AMD vs Intel: best processor for video editing?

[Dick vd G]

My retailer says AMD processors will occasionally hang the PC, or produce errors in the results, when using an AMD powered PC for video editing. Only Intel based PC's (as long as you stick to Windows as the OS of course) will produce good results in video editing.

Is this true? If it is true, why? And if it is not true, what ARE the critical factors/components when building a video editing system?

Thanks a lot for everyone's help,
Dick

[RabidDog]

you really should blow it up your retailers ass! Neither intel nor AMD are dysfunctional processors. However generally there is a higher margin on Intel processors. He may simply be thinking of old info when, I think, 1 video editing program had a problem with a certain class of amd processor. Dont buy a different processor, use a different retailer, this is disinformation! speed and size, the bigger the better!

[vermilion]

AMD's are just fine for video editing, but the Intels are a lot better at it. If you already have a good speed AMD, 2400 (2Ghz) or better, then just stick with that.

[Dick vd G]

Thanks so far,
@Vermilion: can you explain to me WHY Yntels are a lot better at it, and how much "a lot" is (10%, 50%, 100%, ?%...)?

I'm considering buying a new XP2600+ system with 1 GB of RAM and an FX5600 graphics board with ViVo and 256 MB of memory. My dealer recommends an Intel 2,4 GHz system. By how much would that Intel based system be better than the AMD based system?

[LanEvo7]

It depends on what your budget is. Both company's make good processors for video editing, but if you have the money go Intel. Intel's processors provided the best performance for video editing right now. If your budget is on the lower/mid end, look into both companies.

[LanEvo7]

Get the 2.4, make sure its a 2.4C though not the previous versions. You'll get better performance with it.

BTW, you should switch the 5600 to a radeon 9600 VIVO or AIW.

[Dick vd G]

Thanks again very much everyone for all the quick responses.

I still wonder though:

- WHY do Intel processors provide better performance? Is it the instruction set? What is the difference with AMD's that makes them perform better?
- What performance margin are we talking about here, 10% or 90%?

[bugster]

Thanks again very much everyone for all the quick responses.

I still wonder though:

- WHY do Intel processors provide better performance? Is it the instruction set? What is the difference with AMD's that makes them perform better?
- What performance margin are we talking about here, 10% or 90%?

AFAIK, the only thing Intel has over current AMD processors (except the AMD64 class chips) is SSE2 instructions. SO if your app is not SSE2 enabled it makes no difference. If it is SSE2 enabled, it can make from a small to a big difference depending on what opartions are being performed.

Oh, I suppose hyperthreading can be a help too (Intel only again).

[triphop]

For me this is a bang/buck decision and AMD Athlon (32bit) wins hands down. Now, if you have lots of bucks to burn, then all bets are off. If you wish to get expensive then there are a number of multi-processor configurations that you might be interested in - all the way up to n-way XEON or Opteron configurations - but this is rarified stuff.

My recommendation is go and get yourself a 2.4 Athlon and spend the extra money on decent video gear (cam/VCR) etc - this is an expensive hobby and the computer is only part of the story.

[Dick vd G]

Let's see if I've got it right so far:

- Intel proc's have the performance edge over AMD's, the margin of which depends on what operations you perform; possible cause is the hyperthreading mechanism and/or SSE2 instructions that Intel proc's sport and AMD proc's don't (on the Pinnacle Knowledge Base I indeed found an article advising the owner of an AMD based PC to turn off SSE2-support in the Studio software settings).

- AMD based video editing systems will NOT lead to more PC crashes or corrupt video files than Intel based systems.

Correct?

[spiderman2k1]

One of the reason some people like Intel better for pro app's is that they write the program for intel SSE2 that does not mean AMD will not work good. Intel is just faster on some program's but AMD is faster for gaming. So I would make a game on intel but play in on AMD. Both CPU's will do the job but in some app's one CPU might be little better. Bottom line both CPU's are good and both will do the job but they are tweak for different thing's.

