VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. Hi all, I did a search but couldn't find anything relevant.

    I was just wondering which chip would be best for the whole DVD back up process in terms of speed, quality, consistency, etc. If there is a thread about this already, could you link me? Thanks...
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    If the software includes support for hyperthreading, then the P4 produces a 5-20% boost other things being equal.

    Usually only medium-high end MPeg encoders (e.g. Mainconcept in Vegas5 and Premiere) support hyperthreading. Most consumer software does not.

    See this test for various common encoders.
    http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/intelamdcpuroundupvideo/
    Quote Quote  
  3. If you're concerned about performance, buy an Athlon 64. If you're concerned about price, buy an Athlon 64.

    Of course, the backup process need not involve reencoding at all, or may only include requantization. In that case, fast drives may matter more than the CPU.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Search Comp PM
    If you're talking about transcoding, it won't make a lot of difference.

    If you're talking about re-encoding, the order goes:

    A64 > P4 > Athlon > Celeron > Sempron/Duron

    Intel's chips do repetitive tasks like encoding better than AMD's, but of course the A64 rules supreme.
    Quote Quote  
  5. The A64 does not "rule supreme" when it comes to video encoding. I don't mean to offend you Gurm, just pointing out that the P4 still rules the roost as far as video encoding goes. There is no doubt that the A64 is an incredibly fast CPU and does extremely well with video, but the P4 is still a bit quicker.

    Purely because of the price, I'd go for the A64. Also consider that the A64 will eat the P4 alive when tasks like general useage, gaming and any other unpredictable tasks are concerned.

    The P4 is an extremely capable chip, and would possible be worth the extra cash if you intend to use the machine purely for video encoding. However, I would save the money and sacrifice a little encoding speed and use the A64 since it offers better all-round performance.

    Again, I'm not knocking what you said Gurm. Just disagreeing as politely as I can.

    For a more detailed post on why the difference exists, see:

    https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1246860#1246860

    Cobra

    PS - I own an AMD64 XP3800 (XP3500 O/C 255 x 9.5).
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    All of this depends on the specific software you are using.

    The question was vaugue. Other things like price, CPU speed and non-interest in games,... Hyperthreading gives the P4 and Xeon the advantage in a professional video environment. P4 clearly rules for the Mainconcept encoder.

    The link I gave shows how the different encoders perform on the different CPUs. The A64 did not always come out first. Since then speeds and prices have changed. Your mileage will vary.

    Next round should put the P4-D multicore processors firmly in the lead. Then Apple and AMD will need to scamble.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by edDV
    Next round should put the P4-D multicore processors firmly in the lead. Then Apple and AMD will need to scamble.
    What about AMD dual core CPU's? Don't forget that whilst Intel had Hyperthreading to simulate 2 CPU's, the dual core CPUs will not have it activated (except for the ultra expensive extreme edition). So Intel will not have the advantage of 2 virtual procesors over AMD; they will both have 2 cores.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hrlslcbr
    Originally Posted by edDV
    Next round should put the P4-D multicore processors firmly in the lead. Then Apple and AMD will need to scamble.
    What about AMD dual core CPU's? Don't forget that whilst Intel had Hyperthreading to simulate 2 CPU's, the dual core CPUs will not have it activated (except for the ultra expensive extreme edition). So Intel will not have the advantage of 2 virtual procesors over AMD; they will both have 2 cores.
    Like I said, it all depends what your software supports. Cutting edge hardware is 1-2yrs ahead of software support. Higher end software adapts first. Medium to high end video filtering software jumped on hyperthreading to reduce software cycles thus speeding the process.

    Hyperthreading was an acceleration (i.e. filtering ) technology for certain multimedia processes, not a dual processor technology.
    Quote Quote  
  9. I've always been a AMD fan, just because of the price. I had Intel before, no difference, but the price.

    I would go for a A64 no question, HT is kind of spend money for nothing....
    Quote Quote  
  10. If you want price go with a Celron B and o/c to 3-3.6ghz. it's cheap and encoding needs raw Ghz power and so when it comes to encoding speed for the dollar the Celeron B reigns supreme, but I don't own one.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Americas
    Search Comp PM
    Have you noticed that (from edDV link) that the fastest CPU is only about 2x as fast as $30 Duron 1400 but the price difference can be about 20x and more?
    Btw. encoding needs not only GHz but FPU and larger CPU cache. Now if Duron 1400 is faster (as per the same table) then Celeron 2.4 in some tests then Celeron is clearly not a good choice.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Another thing to consider no matter what processor you go with is the vast amounts of where bottle necks (slow downs) can occur.

    You can have the fastest equipment in the world and something as stupid as an older non-supported monitor can cause a SUPER BIG bottle neck on the performance the machine has.

    Are you building, having it built, or buying it from a company (dell, gateway, off the shelf at local store etc) ?

    Company built machines TEND to kinda keep all the compoients (SP!) in the machine around the same quality, this can be a hit or miss if your buddy is building it for you.

    As for the Celeron issue, I have a 2.2g Celeron box, just under a gig of ram, blah blah blah store bought machine with a few mods (ram, dvd burn nothing major) and silently I have compared my results to others around here. If they say it took them 15 mins to rip or demux so and so and 15 mins to burn at 4x blah blah then my Celeron is right in a good average par with their machines.

    Not that those machines arn't TUFF, just suggesting ya don't drop a F-15 jet engine in a yugo with a fender missing and expect the same results.

    Sabro
    www.sabronet.com - It's all you need...to know
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by proxyx99
    ...

    Btw. encoding needs not only GHz but FPU and larger CPU cache. Now if Duron 1400 is faster (as per the same table) then Celeron 2.4 in some tests then Celeron is clearly not a good choice.
    Your logic is only valid for the app where that is the case. The only app where the Duron 1400 is faster than the Celeron 2.4 is the XviD 1.0 beta 2.

    BTW, FPU is reflected in these tests. Cache effects are described but overall cache size has little effect overall.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member Skith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Bottom of the ocean
    Search Comp PM
    I agree with most others here, an Athlon 64 will give the best balance of price and performance.

    I would also recommend looking at the new Nvidia Nforce4ultra based motherboards (offer PCI-Express explansion slots). Although PCI-Express is rather new, I think it is worth considering when building/buying a new system.
    Some people say dog is mans best friend. I say that man is dog's best slave... At least that is what my dogs think.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Little article about AMD vs Pent and what not, seems to be more geared to the mobiles, but may shed some light on the issue

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/15/amd_turion_bench/

    Sabro
    www.sabronet.com - It's all you need...to know
    Quote Quote  
  16. Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cobra
    The A64 does not "rule supreme" when it comes to video encoding. ... etc. {SNIPPED}
    I haven't played with an A64 yet personally, so I was speaking purely from a rhetorical "A64 is in a different class entirely" standpoint. I'm not offended, it's good to know about that. AMD has, historically, NEVER been able to overtake Intel in this arena - back when they were making 386 clones all the way through today, the sheer "repetitive number crunching" on Intel chips has ALWAYS been better. It's got to be really frustrating to AMD that they just CAN'T seem to make a design that wins in that arena.

    So I'm not offended at all. However, as others have pointed out the difference is probably relatively minor between P4 and A64 in video crunching, and the A64 is such a clear win in every OTHER area...
    Quote Quote  
  17. Originally Posted by Gurm
    However, as others have pointed out the difference is probably relatively minor between P4 and A64 in video crunching, and the A64 is such a clear win in every OTHER area...
    Agreed. Especially the new Winchester-core A64s - incredible overclocking potential there.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

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