VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. I looked all over amd.com, but I cant seem to find the real difference between the Athlon 64 3200 and Athlon FX? Can someone explain?


    Thanks
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Huntsville, Ontario, Cana
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by bladestorm
    I looked all over amd.com, but I cant seem to find the real difference between the Athlon 64 3200 and Athlon FX? Can someone explain?


    Thanks
    Not sure, but if you are thinking of getting into video editing, forget AMD and grab a P4c.

    I had an AMD 2.0GHz machine and found video encoding slow. (5 hours for a 2 hour video).

    I built a new machine with a P4c 2.6GHZ and the first encode I did with TMPGEnc was completed in less than half the time it took the AMD.

    My captures can now be encoded at almost real-time. The one today was a 2 hour video and it was completed in 150 minutes.
    --
    Will
    Quote Quote  
  3. contrarian rallynavvie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Minnesotan in Texas
    Search Comp PM
    You're not even comparing equal processors. But I bet I can trump your 2.6GHz P4 when encoding while we're on the topic of comparing different processors
    Quote Quote  
  4. I'll die before I get a Celeron, I like my cache! Now back to my first question.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Huntsville, Ontario, Cana
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by bladestorm
    I'll die before I get a Celeron, I like my cache! Now back to my first question.
    You and me both, I would never use a Celeron.

    BTW, who was talking Celerons?

    I was talking a full blown Pentium 4c, so far above what you were asking about.

    With Video editing, you want processing speed and the Pentium 4 has full hyperthreading, so you can encode your video at full speed and also preform another task on your system.

    The other night I was encoding a 2 hour movie, it took 145 minutes. At the same time I was burning DVDs, did 4 in the same time, as well as surfing the forums and chatting.
    --
    Will
    Quote Quote  
  6. Sorry, since I havent kept up to date on Intel I asumed the "c" in P4c
    meant Celeron.
    Quote Quote  
  7. AMD athlon 64s are much different than Athlon XPs and should not be treated the same.
    Vary different beasts.
    The difference is that the Athlon 64 FX 51 is 2.2ghz and has dual channel memory while the Athlon 64 3200+ is 2.0ghz and is single channel memory.
    What is great about Athlon 64 vs intel for memory intensive applications is everyother PC out there til now uses the FSB to access memory and pci/agp cards/harddrives. Athlon 64 has the memory controller on the CPU on a separate hypertransport bus so it talks to your DDR ram very quickly with hardly any latency compared to Athlon XP or Intel systems plus it does not touch the FSB.
    If you are fully into a program with full load on memory, it's on a separate bus so the FSB is completely free of memory traffic ready to go for Harddrive access, agp/pci or whatever it needs to access. Which is at 800mhz just like Intel's "latest". They also support SSE2 aswell.

    They really have caught up to Intel for video stuff but right now there is only the FX 51 out with dual channel memory.
    What may set Intel ahead in some applications between single CPUs is hyperthreading. But setup dual opterons vs dual xeons and things change back to AMD.
    Quote Quote  
  8. The Athlon 64 chips are superior CPUs but until the time comes that software becomes optimised for the Athlon 64, it is really more of a novelty. Furthermore, it is very rare that the first incarnation of a new generation of desktop CPUs considered "good" in the long term. Perhaps you should wait a while before investing in an Athlon 64 system... until the platform is commercially mature.

    The P4 systems now, on the other hand, are very mature... and even a top end system is relatively inexpensive with excellent performance.

    Regards.
    Michael Tam
    w: Morsels of Evidence
    Quote Quote  
  9. I agree, Pentium 4s are very mature and perform well. But while Athlon 64/Opteron are new, the only part that needs time to grow is for 64bit software/support.
    SSE2 is very well supported now thanks to Intel and everything else in the Athlon 64's architecture (like Hypertransport,Onboard memory controller) is at the hardware level, which works now and doesn't need added support.
    AMD has supported Socket A for a very long time.
    There are boards now that support Athlon Xp 3200+ back to Thunderbirds.
    Socket 940 now seems like it will be like Socket A but for the highend only.
    Quote Quote  
  10. It seems there is not much difference between the Athlon64 and Athlon64 FX for now, but it looks like the Athlon64 will become the "Duron " of the line and the level2 cache will go down to 512 kB. Check out this report.

    http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1371
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!