[vermilion]

Just go and look at the benchmarks on sites like tomshardware. If sites show that the 2.4C itself beats all Althon XP chip. I can't tell you how much faster your endcoding will go, but if video work in what you do most of the time, then the extra cash you spend for the Intel will be will spent. I have a XP 2400 now, and I have not had any trouble endcoding video, taking my movies from VHS to MPEG. If you're getting this system for video work and gaming, then you should go with the Althon. I think you should go for the 2500, you can O/C to 3200 speeds, if you have good enough cooling. If you're into gaming, I really would get a better video card.

[andkiich]

Your retailer wants you to buy the Intel chips because they cost more(sometime 2 to 3 times as much as a comparable AMD), not because they are markedly better than the AMD.

I'd trust the opinion of people on this site before I'd trust 99% of the wahoos that work at computer shops. Whenever I buy stuff I always go in knowing what I want, shopping for the best price.

[robrosen]

AMD's run hotter. Much hotter. This means you need better cooling on AMD machines than on Intel machines. It also means that if a fan in the computer dies, an AMD machine is more likely to overheat, causing the premature failure of other components in the system.

Among enthusiasts, Intel machines are much more overclockable than AMD's. This means that Intel has built substantial redundancy into its chips, whereas AMD slaps on practically the maximum speed rating it can on its chips. This is one of the reasons that AMD machines are much more prone to overheating than Intel chips - the Intel specs are more rigorous.

I write as the owner of 2 AMD-based machines I built from components. I think AMD's are a great deal, but better suited towards hard core hobbyists than the casual non-technical user. AMD-based machines are just less reliable, which is why few large scale PC builders have adopted the CPU, despite its significantly lower cost. The heat problem is a big deal - when AMD's overheat, they actually burn a hole in the motherboard, whereas Pentiums just slow down.

[LanEvo7]

The included HSF for the AMD chip will run fine. Besides all AMD motherboards now have overheat protection, if your chip reaches a certain temperature, the computer will shutdown automatically.

[BJ_M]

i think there are equally good - though i prefer intel - because of the chipsets used ..

which is what a lot it boils down to -- who has the best (stable / fast / features) chip set and motherboards ...

[lordsmurf]

Intel.

- better motherboards
- better cooling
- better speeds due to SSE/SSE2

AMD was optimized for lower priorities (typing, e-mail, etc) and higher graphics (games, graphics rendering, etc).

Intel was optimized for being a powerhorse, which is what video requires.

I had many bad experiences with AMD back in the P2 and P3 days, mostly because I "abuse" my systems by pushing them to the limits (though I refuse to overclock). I know of others that had bad experience. I saw first-hand an AMD melting. I learned to spend more and deal with costs. It's easier than dealing with CPU problems.

Spend what you can and make it work. Hopefully you can get Intel. If not, well, then, do what you can.

[Vejita-sama]

I would say that the only thing intel has over AMD is SSE2, and as others have stated a lot of programs do not even use it.

Better MBs? Not so much better as a smaller range. There are a LOT of AMD based boards out there some are crap others not. I have an Abit NF7-S (rev 2.0) and it rocks.

Cooling. Yeah AMD chips run hotter, but with proper cooling it's not a big deal. People always talk about 'well if I run my CPU with a HSF it goes for 20min, but the AMD will melt.' So what, you runs a CPU without a HSF these days.

Dollar for dollar AMD is a better choice, more bang for the buck. If you've got the money then yeah a dual process Xenon is the way to go I've got a Barton 2500+ OC to 11x200 (save overclock, 3200+ speeds). But lots of people OC this chip to 11.5x215 stable (above that you need to get into watercooling and other crazy stuff).

I'm encoding in CCE 2.5 sp at ~2.818 or 0.35x source runtime per pass. That's about on par with my friends Intel 3.2Ghz, but I paid a whole lot less for my system 8)

[Metaluna]

I have been doing a lot of upgrading as well as editing and encoding on my two PC's over the past 6 months or so. One is an AMD Barton 2500+ overclocked to 2.08GHz (equivalent to a 2800+). The motherboard is an Nforce2 with dual-channel PC2700 memory and 166/333 MHz FSB and memory buses. The other system is an Intel P4 2.6C (not oc'ed) on a Canterwood dual-channel board with PC3200 memory and 200/400 MHz buses. Here are some observations:

The Intel is somewhat faster in TMPGEnc with hyperthreading turned on. The difference is like 1hr50 vs. 2hr10 or thereabouts for the typical encodes that I do. The difference is not very noticeable in practice though since you probably are doing something else and not paying much attention to the encode (If you're sitting around for 2 hours watching your encoder, you have problems...). Prior to getting this motherboard, the AMD system was easily beating a 2.53GHz Northwood system with single channel 333MHz DDR. The P4 seems to have better ATA controllers as I notice that I get higher throughput on Norton Ghost backups and a few other disk-intensive operations.

