Which is faster in CCE P4 or Athlon

[taco]

Is CCE faster on a Athlon or a P4? I know its one of a few programs that are heavily optimized for both processors but I hear its faster on a P4.

Thanks

[tww1]

Everything is better on a P system then a AMDud

[mrbass]

sure it is....if the program is optimized for the P4. So if your encoding WM8 then sure go for it get the P4. I'll be getting a Palomino shortly myself for CCE encoding.

[aznguy]

CCE?
Athlon rocks... I had a p3 550 with 300+ MB and took over 11 complete to rip thru CDR (VCD).
Athlon 1.4 took less then 6 hr.!!!

[vitualis]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-17 04:59:56, aznguy wrote:
CCE?
Athlon rocks... I had a p3 550 with 300+ MB and took over 11 complete to rip thru CDR (VCD).
Athlon 1.4 took less then 6 hr.!!!
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Umm... that's hardly means anything at all... If you're using a processor with over double the clockrate, it is hardly surprising that encoding time will be halved when doing a CPU intensive task like MPEG encoding.

In fact, I'm actually intrigued by your post. If you had a P3 550 at 11 hours, I would have expected that a Athlon 1.4 would do the same in 4-5 hours (rather than 6)...

I know that CCE has SSE optimisations. I wonder how much an impact this makes over the different processors. Does anyone know of any proper benchmarking for CCE for P3, Athlon and P4?

Regards.

[BIGTHREE2001]

P4 S ARE SHIT!!!
ATHLON 1.4 CCE SHIT.......HOT MOVIE 2.5 HRS
I DARE ANYONE TO BEAT THAT

[homerpez]

Another AMD/Intel debate.

Truth be told, Athlons are better because:

1- You get more power for the clock speed. Try competing a 1.3 Ghz Athlon, DDR Ram head-to head vs. a 1.3 Ghz P4, Rambus. You'll see that 1.3Ghz + Athlon can beat up to a 1.7 Ghz P4 on many things!

2- Price... if there are any advantages to P4, they are washed away by price.

3- Any benchmark anywhere will tell you that the difference between P4 and Athlon is price, that's it. Nothing works drastically better or worse on either one (save for stupid programmers optimizing for the dying Intel chips)

Maybe I can add another bullet to fire into the "Intel is better at video encoding" argument...

Baldrick's newest review is for the ATI AIW Radeon 32MB DDR (long time in coming...) but he said on his P3 550, he could not capture anything above VCD resolution. When I still had my 500Mhz 1st-generation Athlon (Slot), I could capture 640x480 up to around 4MB/sec bitrate.

Either my system happened to be configured better than his (not likely), or the AMD is a superior product...

[KingJohn]

I love this forum, you get to hear some great jokes

[estariol]

Which part of the intel owning most of the market do you not understand, do you remember betamax...., not I'm not saying that AMD is like a betamax but arbitrary arguments over which is better are counter productive...

[speedy]

I've been an Intel loyalist going back to the late 70's starting with their 8086 that blazed along at 10 Mhz in "turbo" mode.

I hate to admit it, but I fell for all the marketing "Intel inside" crap. So this spring wanting to replace my aging PII 400 I bit the bullet and picked a AMD T'Bird 1200 and I've never been happier.

This is not a knock at Intel. I'm just admitting I was brainwashed into buying all Intel's marketing BS which of course costs MONEY and why Intel chips cost more. You do get what you pay for. So why may for tons of advertising?

Both AMD and Intel make good chips. Just don't take as long as I did to wake up to seeing things more factually instead of blindly falling for a con job. Buy a chip that bests matches what you want it to do, no because of some cute logo. BTW, the AMD logo is kind of cute too.

[nfl2k2]

pcworld compared AMD to P4 in a first person shooter contest. they did Quake 3, Unreal, and some other FPS game that are graphically intense. AMD won with an average of 20fps more on all the games. Plus it's lots cheaper

[vitualis]

Before this degenerates into another pointless Intel vs. AMD debate, does anybody know anything about my original question (i.e., P3/4 vs. Athlon for CCE).

Regards.

