VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5
FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 121 to 148 of 148
Thread
  1. Hi gmatov

    Their latest giant leap was 66 megahertz, a 2 % increase in speed. Not impressive
    AMD chips on the XP line have increased only 66 Mhz for every 100 Mhz in speed change, except in a few cases when the P4 did some big performance changes.

    1700+ 1.47 Ghz
    1800+ 1.53 Ghz
    1900+ 1.60 Ghz
    2000+ 1.67 Ghz
    2100+ 1.73 Ghz
    2200+ 1.80 Ghz

    Steve
    Quote Quote  
  2. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Pgh Area
    Search Comp PM
    gf,
    That wasn't a put down of Intel.
    In context, " Intel has the same problem. Their latest giant leap was 66 megahertz, a 2 % increase in speed. Not impressive. And it's not going to be easy to go higher, either."
    It's extremely difficult to get higher speeds from these things. Neither company is going to make giant strides, without a breakthrough discovery.
    I'm sure AMD was not happy bringing out their newest and best at a lower clock, but they had to put something out and it was the best they could qualify.
    And they're obsoleting the stuff we already have. New MOBOs, new RAM, new everything required for the new CPUs, going to 900+ pins, etcetera.
    This happens every generation, nothing new, just can't up with a faster CPU. And then, you start the whole shake out the bugs routine again. The new MOBOs are glitchy, too, gotta wait for revised boards, and if everyone waits, they don't get the feedback, or bitches" to tell them the probs TO repair.
    Vicious cycle. Early adopters pay the most for the worst product, but without them, we wouldn't get the new and improved product.
    My hat's off to them.
    Quote Quote  
  3. I looked through most of the post here and did not see any benchmarks showing that the extra cache out benefits the lower clock speed in video encoding. Although the extra clock speed IMO would probably be more of a performance factor than the extra cache, but you never know - it's all about how the program was written ( for cache hits, memory bandwidth, or pipeline specific optimization ).

    It's pretty funny that the intel vs amd subject pop'd up when the original poster stated he/she did not want any comments about P4 vs XP. And also that he has a limited budget - this would imply that he does not have the funds to purchase a new mother board ( changing from Socket A to 478 ).

    My two cents about P4 vs XP - well if you want the fastest now, then buy the fastest intel CPU. But if you like to get your moneys worth, then AMD has a better price per performance ratio - I usually exclude the top two or three models of AMD CPUs since they are over priced. The 2800+ and down make for great price/performance CPU's compared to intel. I stick with the facts when purchasing parts to build system.

    When people make statements like "I bought/built and AMD system and it crashes all the time', well.. don't buy cheap: RAM, power supply, and especially mother boards. I'm a computer tech for 7 years now and from what I can tell you, besides AMD CPUs - don't go cheap on parts - you'll regret it.

    On AMD CPU's melting: I haven't seen a AMD CPU go bad in about a year - infact 2 AMD CPUs for last year and 2 or more Intel CPUs for last year. I build, upgrade, and repair thousands of system a year - its my job.
    Hehe, we do get a good laugh at people talk like there techs but don't know what they're doing. I had a couple of customers install AMD CPUs and HSF with no thermal compound - system would shutdown is POST after 3 or 4 seconds - guess the onboard thermal shutdown works after all : ) The CPUs servived BTW. Hehe, this one guy put the intel logo sticker from his retail package in-between his CPU and HSF and wondered why his system was locking up - LOL

    I run AMD now, but have run Intel in the past and will in the future if things change. I buy parts based on my needs, price, and performance.
    Quote Quote  
  4. malducci - today's processors are almost all bottlenecked by clockspeed when it comes to video encoding. Under most circumstances, upgrading cache size will provide significantly smaller gains than upgrading clock speed. Even bus speed doesn't play too much of a factor (minimal gains).
    Quote Quote  
  5. There is more in a truly fasy system then just the CPU.
    Quote Quote  
  6. AMD chips on the XP line have increased only 66 Mhz for every 100 Mhz in speed change, except in a few cases when the P4 did some big performance changes.
    You can't go clock for clock with AMD cpus. The clockspeed of a cpu does not reflect its true performance.
    [/quote]
    Quote Quote  
  7. malducci - today's processors are almost all bottlenecked by clockspeed when it comes to video encoding. Under most circumstances, upgrading cache size will provide significantly smaller gains than upgrading clock speed. Even bus speed doesn't play too much of a factor (minimal gains).
    True - like I originally stated, I felt the extra cache + lower clockspeed would not prove to better than the lesser cache + higher clockspeed for encoding video. But you have to understand the inner workings of the CPU and the code its running before just accept one explaination of why one is a trade-off over another. The P4 acheived a better performance increase when they increased the L2 cache from 256k to 512k, while the athlon to barton did not gain that much.

