[gbyte]

I'm not sure I'd say it sucks. I mean taking CPU usage down to a tenth or less of what it was when run on the CPU is not something to sneeze at and would bring down costs of building a machine by at least $100 if not more. The question I have so far as the profile limitations is where is the limitation - the driver? The hardware? Something in the CODEC? I believe that it's probably not the hardware but if it's the driver that sux too since it's closed source. The hardware wouldn't make sense to me either since even if they have pretty specific stuff in there I'd think that some gains could be gotten on more generic things anyway.

I guess we'll see. Hopefully the NVIDIA guys will keep working at this and we'll see soem good results. Maybe ATI will get in the game too

Edit: New beta has added GL3.0 support as well! http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13928

I agree, if it can be coded to support every profile, it will be great feature I would consider for my next HTPC. But if it adds acceleration for just a few codec profiles, it's disappointing and using slow CPU will again make it impossible to play any video file.

If I was fine with just partial codecs support for my movie playing device, I would have buy DivX Connected DSM-330 set-to-box or SageTV HD extender or PS3 even, instead to bother building full featured play-it-all box. I guess many pick XBMC because its complete video support and some partial acceleration would still suck and not eliminate the need for fast CPU to play the rest of your HD content. What will you do now? Re-encode all your old BluRay rips that don't comply with specifications?!

I truly hope it's software limitation and ffmpeg or XBMC folks can get a better codec than windows to accelerate any type of h.264 profiles. And if not, then let's hope ATI or Intel will do it better

All this looks to me like a conspiracy to make illegal BluRay rips unplayable.