[vitualis]

Also, before anybody posts anymore unqualified (and thus meaningless) statements please consider the following points:

1a. Comparing MHz to MHz is meaningless as the P4 and Athlon are completely different chips. One could argue that Athlons are "crap" too because MHz for MHz, a G4 blows it away.

1b. Underclocking a P4 to Athlon clockrates and then proclaiming the Athlon the winner is even more silly. One could then equally argue that you should then overclock an Athlon to P4 clockrates (of course impossible).

2. Backup all purported "benchmarks" with a link to the original article.

3. Proclaiming either chip to be "shit" or "crap" is pointless -- it adds nothing to the discussion and only incites more flames.

Regards.

[vitualis]

Here's something to stir some debate: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/index.html

Both P4 and P3 (P4 especially) have excellent intrinsic thermal protection.

Athlon (Thunderbird core) has no intrinsic thermal protection whatsoever. The Palomino core is better, but in the above test, it didn't stop the AthlonMP processor from quickly going into thermal death.

Regards.

[tww1]

If the AMDud is so good then why dose my PIII866 out preform the AMDud 1.3 and everything in the 1.3 is much better then the 866 has only a stander some off brabd Motherboard and the AMDud is a Aus K133

[psycaz]

I will quantify this as a Personal Opinion:
I just bought an Athlon 1.4 because it was what I could afford - price to performance, all-around consideration. If you have software that is optimized for the SSE2 instruction set and it is what you really want to use the machine for, then you should see better performance from the P4. The current Athlons only support a portion of the SSE instruction set - none of the SSE2, and the upcoming Palomino will only have support for complete SSE, no SSE2. Those second generation instructions should provide better performance directly compared to the AMD chips. Now, what you may wish to consider is, Just how much better will that performance be compared to the price difference. What everone needs to do is take a deep breathe, relax. Then decide what THEY consider important in a machine and what software they wish to use, and what optimizations are there. Last, Hopefully, they can find some benchmarks for the software to use in comparision.

[hpv]

You people are crazy.

[smakheads]

I agree with hpv. These stupid Athlon vs P4 Debates should be banned. They are both fast. Get what you can afford.

[2pac]

My FORD PINTO runs alot faster then a p4 and an ATHLON.

[smchgait]

I think CCE is heavily SSE optimized
but not so for 3DNow!.
On my PIII 667 (384MB RAM)I get 0.450 realtime
(24 bit RGB).
On my AMD 1200 (512 MB RAM) I get
0,650 realtime(24bit RGB) but 1.100 in YUV2.
Although my AMD is 2.5 times faster in integer
and floating point operations it is in CCE only
6o percent faster as it has no complete SSE instruction set.
The new ATHLON 4 with full SSE could be twice as fast as
the "old" T-Birds.

[vitualis]

Thanks for the info smchgait.

Regards.

[mpg1965]

dont you just love all this bitchin

[shochan]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-17 23:44:34, vitualis wrote:
Also, before anybody posts anymore unqualified (and thus meaningless) statements please consider the following points:

1a. Comparing MHz to MHz is meaningless as the P4 and Athlon are completely different chips. One could argue that Athlons are "crap" too because MHz for MHz, a G4 blows it away.

1b. Underclocking a P4 to Athlon clockrates and then proclaiming the Athlon the winner is even more silly. One could then equally argue that you should then overclock an Athlon to P4 clockrates (of course impossible).

2. Backup all purported "benchmarks" with a link to the original article.

3. Proclaiming either chip to be "shit" or "crap" is pointless -- it adds nothing to the discussion and only incites more flames.

Regards.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I would have to argue with the amd at p4 clock rates I now had a amd 1.4 running at 1.7 (136.12.5) and was going stable. Until the stupid asus plastic heatsink clip holder thingy (where the clip from the heatsink sli[s to the ziff socket) broke during the middle of the night and the heatsink fell off. The processor is still ok and has been tested on another board at my shop. for it to handle a break during an encode and still survive the extreme heat it had to produce just makes me wanna stick with them forever.

Ok now for the stupid debate here we go.

$107 amd 1.4 w/board
$239 p4 1.4 w/board and up for the higer speeds

amd More bang for the buck
p4 More buck for the bang