The P4 cpu runs about the same temps as the Barton (about 11C over ambient typically), though it has a better heatsink (Thermalright SLK-900 vs. SLK-800 on the AMD). The P4 system overall runs somewhat hotter than the AMD. The 875 northbridge throws a lot of heat (you can barely put your finger on the heatsink).

So my feelings in general are as follows: To me, the P4 system feels more "polished". I like the speed of the ATA controllers, and the ICH5 southbridge with integrated SATA is slick, not to mention the CSA gigabit ethernet on this board, and the easy heatsink installation thanks to the P4's well-thought-out design including the heat spreader and retention shroud. The Nvidia board seems a little rougher around the edges. For example Nvidia still is having major problems releasing a stable native IDE driver for its chipset. Many people end up using the stock Microsoft drivers for stability (Nvidia just released some new WHQL drivers but they crash my system as soon as I install the drivers for my Santa Cruz soundcard). These are purely impressions though (other than the ATA speed). The AMD system is totally reliable and fast, as is the P4.

My second observation is that the P4 running cooler has been a myth since the introduction of the Thoroughbred and Barton cores from AMD (the only ones you can buy now). Maybe at the same clock speed the P4 is cooler, but you have to run the clock much higher to get similar performance. And that super-high-speed frontside bus does not do the northbridge any favors in terms of operating temps. Besides, temperature is only of relevance to overclockers. Most non-overclocked CPU's can tolerate temperatures much higher than you will see in a desktop environment with a decent, properly-installed heatsink (even the stock retail one).

My third observation is that putting the P4 system together at the time cost over twice as much as the AMD. Considering all the technology Intel had to throw at it to make the P4 outperform the AMD (Hyperthreading, dual channel, super high speed buses, etc.), and how much you have to pay to take advantage of it, the little AMD system performs like a champ. So, while both systems are good, the AMD is my sentimental favorite. I would have a hard time justifying spending the extra money on a P4 if I had it to do over again.

[Dick vd G]

Thanks everyone and Metaluna in particular for the extensive and detailed information. I think I have learned a lot in a very short time that will really help me make a good decision.

[HAGGARD]

I'm encoding in CCE 2.5 sp at ~2.818 or 0.35x source runtime per pass. That's about on par with my friends Intel 3.2Ghz, but I paid a whole lot less for my system 8)

Hmmm, I don't know CCE, but I do know that with P4 and trying the same thing with TMPGEnc with the right Environmental Settings (Use multi-thread, enable all multi-thread settings) will definitly beat your AMD performance!!!

Most people with new P4 HT processors forget to set the right Environmental settings in encoding software (like I did in the first place).

'HAG

[Pderbidge]

Your retailer wants you to buy the Intel chips because they cost more(sometime 2 to 3 times as much as a comparable AMD), not because they are markedly better than the AMD. \

Although these posts are a bit old now, I feel my two cents might help. First, if an Intel Chips is more expensive then the retailer paid more for the P4 chip as well and is not likely making a higher margin on the chips. In pricing out higher end chip models of AMD versus Intel the price differnce is practically the same now until you get into the lower end chips. The retailer is talking of past experience which was probably true at one time. The reason that Video editing tends to go smoother on a Pentium chip is due to , as mentioned before, the code of the application (software). Intel has been around a long time in the chip making business and most video editing apps are optimized(software code is written to take advantage of special features on an the chip) on Intel chips taking advantage of Intel features such as SIMD, SSE2, and now SSE3 as well as Hyperthreading. AMD later adopted some of these features (not Hyperthreading). If you are serious about video editing then I would definitely go with a Pentium 4 or even a Xeon (Intels Server chip) unless you are a real AMD buff then at least an AMD 3200+ given that this is the chip that seems to hold a strong candle to the Pentium 4 in multimedia applications. There is another reason to go with AMD other than being an AMD buff, and that is if you are a gamer. While most Video Editing apps are optimized on Intel chips, so are most games on AMD (probably due to a good strategy from AMD to lure and help out game software developers with AMD systems for development) so if gaming is a big deal for you than perhaps even a less expensive AMD chip like the xp2400+ would be worth the sacrifice in video editing performance but great gaming performance. We are talking about only minutes at the most in performance differnce however so you still should get good performance out of a lower end Athlon chip, especailly if you own a really old computer then anything today will seem fast to you. Just keep in mind that your other components are duly as important as your processor for compatablility issues can kill your system no matter how good your chip is. And one more thing that I cannot stress enough. Study up on how to best keep your PC cool. Cooling a PC with the rise of faster processors is really becoming an issue and can also hamper your systmes performance as well as fry it completely so take great care to get expert opinions, like mine Good luck!