    Just because one or more encoders are optimized for SSE2 or raw CPU clock cycles, does not mean someone will or has find a way to write a faster algoritham based on cache hits, memory bandwidth, FPU, etc. Some apps are optimized for the P4's long pipeline and not SSE2 - this still runs with less efficiency on AMD's shorter pipeline. The extra cache and higher FSB helps the P4 because of its long pipeline ( less latency and recover time on a pipeline stall ). I program in machine and assembly language as a hobby
    Quote Quote  
  8. sorry everyone, wrong topic!
    1)Why Not Overclock a little?! speed 4 free!!!!
    2) If your question has anything to do with copying PS2/PC/XBox games, find a more appropriate website
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Bolton, UK
    Search Comp PM
    One thing I have noticed when building systems with AMD CPUs is that the core temperature of the AMD die seems to be a considerable amount higher on AMD CPU's than the equivalent P4.

    Also the metal die part where the heat sink/fan touches is notably smaller (post stamp size) than the bigger area on the P4. As a result heat sinks are not as efficient over a smaller area than the bigger area.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010917/index.html
    Quote Quote  
  10. back to the original question get the cheaper xp2800 and some beer or headache pills depending on how old you are.
    You also havent stated what softwares you use to encode, the difference between using tentpeg and cce far far outweighs a few piffling mhz.
    incidentally all you amd likers, remember those pr ratings are invented by Amd and they appear to be very very questionable on the latest chips. barton.
    sidenote early chip's at lower spped were'nt rejects they were simply sold at a slower rating (than they were capable of) due to supply/demand and the fact that companys only really produce chips at certain speeds due to volume constraints.
    incidentally will the new prescott chip pack a powerful punch??
    Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
    The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons.
    Quote Quote  
  11. ok so excuse my ingnorance but I just read through this whole post
    again (haven't read it since early June.)

    Which AMD chip am I going to get the better bang for the buck out of for
    encodeing with dvd2svcd and cce?

    The 2500+ with the higher L2 cache or the 2600 or better with the
    lesser L2?
    Quote Quote  
  12. My big gripe with AMD is the speed with which they seem to change the chips....

    In other words, the motherboard that worked last week may or may not work with the newest shipment of CPU's. It may not be compatible on a hardware level or Bios level. We had some cheapo DFI Motherboards for Frugal (Cheap) buyers. They worked with the one batch of cpus, then for the same model and speed they didn't work reliable. Talked to the Maker, They agreed, yup hardware not compatible.

    We seem to get to types of buyers with very little inbetween...
    Either Frugal or want top performance.

    YMMV
    Quote Quote  
  13. Best and cheapest processor by AMD:

