which VIDEO card to go for ?

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: http://www.hothardware.com/articles/..._RV670/?page=9

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 ?

with paypals 20% back special grab a 8800gt or HD 3870 from dell for $190 or $180

wtf ?

please try to be more specific:

like what research have you done to be specific ?
what kind of test did you do to prove it ?
what cpu have you tested it on ?
with what video card and what driver version have you observed what values ?
with which software and/or codec have you tested it ?

There's a few sites saying ATI's is better for HD encoding AND it has auido through HDMI too.

encoding was not part of the question, but yhe will come in handy, but forget about sites, what about what you think, it would be best if you have experience and have tested the hardware yourself to give some specific numbers

Don't request advice from nice people that help you in their spare time and then blast them for not providing the information you explicitly asked for.

its up in the air look at how much you have to spend for a card. as that will help you better figure out what card to go with. both are great for dvd,hddvd's decoding... the purevideo/UVD is dont on the GPU side. that is the decoder, as the video instructions is mpeg2 are sent to the gpu for being handled. on one hand you have ATI where the number of shaders processors makes a difference in the quality and the smooth video playback. with NV's purevideo its more of the clock speed of the gpu more then the number of shader processors.

what people keep telling you is that your going to be hard pressed to tell a difference between the 2. alot of people claim that ATI UVD has better quality to it then Purevideo. for more detailed info you might want to read in this section here
http://www.ocforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=155

as far as supported any dvd software that allows for the use of purevideo support has UVD support as well..it would be rare to see one player with UVD and no purevideo and visa versa.

thanks