Linked by Brooss on Tue 15th Mar 2011 23:32 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 466388
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
I wonder about their measurement methodology. From the title of the plot, it looks like they are comparing the power consumption of the CPU (and nothing else) between software encoding and hardware decoding.
I hope I'm wrong. Otherwise, the measurement is obviously totally flawed, as they don't take into account the power consumption of the hardware encoder itself. This plot only serves as a way to say "look, the CPU is idle and can do something else meanwhile !" (which is indeed a benefit of hardware encoders).
Edited 2011-03-16 11:31 UTC