[Capmaster]

There may be some truth to what the salesman said, although probably for the wrong reason.

CPUs have a feature internal to the processor called branch prediction. Intel first designed this feature into the Pentium Pro (could be Pentium 2 ...relying on memory here ). What it does is predict which branch of code the app is going to follow and executes ahead of time, storing the results in a pipelined register. If it's correct it gives an effective speed boost. If it's wrong, it has to flush the stages of the pipeline and start again. It's a gamble and most of the time it wins and occasionally it loses. Some applications are more branchy than others and so the penalty is imposed more often. Games and business apps for example. Others are less branchy, like video editing.

AMD's current crop uses a shorter pipeline than Intel chips. It has fewer stages .... for example 12 stages (AMD Athlon 64) versus 20 (Intel Northwood) or even 31 (Intel Prescott). This gives the AMD a slight edge when running branchy code and the benchmarks show more instructions per CPU clock cycle. The Intel has an advantage over the AMD in less-branchy code, like video editing, because it can execute farther ahead.

I doubt the salesperson knew about this difference ...he proabably wanted to sell the more expensive system.

Here's more info about processors from a recent PC Mag article:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1558512,00.asp

[thinger62]

Not too long ago, I did an unscientific test of an AMD 2500 Barton vs. a 2.8 800 fsb with ht. The amd took 3 hours to encode, the p4 took 2 hours for the same clip. Memory was the same, as was software. Obviously mobos were different. In my book that is a 50% difference.

[pepegot1]

AMD & Intel are both fine, but more software is Intel friendly than AMD. I could not use Pinnacle Studio 7 sucessfully with my AMD machine. I switched to Ulead VS 6.0 and it worked fine. That was a while ago. When you install an ATI 9xxx AIW in you computer, ATI warns you to get the latest VIA drivers else you may have problems. No problem with Intel however. Both are good chips.

[Capmaster]

Although I'm an Intel-only man, I'm extremely glad to see AMD making a run at Intel. The worst situation is for a company to be so dominant that it loses its "edge" and gets fat and complacent (remind anyone of someone? ).

[Ziffelpig]

Get a Mac "the best processor for video editing" and be done with it. Macs out perform both intel and athalon, most video professionals use Macs.

[Capmaster]

Get a Mac "the best processor for video editing" and be done with it. Macs out perform both intel and athalon

This comparison done by PC World, who also publishes Mac World, suggests otherwise

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

Full article:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,7,00.asp

Even a dual-processor G5 got edged out by a single-CPU Athlon 64 FX-51. So much for the "fastest PC" claim :P Even the single-CPU 3.2 GHz P4 out-performed the dual-CPU G5 in the Premier 6 video test, and the Athlon 64 FX-51 and Opteron pimp-slapped it.

[indolikaa]

I'm going with Intel next time around. I'm taking rallynavvie's advice and goin' for the Dual Xeons.

But first I'll be calling ditech.com for that equity loan.

[Capmaster]

I'm going with Intel next time around. I'm taking rallynavvie's advice and goin' for the Dual Xeons.

But first I'll be calling ditech.com for that equity loan.

They're not cheap
Rallynavvie convinced me. He knows his stuff. It'll be a Xeon machine for my new one. Whether it's dual or single CPU will depend on finances. I'll have to decide whether I'll benefit from more RAM, bigger HD or second CPU if it comes down to making a choice.