AMD Tbird vs. XP for Encoding

[lmennuti]

I'm currently running a Tbird 1.33GHz on an MSI K7T266 Pro (DDR Motherboard) and have been thinking of upgrading to an XP chip (I'm thinking about the XP 1800+ @ 1.53GHz).

But before laying down the money, is it really such a big upgrade? I mean how much of a difference is there between like chips? Like how much better is the XP 1600+ (at 1.4GHz) vs. the Tbird 1.4GHz?

Thanks

[Peter]

I don't think it's worth the money. I saw a benchmark online from a XP1800+ (1.53Ghz) made with Sisoft Sandra. It scored 4321/2129, multimedia 8604/9876.
I have a Thunderbird 1.4 Ghz overclocked to 1536 Mhz and have a score of 4266/2085, multimedia 8371/9616.

So the improvement isn't that much.

[randallc]

What matters more regarding this is the optimization that the software will take advantage of.

The AMD XP's introduced SSE to the amd line if I'm not mistaken, so if your encoder takes advantage of that, you should see large improvements.

The raw 'horsepower' of the two cpu's isn't going to be anything worth switching, only if you can utilize some new features of the XP that the Tbirds didn't have.

[d4n13l]

Waste of money. You are better of investing in SCSI rather than swapping the CPU for another one that is nearly the same.

[tinycorkscrew]

randallc is right, the XPs (and MPs) make use of the SSE instruction set. Lots of encoding software uses SSE, so if your number one concern is encoding, an XP at the same clock speed should produce noticeable improvement in TMPGEnc, for example.

d4n13l: How do you figure SCSI would improve encoding time? Hard drive speed makes zero difference in the encoding process. For capturing and editing, a 10k or 15k SCSI drive makes a huge difference, but encoding is almost entirely CPU-dependent.

[TIbrO]

That's why I am waiting for like an Athlon XP 2400 or some crap like that... only then will I upgrade. I think that will be my new processor upgrade method... upgrade every time the procs get 1Ghz faster than the current one I have. I used to wait until processors got 3 times faster than my current one before upgrading.

[d4n13l]

<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 2001-11-21 12:56:08, tinycorkscrew wrote:
d4n13l: How do you figure SCSI would improve encoding time? Hard drive speed makes zero difference in the encoding process. For capturing and editing, a 10k or 15k SCSI drive makes a huge difference, but encoding is almost entirely CPU-dependent.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was being a bit lazy and didnt expand my reasoning.
What I meant, was that SCSI will bring an all round performance gain. I didnt mean that it would speed up encoding time, hehe. My point was that it is money wisely spent: Why pay for a new shiny CPU when it will only speed up encoding times by what... minutes... an hour maybe at the most? (Depends what you are encoding I guess)
A SCSI subsystem would be better value for money if you have some spare cash to throw at your system.
Also, bear in mind that when you upgrade the CPU, you are left with a redundant CPU. If you buy a SCSI HD then you will still be able to use your old HD's.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-11-21 13:22:45 ]</font>

[Peter]

According to a test with use of SSE:
XP 1800+ 1.53 Ghz --> 14,6 fps
Athlon 1.4 Ghz --> 11,6 fps

[so Athlon 1.4 at 1.53 --> appr. 12,7 fps]

You will get an improvement of about 2 fps, if that's worth the money buy it.

[randallc]

Study's and tests have shown over and over that IDE is the way to go for desktop. Where SCSI really shines is extremely high demand like in a heavily used database situation. These days aside from the absolute fastest (and beyond and individuals budget) SCSI drives are no faster than IDE like they used to be. Yes you get a little cpu power offloaded to the SCSI processor, but for the money that a good scsi card will cost you, and the premium for the SCSI drive - I certainly wouldn't recommend this to anybody.

If you want affordably enhanced drive performance, I'd highly suggest you get a decent RAID card and through several IDE drives into the mix, now you'll get smoking performance and also offload cpu time to the RAID card. Throughput on a nice raid is amazing. Seek times amazing too.

[lmennuti]

Thanks for all the replies folks.

As far as going SCSI, I've been a SCSIman for a long time. My rig;
- C: 36gb 10k rpm Seagate Cheetah Ultra160
- D: Same as above
- F & G = CDRW and DVD
- H: 3x18.2gb 10k SCSI RAID-0 array (Capture Drive)

And this is getting tougher by the minute, since the primary encoder I use happens to be TMPGEnc (which apparently utilizes SSE).

While 2fps better performance doesn't seem like much, you gotta do the math...

At 29.997 NTSC (let's just round off to 30), a 1 hour show (which is actually about 45 minutes minus the commercials) comes out to 81,000 frames (30frames x 60 seconds = 1,800frames per minute x 45 minutes = 81,000).