    Athlon XP 2500+ overclocked with AQUCA stepping and an SLK900 with a smart fan 2 on it. That baby will run faster than a xp 3200......
    My AVI -> Any Format Guide is available here.
    My Frame Resize Calculator (enhanced for Virtualdub) is available here
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by NightWing
    There is more in a truly fasy system then just the CPU.
    Originally Posted by NightWing
    There is more in a truly fasy system then just the CPU.
    NightWing is correct:
    In general the P4 is better for encoding video and such; however that is not the full story. type of motherboard/bus speed/northbride chip set/ hard drive/ memory/video card play a large role in functionality.
    On one machine I have a barton 2500+ unclocked
    a7n8x-dx mb
    2-120 sped 7200 8m wd hard drives
    ti128mvideo
    2+g memory
    and it encodes faster than my
    2gig p4 with generic guts: mb, video, 80gwd harddrive,1024 memory-that is not speculation that is a fact.
    However, if you took the the amd and p4 and had quality guts in each -the p4 would out perform the amd-that is a fact.
    -change is absolute-
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by @2alien
    Originally Posted by NightWing
    There is more in a truly fasy system then just the CPU.
    Originally Posted by NightWing
    There is more in a truly fasy system then just the CPU.
    NightWing is correct:
    In general the P4 is better for encoding video and such; however that is not the full story. type of motherboard/bus speed/northbride chip set/ hard drive/ memory/video card play a large role in functionality.
    On one machine I have a barton 2500+ unclocked
    a7n8x-dx mb
    2-120 sped 7200 8m wd hard drives
    ti128mvideo
    2+g memory
    and it encodes faster than my
    2gig p4 with generic guts: mb, video, 80gwd harddrive,1024 memory-that is not speculation that is a fact.
    However, if you took the the amd and p4 and had quality guts in each -the p4 would out perform the amd-that is a fact.
    Yeah, lately AMd has been slackin' off when it comes to enhacning the CPu, all they did was add cache and increase the FSB. Intel, on the other hand, has been constantly optimising and enhacing, and they actually utilize the full bandwidth available to them. AMd needs to make like Intel and use the unused parts of the CPU whenever there's a big load, thus, truly 1005 of the CPU will be in use, and it won't just be Windows saying that!
    My AVI -> Any Format Guide is available here.
    My Frame Resize Calculator (enhanced for Virtualdub) is available here
    Quote Quote  
  16. Wow I have a headache...

    I just read some of most bunch of BS ive ever seen...lol.

    The original question is 2500+ vs 2600+

    If your going to overclock i'd go for the 2500+. Its natively slower in actual clock speed so it should have a higher overclockability than the 2600+. From what I've seen the stock clocks on the two are close but the 2500+ is faster at alot of encoding tasks. My fastest encoder is my 2100+ tbred Oc'd to a 175FSB. It registeres in XP as a 2700+ and its fast. A 2500+ @ 200fsb is the same as a 3200+ but a hellava lot cheaper. Nforce2 board + dual channel DDR + 2500 Barton is the way to go as far as bang for the buck. Get a decent Heatsink fan and off ya go. BTW. My 2100+ is using the RETAIL fan in a microATX case thats restrictive. They can go much faster. This thing was at one time 217FSB but the room was alot cooler.

    P4's dont usually encode faster, well maybe the new 800FSB ones will. This is all relevant guys/gals. It will depend greatly on what prgram(s) you use. Some programs are not optimized for AMD or INtel or whichever as well as it is for the other. That can make a HUGE difference. Bang for the buck on the low end isnt even close, its AMD baby. The opposite is true on the high end though. The 3200+ is grossly smoked by even a P4 3.0 @ 800FSB and lets not even get out a 3.2 P4. And hte 800 P4's overclock like made. Its almost role reversal at the high end when OC'ing is envolved. You can get a decent HSF and a 2.4C and put it on an 875 or 865PE (with PAT turned on) board and turn 300FSB often. Some people are doing it with the RETAIL fan even. I wouldnt bet on that working at a higher CPU speed like a 2.8 @ 300fsb but at 2.4 its alot cooler to start with. Think about it. 3.6Ghz for $172 (newegg.com's current price.)

    The original question should be answered as this. Get t he 2500+ barton for now. Mid 90's for cost and it'll screem.

    Opterons are way to expensive right now although a price cut was just announced as a new chip is coming soon. For desktop (single CPU) the Athlon64 should be here soon. Dont forget the Next Px from intel is due soon. Both have massive L3 cache and will screem...

    Another thing, the Next Px is going to start life as a socket 478 so some of the current 800FSB boards will support it. Cant put that Athlon64 on ya Nforce2 though. Ah well. I own about 6 of each, AMD and Intel's (not to mention my web server is a Via Ezra) so I have some experience with both. Some people are die hard intel or AMD. Get some more opinions before ya blow to much money ok. Tomshardware.com , anandtech.com and others are good places to start.

    HideOut
    Quote Quote  
  17. HideOut, you lucky SOB, you got one of the 2100s with the good stepping. Yeah, go get an xp 2500 and hope for the AQUCA stepping. If you get slk900 with two smart fan 2s, you'll be going at something like 2300MHz easily, or so I have seen. You can probably get sometihing near to the performance of a P4 3.2GHz with a greatly OCed xp 2500.
    My AVI -> Any Format Guide is available here.
    My Frame Resize Calculator (enhanced for Virtualdub) is available here
    Quote Quote  
  18. Hey Andy, have you upgraded or decided on what you are doing yet?
    Looks like we just skipped July

    If you already have a 2600+, I would not bother with upgrading your CPU.

