Encoding - Xp or vista, Athlon or Intel?

[RKDYork]

I am looking at replacing my PC and as I am not a gamer the only thing that really makes the PC work hard is encoding videos. Can anybody advise whether I should go for Intel or AMD and whether to get XP, VIsta, or Vista 64 as the operating system?

Thanks

[Soopafresh]

Only my opinion, but Intel Duo or Quad Core and XP. The Intel I7 chip is the fastest

"Dell has put their new Core i7-based Studio XPS and XPS 730x desktops up on their website just as Intel launches the platform today. With a starting price of $949, the new machines provide a pretty distinct value: getting a desktop with the new (and expensive Nehalem-based processors from Intel is a great deal."

[craigarta]

My brother has a Phenom I have to say it seems fast to me.
All I have is a AMD dual core to his 5

[redwudz]

Just to make things interesting, AMD is marketing the new Phenom 2 quad core @ 2.8Ghz for $235 at Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103472

I ordered one to replace the early production Phenom 9500 2.2Ghz CPU in my HTPC. It is backward compatible with Phenom AM2+ MBs. One option if your AMD MB is AM2+ compatible.

But generally, I would recommend the Intel quad CPUs. The Q6600 is getting a bit old now, but performs very well and the price is very reasonable. As mentioned, the i7 CPUs are good, but require a new MB, and generally new DDR2 RAM, three sticks. There is word that Intel will be coming out with some more i7 CPUs shortly. There may be some bargains if you can find a inexpensive MB and RAM that is compatible.

I am presently using a Intel Q9300, OC'd to 3.3Ghz and I am very happy with it. A bit harder to OC than the Q6600, but runs cool, even OC'd.

With CPUs and encoding, faster is always better. Quad cores preform much better than single core CPUs when the codec used is multithreaded. Divx/XviD, and especially H.264 can make good use of multiple cores to speed encodes.

For OSs, I like Vista, but that's just my opinion. If you want XP, go ahead. I have tried XP 64 and Vista 64 and both seemed to have compatibility problems with my hardware and some of my software. For most uses, there doesn't seem much advantage to a 64 bit OS, again, JMO.

Other than that, standard recommendations are two, or better, three hard drives, with the OS HDD being the smallest one. RAM for XP, 1 - 4 GB. Vista, 2 -4 GB. That's for a 32 bit OS which can only use a bit less than 4GB RAM. A 64 bit OS can use much more. But more RAM is unlikely to have any effect on encoding.

Throw in a decent power supply and you should be set.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Personally, I see no benefit of sticking with XP as far as raw crunching is concerned. Vista64 can sometimes give you a few percent gain when running 32-bit programs - depends very much on the program.

I use Vista64 as my primary PC. The only reason to avoid it and/or Vista32 is incompatibility (hardware or software). I've come across very few cases even with Vista64. I won't look back.

[CubDukat]

Quite frankly, I'm in a bind on which way to go myself.

I switched over to a dual-core Athlon after my second P4 board self-destructed, and generally I've been happy with it since I also upgraded to one of the newer HDMI-capable NVidia motherboards (most of my stability issues with Vista appear to have been cured). Having said that, I am hesitant to stay with AMD for a variety of reasons. First, the company itself seems none too healthy anymore. Second, from what I've read, the Phenom series has been a serious disappointment, and even with the performance bump I'll get going from dual to quad core, it's still at a disadvantage to the Core 2 Quads out there. It aggravates me that AMD never managed to break the 3GHz ceiling with the Phenoms without overclocking. They really seem to have blown a good thing.

Still, in their defense, I've never been a fan of the pins-in-the-socket approach Intel has taken. To me it's a definite strike against them, just like the fear of crushed cores kept me from crossing over to AMD sooner. I don't have very good luck with hardware, so I like to minimize any potential for damage.

One thing is for sure--a Core i7 is right out of my future. It's too pricey and a lot of the reviews don't impress me. If anything, I'll probably jump architectures again this summer. For what I'm doing with it now (playing Blu-Rays, crunching down HD programming for DVDs, etc) the dual core Athlon seems to be working pretty good. Still, I wouldn't mind having more.

Maybe I should build a second system just to handle HTPC duties and DVD making.

[redwudz]

I have two main systems. The HTPC is AMD and my newer encoder is a Intel.

I don't really know much about the new Phenoms, but the new versions seem to have 'fixed' some of the problems with the earlier Phenom CPUs. I'm using it because I have a compatible MB and a spare AM2+ MB I can put the old Phenom into, so no real way to lose. I also have 4GB of DDR2 1066 RAM that will replace the DDR2 800 RAM the HTPC presently uses.

I will be reading up on the Phenom II CPU in the next couple of days and I should have it installed by the end of the week. (It requires removing my MB and unplugging quite a few cables. ) I'm also transferring in a Sony BD ROM drive and putting a new faster BD ROM drive in my Intel box. If I can OC the new Phenom to 3.3Ghz, the same as the Intel, should be a interesting comparison for doing a H.264 encode.