PC compatibilty of the drive is a definite plus.

    Of course, Microsoft could just wait and put out an updated 360 console w/CPU die shrink and HDMI in a year or so.
  • Furen - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    I believe the HDCP-requirement was scrapped from the spec, which is why MS can get away with having a non-HDMI solution.

    More importantly, I wonder if MS is in anyway subsidizing the cost of the drive... If so then Microsoft may be getting screwed pretty badly by people who buy the drive to use it on a computer.
  • therealnickdanger - Friday, December 15, 2006 - link

    By the time the format is mature enough for that (arguments abound that such a flag will even be implemented), Microsoft will release their own HDMI cable. So should a flag be implemented, the worst case scenario would be that Xbox360 users would have to buy a HDMI cable. That places Xbox360 owners in no worse a situation than any other HD-DVD or Blu-Ray owner.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now