AMD X2 - L2 Cache size - Encoding

[SteelSpy]

I am running an AMD64 3000 and video encoding takes a long time. It also cripples my machine while it is running.

It looks like I can reduce the encoding time by upgrading my CPU to an AMD64 X2. I am hoping that I can also run other basic tasks while the encoding is being done without seeing the huge performance hit I currently see while encoding.

I am wondering how much difference the larger L2 cache will make?
The AMD64 X2 3800, 4200 & 4600 (Manchester) offer 2 x 512k L2 cache, while the 4400 & 4800 (Toledo) offer 2 x 1024k L2 cache.

I can't decide between the 3800 & the 4400. (I realize the 4400 runs at 2.2 Ghz and the 3800 runs at 2.0)
Am I going to see any real benefit from the larger L2 cache?
The 4400 is $175 dollars more expensive than the 3800. I could buy a nice 6600 GT or more memory with that additional $175.

I've taken a liking to Canopus ProCoder 2.0. I am using it for XVID to DVD as well as some DV to DVD conversions.

Thanx All
SteelSpy

MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum nForce3 Ultra Athlon 64
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Socket 939
Corsair TWINX1024-3200C2PT 1GB DDR400 XMS3200 Dual-Channel
NEC 3540a
200 GB Barracuda 7200.8 SATA
250 GB Barracuda 7200.8 SATA
ATI 9700 Pro
Samsung 910T
XP Pro SP2

[redwudz]

I doubt the bigger cache will make a lot of difference. Dual core will help, but your present setup shouldn't be that slow. Dual core performance is also dependant on the programs you are using and your motherboard. It should be able to split your operations, but that may not give you a large increase in speed. But it should give a boost in multitasking.

Easier and probably cheaper would be to use a different computer if you really want to multitask while encoding.

[guns1inger]

If encoding video/audio is the primary reason for this machine's existence, then rip out the MB and install a dual core (or better yet, and true dual CPU) intel board. The long instruction pipeline of the pentium series makes it much more efficient than AMD at this time of processing, and beats it out by 10 - 15%, everything else being equal.

In pretty much everything else the AMD is as good as or much better than intel, but for heavy data processing like this, the intel architecture gives it the edge.

[SteelSpy]

I am not interested in starting an intel vs amd thread.
And from what I am reading, the "intel encodes better" argument is suspect when it comes to the dual core AMD64 X2.

Does anyone have any comparisons between the 4600 and the 4800 or the 4200 and the 4400. I am really curious what effect (if any) the larger L2 cache has on encoding and multitasking.

[greymalkin]

translation:

"I've already made up my mind, now tell me what I want to hear"

[kush]

You could also look at the Opteron dual core chips..165/170 in particular. The 165 is available @ appx. the same price - ~$320, but comes with 1M cache vs. the 3800+'s 512k..Slightly slower @ 1.8GHz per core vs the 3800+'s 2.0 - but... The Opteron (single core wise at least) also seems to overclock better than the "regular" A64's - so dual core shouldn't be any different. With 3800+'s o/c's of 2.4-2.6 GHz and higher are not uncommon, but plan on staying at or under 2.4ish with a stock cooler.

And no, they're not the S940 workstation/server/ECC memory only chips - they're newer S939, same as the regular A64 line. IOW, they'll work in any board that supports dual core.


[edit]
Examples..from http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/printthread.php?t=935362 via google. (didn't feel like finding more familiar sites this is first one that came up).

