Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: why bits, Byte Addressability And Beyond
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 01:12:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <v33b2o$9cst$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v0s17o$2okf4$2@dont-email.me> <v19f9u$2asct$1@dont-email.me>
	<v19goj$h9f$1@gal.iecc.com> <5r3i3j58je3e7q9j2lir1gd4ascsmumca2@4ax.com>
	<v1bgru$jo2$1@gal.iecc.com>
	<6d6fa399e0f5dd481125348fa56d8ef8@www.novabbs.org>
	<v1ci49$33ua6$1@dont-email.me> <20240507114742.00003e59@yahoo.com>
	<v1fqvb$3ushi$1@dont-email.me> <20240508153648.00005583@yahoo.com>
	<v1gban$2u4c$1@dont-email.me> <v1gcm7$396i$1@dont-email.me>
	<v1gdrn$3heo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 03:12:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f9fa71f6bded3e8519d33d87ee221dff";
	logging-data="308125"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kPmwXdtOt6VQKl51dgcFG"
User-Agent: Pan/0.158 (Avdiivka; )
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XIUyFXgMZTBNsNbtAnbIu/xe/cE=
Bytes: 2109

On Wed, 8 May 2024 19:47:34 +0200, Terje Mathisen wrote:

> It was exactly these kinds of optimizations I made in order to double
> the speed of Intel's reference BluRay decoder. However, instead of
> asking me to write a complete version they decided to licence a piece of
> VLSI to do it in hardware, and that was almost certainly the correct
> decision since my code needed 4 cores working nearly 100% in order to
> handle the highest possible size/speed quality (1080p, 60 Hz, CABAC
> encoding and 40 Mbit/s bitrate).

Still, that sounds like something that could be useful in a transcoder 
like FFmpeg.

4 cores sounds like a modest requirement these days; nproc reports 24 on 
the machine I’m using now. And 16 on my laptop.