I have looked and found that there are 2 basic video processing methods around, one being called UVD and the other PureVideo/HD/2, knowing that UVD only fully supported on AMD's 3850/3870 and PureVideo 2 only on 8800GT/G92/65nm nVIDIA GPU's, according to several found articles on the subject: "Please remove links from your message, then you will be able to submit your post." it appears that in terms of performance in hardcore video decoding the both methods seem to be good enough, but there is a problem: it's good to have hardware video decoding, but I think it is better to have hardware video decoding support, and so the question currently is, which of the methods is supported by which decoders ? the question is regarding programs and codecs as well which one is better supported ? and in what programs? to sharpen the point: what it all comes down to: the question, to be more precise, is: 1. what is the highest-bitrate, most cpu-consuming BD/HD content 2. then what is the most efficient way to play that content: 3. for example: how mutch faster is CoreAVC when compared to a UVD/PureVideo on a Core 2 Duo compared against the best decoder there is (software) it should proove how good is it and the second point to sharpen is: if going for UVD, wouldn't that negate the effects of PowerPlay ? I meen, using a good efficient decoder in software like CoreAVC may heat up a cpu a little and use some power but when using UVD/PureVideo the power usage may be doubled because neither the CPU nor the Video card are actually resting... so what is better to load both and possibly waste more resources and power or to load only the cpu (because UVD/PureVideo still require relatively high cpu usage (~10%) and prevents them from becoming totally idle) but higher ?