    There is more in a truly fasy system then just the CPU.
    What he said.

    If you know the about AMDs rating, the actual clock speed, and the performance of the CPUs...ingnore the rating. The rating is only there for people who would not know a 2.2ghz AMD Athlon XP has a similar performance with a 3.2 Intel Pentium 4. AMD has to put the rating on unless they want to loose out on a lot of sales which they would need. The rating really is sufficient for its purpose, unless you want to demote yourself to those who don't know better. :P I just look at it like AMDs rating is the exchange rate going between AMDs mhz (USD=lower,worth more) to Intel mhz (Canadian dollar=higher,less value).
    But anyway, its time for a new CPU from both companies. These old cores where starting to get old.

    I really wish Intel would get away from their old pipelining technology though...with fast clock speed, more latency and fewer instructions per clock. Intel has a lot of software, register optimizations for them to be where they are. Take a non-optimized program and it runs faster on an AMD no doubt (depends on the nature of the program though). Most multimedia apps out there, if optimized, are only optimized for Intels SSE2 (AMD64 have SSE2 also...which reminds me, .09 micron AMD64s will rock in '04). Some are AMD optimized which is great. I just dont really care for Intel the company i guess. They like to control everything, seem to be greedy and underhanded. Hardware is OK but overpriced. Funny thing is Intel was being looked at as a monopoly right as AMD came in with a competitive CPU back in the day. So they dropped the case.

    But ya know, AMD vs Intel and ATI vs Nvidia seem to have a lot in common. Efficent/Power vs Excessive/Speed.
    Both Nvidia and Intel make there rounds with the software companys looking to make pay offs and get optimizations for their hardware. What if this company decides to look infavor at the competition or do something unfavorable at a point in the future? Make them pay, raise their costs, make them look bad. Why did Intel lower its price on its motherboards? Because some brandname boards enabled PAT which Intel didnt want enabled on lower classed boards. Payback and controling the market (they like to do that ya know, its their way).

    Motherboard compatibility?
    Current nForce2 motherboard for AMD CPUs can support an old duron or lower clocked Athlon. AMD has not changed the socket for some time (Socket A).
    As for if you had a 333FSB compatible motherboard not working with a 400FSB CPU at that speed, it is the same with Intel on their 533FSB boards not working with 800FSB CPUs.
    Intel changes sockets and motherboard compatibility more or less because they make motherboards unlike AMD (same with the overheating problem blamed on AMD, its the motherboards). They want some extra profit from users upgrading their motherboards to get the latest and most expensive CPUs.

    AMDs CPUs consume and run on less power and give off less heat although they do not have a heatspreader (like a P4 or AMD64) which would impact the temp.

    I just got a lovely AMD Barton 2800+ for 180$ (12.5x166).
    Have it currently running cool at 11x200. Thinking about pushing it up after I get rid of this Volcano 11 HSF, which I got for 8 bucks (store credit), and get a real HSF.
    Have not done any projects on this setup yet considering I just installed the new CPU and OS yesterday.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Search Comp PM
    i don't know as much as you guy on this subject.

    but i have a amd 1200 512 ram 256cache 70 gig XP pro machine
    (which i call my wife's computer)

    and

    a pent 4 2.4 512ram 512 cache 80 gig XP home (my computer)

    my video chores are faster on mine (problably 25-40% faster)

    the 48x cd burner is faster on my wife (it does real time cd burning 1min48sec) than the 48x burner on mine (anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes)

    however the amd is more ruggeg

    i swap video cards about a 1000 times (currently a geoforce 4 mx440)
    if i don't set it in exactly right (that's real easy to do) it make a series of beeps and won't boot up
    (it does that whenever i installed something wrong or if something don't work)

    on mine i had to take out my video card to installed more ram. i didn't set it exactly right and i had a toasted $150.00 video card (nvidia mx 420 , now replaced with a mx440)

    one time i came home and we had just had a thunder storm and our electric had shut off. my comp had damage that i had to fix. and with my wife comp., i just unplug the cord, reset the circuit breaker, and plug the cord back up and it was fine.

