porina

What's the market? It isn't Nvidia's core business. Google have their own chip. What does Twitch use? 
 
Also I wouldn't use the illustration to estimate sizes, even if they're somewhat indicative. Annotated die shots like that found half way through link below is better, but it doesn't split it down to a fine enough detail.
https://locuza.substack.com/p/nvidias-ada-lineup-configurations
 
I was using their recommended upload bitrates earlier as a proxy to estimate the potential storage impact of multiple formats.

What's the market? It isn't Nvidia's core business. Google have their own chip. What does Twitch use? 
 
Also I wouldn't use the illustration to estimate sizes, even if they're somewhat indicative. Annotated die shots like that found half way through link below is better, but it doesn't split it down to a fine enough detail.
https://locuza.substack.com/p/nvidias-ada-lineup-configurations
 
I was using their recommended upload bitrates earlier as a proxy to estimate the potential storage impact of multiple formats.

There is quite a lot of misinformation (or very vague terms) about this news piece floating around. Even the source article itself seems to get some things wrong or at the very least makes misleading remarks.
 
1) Android devices going quite far back already had support for AV1. What is changing is that the decoder is being changed from libgav1 (Google's own AV1 decoder) to dav1d (the AV1 decoder developed by VideoLAN). So nothing is changing in terms of what devices can and can't play. It's just that the new decoder is better than the old one.
 
2) When talking about which formats a device supports or doesn't support it is very important to specify "software support" and "hardware support". Pretty much all devices support AV1 decoding in software. Very few support it in hardware. 
 
3) Just because your device reports support for a certain video format does not mean an app will use it. On Android, when an app fetches the list of supported formats the OS specifies if decoding of the format is supported in software, hardware or both. In other words, just because your phone supports AV1 decoding in software doesn't mean an app will just decide to fetch that format for you. The app itself will have information about which formats are supported in hardware and which aren't, and makes a decision based on that.
 
4) Just because the Youtube app, or any other app for that matter, uses the new dav1d decoder doesn't mean it will automatically fetch an AV1 video. Which video it decides to fetch is a separate from which formats are supported. As I said earlier, nothing in this chance from libgav1 to dav1d changes what devices report as supported formats. If Youtube now decides to play AV1 videos on devices that doesn't support hardware accelerated AV1 decoding then it is because the Youtube app doesn't care, not because of some OS change that messes with what gets reported as supported video formats.
 
5) Something to keep in mind is that AV1 is very easy to decode in software. Last time I checked, the OnePlus 8 with its quad Cortex-A77 CPU (Snapdragon 865) was able to easily get 250+ FPS when decoding high bitrate 1080 footage on just its CPU.
Even a single Cortex-A53 is enough for playing 720p footage with.
Of course, it is more than hardware-accelerated H.264 or VP9 decoding, but we're still talking about what should be a fairly low impact, especially since this mostly applies to phones that usually get 480p video served to them.
Laptops, where the power efficiency matters the most, have had hardware-accelerated AV1 decoding support for quite a while now. It shouldn't be too big of a deal.
 
 
I am sure that Google have run some calculations to see if this is a good idea or not.
 
 
 
Edit:
Not sure why so many people are talking about uploading in this thread either. This has nothing to do with uploading.
The only thing this (potentially) changes has to do with watching/downloading/decoding. Not uploading.

Another "when" method I've used in the past is to basically firewall off MS servers. Windows can't update if it can't reach MS servers. MS has a list somewhere of the servers/ports for WU to work. You can simply use that in reverse to only block MS servers. Note this also blocks MS Store in case that matters.
 
Edit: I don't know if this is the list I used before but it is a current reference:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-server-update-services/deploy/2-configure-wsus#211-configure-your-firewall-to-allow-your-first-wsus-server-to-connect-to-microsoft-domains-on-the-internet

Another "when" method I've used in the past is to basically firewall off MS servers. Windows can't update if it can't reach MS servers. MS has a list somewhere of the servers/ports for WU to work. You can simply use that in reverse to only block MS servers. Note this also blocks MS Store in case that matters.
 
Edit: I don't know if this is the list I used before but it is a current reference:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-server-update-services/deploy/2-configure-wsus#211-configure-your-firewall-to-allow-your-first-wsus-server-to-connect-to-microsoft-domains-on-the-internet

I've seen data corruption in lower end branded SSDs before and wonder if this is the same. As a precaution I'd backup anything important. If Kingston offer SSD software use that to check the SSD initially. Also what does SMART report? Anything of interest? I've seen SSDs have problems even when not reporting problems.
 
Then I'd do a full surface read of the SSD. It may well crash again on that same part. Generally errors are not unexpected as they will eventually happen, but you'd hope they'd fail more gracefully than this. It should detect and map out bad areas with spares on next write. The problem might be the corruption is so bad it can't silently do this. For redundant storage use cases, it is better to have a disk fail than to give bad data and that might be what they're doing here.

I didn't think it would but still worth a look. That means you can buy pretty much any standard ram and it'll work. I still recommend seeking out 2R modules as they can perform better than 1R ones where all else is equal.
 
Laptop BIOS do tend to be very limited/basic compared to desktop enthusiast mobos with overclocking options. You don't get more fancy options unless you have one of the rare "overclocking" enabled laptop CPUs.
 
Edit: if you can't find 2R ram, or not at a good price, don't worry about it. See it as a "nice to have" and not a necessity. 

The only real-time transcoding YouTube does is for Live Streams, they don't and haven't done any VOD playback transcoding in more than a decade. I would say ever but I don't know what YouTube did when it first existed.
 