Using Peter's numbers, the Tbird @ 1.53GHz will get the show done in 1hr-46min and the XP @ 1.53GHz will get it done in 1hr-32min for a difference of 14minutes.

Hmmmmm.

[randallc]

This may not work for everybody, but I got a free 10% increase in speed using TMPGEnc v2.01. I think this part of the program is primarily meant for SMP but I sure got an increase with a single 1.3ghz Thunderbird.

OPTIONS | ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS | CPU | USE MULTITHREAD (turn this option on) Just making this one setting change increased my TMPGEnc output by 10 - 15%. Not bad!

Randy

[d4n13l]

randallc,
Sorry dude, but SCSI still rules and IDE still sucks .
Desktops... mmmm, maybe, considering most users of desktops are your average Joe. SCSI is for the pros - for workstations and such, EIDE is for those people with... that horrible OS made by M$ . Where SCSI really shines through is not just heavy database usage, but any HD intensive task. I do agree that it doesnt come cheap, but you do get what you pay for and you can find hardware really cheap if you know where to look. It seems as though our man already has a SCSI subsystem though.
Like you, I would probably say for most people, IDE RAID would be a better value upgrade.
BTW, I like your tip, "upgrades" like that are by far the best, as they are free.

Imennuti,
I would hold off on the CPU for a few months, dont fall for the marketing. Perhaps hold off enough time to enable you to upgrade to a dual CPU system? Now that would be a whole lot better, it would also give you a killer workstation with that SCSI array you have. It also wouldnt leave you with a spare CPU.
BTW, would you swap your SCSI array for an EIDE and the few extra bucks? I think not...

[randallc]

d4n13l, I don't want to argue. Just to say that I've run both and my experiences are first hand.

I don't think SCSI is worth it, an EIDE raid is my pick.

cheers,

randy

[lmennuti]

Well, I can't speak for IDE RAID (since I never used one). But for pure SCSI vs. IDE...I've got 1 example of why I'll take SCSI over IDE anyday...

Try burning a CD while listening to MP3s and surfing the net, ALL at the same time off 1 drive (SCSI or IDE).

[porterd1]

I find this interesting since I just bought a new computer for DV editing and authoring. I work with SCSI and EIDE systems.

I put the following system together myself:
DUAL AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz
80gig EIDE
1 gig ECC DDRAM (PC2100)
GeForce2 64meg MX400
Windows 2000 professional
(and all the other stuff).

My performance is amazing. I am able to convert and render using TMP... at amazing speed. I actually do not use all of the CPU. I can convert to videos at the same time in the same amount of time it takes to do one.

So, as far as upgrade I would consider going dual. I bought the bare bones system (case and motherboard) and went from there. The system cost $1500.

As far as SCSI. They are the way to go with RAID and those times when using a VLDBMS like I use at work on our Sun Systems. I also think they are good for file servers.

PS. I can do all kinds of other things while this thing rips too.

[tinycorkscrew]

Like porterd1, I have a dual Athlon 1.2ghz. It is great for multitasking, and lots of programs that I use regularly (Premiere, Photoshop, TMPGEnc, Microsoft's Movie Maker, etc) make use of both CPUs.

If you know a little bit about hardware, self-built comps are definitely the way to go. porterd1 spent about %1500 on his system. I probably spent about the same.

My wife and I put together:
Dual AMD Athlon 1.2ghz
Tyan Thunder K7 motherboard
Seagate Cheetah 15k rpm 18 gb
Old IDE hard drive for program files
Soundblaster Live 5.1
NCR 22" monitor (rebranded Mitsubishi 2040u)
MAG Innovision 14" monitor
Onboard ATI video
Geforce 256 DDR
Windows XP Professional
Addtronics W8500 case (which is big enough to sit on)
etc

While I may go with an IDE RAID array in the future for storing large files, I can't imagine doing video editing without my Seagate Cheetah X15. The seek time is incredible.

[d4n13l]

randallc,
I dont want to argue either, I was just slightly kidding about in my last post .
I understand your point, but I am a SCSI fan, thats all. However, I do like EIDE RAID very much, I suppose what suits best would depend on what you use your system for at the end of the day. The only down side to SCSI is the price, but if you want the best, you gotta pay.
I want SCSI RAID in my next system, I dont mind paying extra, as it would benefit me greatly - Virtually everything I use my system for requires mucho-power. I hate hanging around for tasks to complete or not being able to multitask as much as I can.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-11-22 12:16:28 ]</font>

[DrFresh2]

I've got an Athlon XP 1800+ - but why can't I use the SSE option in TMPGEnc? Doesn't TMPGEnc recognize that processor?

[d4n13l]

What about SSE-2?

[DrFresh2]

Neither