    when it storms i shut mine off and head to my wife computer. and i done a lot of dumb things to my wife computer(it used to be mine) before i brought the pent 4 and it still in tip top shape

    i wish my pent 4 was as rugged. i had to really watch what i do with it.
    i am very careful with it as it is obvious if i do something wrong or put something wrong in it, i will fry this computer.

    if i buy something used , i put it in my wife's comp to see if it works then if it do i might consider putting it on mine
    Quote Quote  
  20. heh
    the speed difference in burning most likely is just something to do with the harddrive or the arangement of IDE devices. Could be she doesnt change the data on the harddrive as much or maybe it has been defragmented.

    AMD 1200? an old thunderbird. Right on.
    As far as hardware, there is no reason the AMD system would perform better. Seems to be the individual condition or configuration of the systems.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Piccoro
    heh
    the speed difference in burning most likely is just something to do with the harddrive or the arangement of IDE devices. Could be she doesnt change the data on the harddrive as much or maybe it has been defragmented.
    i really wish i could figure that out. i don't think it is any of the above though, but there must be a reason the 48X samsung dvd-rom cd-rw
    doesn't burn as fast as my memorex 48x cd-rw

    the funniest thing is that my sony dru 120a dvd burner burns the cd in real time or faster (it burn cds at only 12x however)

    i usaully use that as i know it will take 6 mins and i won't have to guess
    Quote Quote  
  22. Why get a 2800+?
    My AVI -> Any Format Guide is available here.
    My Frame Resize Calculator (enhanced for Virtualdub) is available here
    Quote Quote  
  23. I got a AMD Barton 2800+ because it is a great performer on the applications I run and the price. It is the price point for AMD cpus in my opinion. I got mine for 180$ while a 2700+ is 130$, a 3000+ is 250$ and just for comparison, an Intel 2.8ghz is 280$. All I did was buy the CPU, I already had the parts that supported it and now I run with optimized performance because I run my memory and FSB in sync 166mhz.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by Piccoro
    I got a AMD Barton 2800+ because it is a great performer on the applications I run and the price. It is the price point for AMD cpus in my opinion. I got mine for 180$ while a 2700+ is 130$, a 3000+ is 250$ and just for comparison, an Intel 2.8ghz is 280$. All I did was buy the CPU, I already had the parts that supported it and now I run with optimized performance because I run my memory and FSB in sync 166mhz.
    You could have bought a XP 2500+ for like 88 bux and acheived the same clocks............with air cooling................well, it would only work if you got the AQUCA stepping...........which is common these days..........I use dots a lot...........
    My AVI -> Any Format Guide is available here.
    My Frame Resize Calculator (enhanced for Virtualdub) is available here
    Quote Quote  
  25. I have not yet tested to see how far I could push it. I just set it to this multi. and clock right away. I really dont care about OCing. Just stable solid performance and cool operating temperature. Default clocks are just fine for me though. Why I did not get the 2500+ is just one look at the default clock of 1.83GHZ. I do know they are great OCers but I would never push it that far therefore I bought the 2800+ which isnt much of a push at all to get it to 3200+ speeds plus its still cheap for a fast CPU compared to intel or 3000+ offerings.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Originally Posted by Piccoro
    I have not yet tested to see how far I could push it. I just set it to this multi. and clock right away. I really dont care about OCing. Just stable solid performance. Default clocks are just fine for me though.
    I don't like wasting money..............not that 'm saying you did, to each his own........I'm just saying that if you got a cooler that can do it why not push, since you already have OCed........whatev, I'll leave you be.
    My AVI -> Any Format Guide is available here.
    My Frame Resize Calculator (enhanced for Virtualdub) is available here
    Quote Quote  
  27. Well the main reason is operating temperature. The room temperature is about 80 F right now. That doesn't really help the core temperature does it.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Originally Posted by Piccoro
    Well the main reason is operating temperature. The room temperature is about 80 F right now. That doesn't really help the core temperature does it.
    No it does not! Where do you live? Down south?
    My AVI -> Any Format Guide is available here.
    My Frame Resize Calculator (enhanced for Virtualdub) is available here
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

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