16 versions of a video is absolutely less costly than transcoding, also it's likely much less than 16 versions, more than 10 is unlikely. Compute no matter if it's CPU, GPU, ASIC costs more than storage and it also doesn't scale anywhere near, like 100 times less, than file storage space and direct download.

It's usually the opposite problem often defaulting to 480p, even on my 10" tablet. 480p is just about ok if you're viewing landscape content on a phone in portrait orientation but rotate it and full screen, it still could do with 720p. YouTube has been somewhat aggressive at serving lower resolutions presumably to save bandwidth. I use an extension on desktop to force it to 1080p.

Probably YT will do the work for now. There is no change to the recommended upload settings for creators. Still H.264.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171
 

They are cached at CDNs yea, each quality/resolution setting is it's own file (YT doesn't real time transcode) and each quality/resolution setting may actually have more than 1 file, one for VP9 and another H264 which is the current possible (not all videos have both at the same playback setting).
 
Some videos do have a 1080p/720p VP9 and H264 and for lower may only be H264 if an older video. The YouTube player does know what hardware decode support a device has and will select based on that (you can't manually choose).
 
So when YouTube rolls out AV1 it'll be only for 4k or 4k and 1080p premium, maybe 1080p standard. They will still have VP9 as well and will rely on device detection. Probably in a year or so 4k will be AV1 only for new videos and then a year later 1080p premium.
 
YouTube has migrated between codecs more than once, none of those other times did the world end 🙂 

I agree but that doesn't matter. AV1 being default is a long way from AV1 being mandatory.
 
What I wrote was expanding the post I replied to. Give a bit more context as to which systems might support AV1 hardware decode. Probably vast majority of the last two years, and a good proportion going back 3.5 years.
 
There will always be older systems that don't support the latest thing. That doesn't negate the need to add new things otherwise nothing would ever change. We had similar arguments with ray tracing in games and we've already passed the 50% RT capable mark on Steam Hardware Survey. Ball park 5 years from nothing to majority of Steam gamers. We're probably going to have similar arguments about AI. It takes time but it has to start somewhere.
 
Edit: we also have the impending doom of Windows 10. Once that happens that could jump things up a bit.

If your complaint is bad subpixel rendering, the proper fix is with the subpixel rendering, not the subpixel layout.
 
I just found this thread(?) discussing it and asking MS for a solution:
https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/issues/25595
 
Edit: forgot to quote/reply to it, but I use the OLED TV primarily as a PC display.

FWIW, that's a pretty outdated definition given how moderns µarches look like. A Mx chip from apple is hella complex and the front-end is just a minor part of it.
x86 also decodes many of its instructions into µops that are pretty risc-like.

I think the first link below might be the software I was thinking of. The 2nd link I don't remember using but I've used their other software before in the distant past.
 
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/procmon
https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/registry_changes_view.html
 

The setting must be saved somewhere. I vaguely recall there was some software that could log all system activity, such as changes to registry, but I don't recall what it was called. Something like that could help identify it.
 
Alternatively, colour calibration solutions exist, consisting of a hardware colour sensor and software to create profiles for your display. More used where colour accuracy is important like creative uses. It isn't going to be a low cost solution.

8GB is still fine as long as you pick appropriate settings for it. 

I look at it in a similar way to high end PC parts. You don't need to have the latest but many do upgrade more often than really needed for a better experience.
 
PS5 Pro wont be for the masses, but for those who are big into their console gaming. If it gets a better experience, why not go for it? Chances are they'll have PS Plus in some form anyway which gets you cloud saves so that's not a problem.

It wont happen, it can't happen. We've already got precedent with the PS4 Pro. Sony requires them to support the standard model. The vast installed base is PS5. Games will have to work on that. If studios want to optimise for the Pro, that's great. Even if they could do exclusives for it, it wouldn't be an earner for them because the install base wont be there.
 
Series S is more of a problem because it is out of step and more like a last gen device. You lower the floor, and that can lower the ceiling too.

The Wii U was a totally separate generation. Im confused on bringing that one up. 

ps4 pro and XboneX did just fine as products. I don't think anyone found those to be a disappointment, from consumers to the manufacturers.
 
 
xbox series S was a mistake from the very beginning, it was a poor trap and only had the performance of the previous generation of consoles. Many of the purchasers only bought it because the X was sold out. Supporting the PS5 pro/Xbox series X/PC is great... now you want the devs to demake the game for the xbox series S which has minimal market share, just to be allowed to release on series X? thats a piss take. Switch at least has market share. 

the logic does not apply, its not a new gen, the market share is on the PS5/Xbox series X/PC still. No one wants to make an exclusive for hardware with such small market share and expects to make a profitable game.  
 
Neither PS4pro, xbonex, nor other times this has happened like with the DSi have devs decided that they will not want to support the regular versions. The new versions allow the home user to play the same games at higher resolutions at more stable frame rates. 

I look at it in a similar way to high end PC parts. You don't need to have the latest but many do upgrade more often than really needed for a better experience.
 
PS5 Pro wont be for the masses, but for those who are big into their console gaming. If it gets a better experience, why not go for it? Chances are they'll have PS Plus in some form anyway which gets you cloud saves so that's not a problem.

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.

Models and pricing change all the time, on top of regional variations so I can't comment on the specific value. Still, the 990 Pro is a nice high end SSD. Maybe too good for games unless you're after a really top end performance. I'd suggest looking at mid tier SSDs because they're not going to be noticeably slower for games but can be a lot cheaper.
 
Doesn't really matter. I'm using the 980 Pro on a 3.0 mobo. You don't really gain anything from seeking a 3.0 era SSD instead of a 4.0 one so might as well get the 4.0 as it can carry forwards in future.

I think @porina knows that Samsung 990 is overkill even if the MB and CPU support it's speed