--
A64 3800+ | CHBHE 0526UPBW | 3000 mhz | 1.584V | Mach I | Link
- A64 3800+ | CDBHE 0527UPBW | 2900 mhz | 1.504V | Phase | Link
- A64 3800+ | CCBWE 0529RPMW | 2854 mhz | 1.552V | Ad acqua | Link
- A64 3800+ | CCBWE 0528MPMW | 2752 mhz | 1.632V | Ad aria | Link
- A64 3800+ | CDBHE 0535RPAW | 2700 mhz | 1.552V | Ad aria | Link (CapFTP)
- A64 3800+ | CHBHE 0531TPAW | 2700 mhz | 1.616V | Ad aria | Link
- A64 3800+ | CCBWE 0529SPMW | 2650 mhz | 1.440V | Ad aria

OPT 165 | CCBWE 0534SPMW | 2916 mhz | 1.532V | Ad acqua | Link
- OPT 165 | CCBWE 0534SPMW | 2806 mhz | 1.536V | Ad aria | Link (Mo3bius)
- OPT 165 | CCBWE 0541SPMW | 2502 mhz | 1.504V | Ad aria | Link
--
I can't speak italian, but obviously aria=air, acqua=water, Mach I, well that's phase change cooling (to the tune of like $1000 US)

[/edit]

[wulf109]

How long is it taking with your Athlon 64 3000?? Did you check the UDMA speed in Control Panel? It should be UDMA6.

[SteelSpy]

translation:

"I've already made up my mind, now tell me what I want to hear"

To a certain degree, yes. All the numbers for the X2 look good. I'm looking for some specific details.

KUSH,
I hadn't really considered the Opteron option.
Now I have something else to think about.
But I don't see supprt for the Opteron listed for my MB. I'll dig a little deeper on that one.

I'm still looking for a direct comparison of the X2 cpu's that will show what gains can be had from the larger cache

Thank you

SteelSpy
[/quote]

[guns1inger]

From the horses mouth

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041%5E13077,00.html

Doesn go as low as the 3800, but covers the other models.

[kush]

I would take those in-house results with a grain of salt though, if I were you - even if they were done by a 3rd party, it's still a 3rd party that was PAID by AMD to do the tests..Nor do they break down the results of each program tested - rest assured the X2s didn't blow away the competition in every test (nor any results from an In*el machine to be found there).

.I would look out on independent hardware review sites - ie: techreport, anandtech, [h]ardocp, etc..And check out some real world results - esp. ones that run encoding tests. Most seem to run Dr. Divx conversions, but some actually run them w/ progs like TMPGenc and Premiere (both dual core aware I believe).

As far as the OPs board goes, you may not have *official* support for even the X2s, let alone the Opteron versions of the same (may need an NF4 board for it) - I saw no additions alluding to them while doing a quick look @ the MSI site for BIOS updates for your board. That doesn't mean however that you can't run dual core at all..

Good example of a similar situation would be w/ the prev generation overclockers toy - the XP-M (mobile). NO mobo maker has official support for them in BIOS (in post they usually show "UNKNOWN CPU" or something, but being the same chips as "regular" desktop counterparts, they work, albeit they POST usually @ 6x100, requiring a manual clock setting..And they are/were UNLOCKED chips, unlike all chips since late '03 [i think] which were super locked.

Enough of that...Oh and btw, re: the 512k>1M cache - there would be about a 5% difference, maybe a little more, maybe a little less..Nothing major.

[guns1inger]

He doesn't seem to be looking for independent results concerning X2 against Intel, or for specific tests. Just the relative differences between the chips with different cache sizes.

[SteelSpy]

Kush & Guns1inger:
Thank You! I appreciate the information.

As I look at the dual core 939 opterons, I like what I am seeing.
I just wish I had got going a few weeks earlier so I could have snagged an s939 opteron 165. That looked like the most cost effective way to go.

It isn't that I am against Intel. I decided (right or wrong) to go socket 939 and AMD 64 3000+ late last year. Today, I can get $100 for my 3000+.

I have been doing more and more encoding, and the X2 caught my eye.
Now I'm leaning toward the opteron. If I get any OC out of an opteron at all, that's just icing on the cake.

I've seen people in the forums at anandtech that are running the opteron successfully in the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum nForce3 Ultra.

As to the question of cache, when it comes to the X2, The extra bang probably isn't worth the buck. But in the case of the 165 or 170, the opteron already has that bang without the extra buck.