AMD vs Intel: best processor for video editing?

[THE RIPPER]

The only thing that intel's got going is clockspeed,ever compare clock for clock ? Amd destroys them,also i find it funny when people say amd run hot,and they'll burn yer pc.Intel now are the warmer cpu .

[pyscrow]

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.

Thats interesting, is that a new development ?, coz a few years ago I heard that most of the big video and special effects mobs were using Linux based machines.

[powaking]

Hmm thats interesting. I just put a XP-M 2600+ Barton chip with 512k cache in. Got it running overclocked to 2450mhz with no sweat. Really. 24c degrees. All on air and that chip only cost me $100.

Like to see an Intel chip do that for the price.

[Capmaster]

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.

Thats interesting, is that a new development ?, coz a few years ago I heard that most of the big video and special effects mobs were using Linux based machines.

Linux is an OS. The discussion was comparing platforms.

[BJ_M]

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.

if you want to be stuck with FCP or an older version of premeire - sure .. and throw in slower encoding ...

the question though was amd vs. intel ...

i already answered ...

[indolikaa]

I thought most video professionals used SGI...

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.

I'm definitely going with the second processor. I need more RAM like I need another hole in my head, and hard drive space has never been an issue for me.

[BJ_M]

we used to use sgi -- for a lot of film and HD work -- even the first dvd authoring was done on sgi ... sgi was king ...

not no more ... at least not for film and HD

now its all PC's dual xeon sytems and a good number of G5's also if you want to network render with shake ..

i expect to see a large number of dual amd64 systems also ..

[lordsmurf]

BJ_M, What exactly is the advantage of dual CPUs for video? Most apps don't seem to use them anyway... at least not for us homely folks.
What kind of software do pros use that can take advantage of dual CPUs?

[BJ_M]

compositing software and encoding software and animation software

shake
digital fusion
maya
renderman
rayz (chalice)
softimage
cce
MC
procoder
vegas
AE
3dstudio
lightwave
and others

[foghorn02]

What do you mean use the Mac?

No, use Geoworks or OS/2. They are so much better at multitasking and multithreading than the Mac

[proxyx99]

Why not go to anandtech.com and tomshardware.com? Part of their processor reviews is the rendering of MP3 and encoding of MPEG (this is what you are asking for). Intel is a notch faster 5-10% max. At the same price level AMD is a v. good buy. If you care about finishing your task 1 min. sooner go with Intel. Stories about AMD instability are not true and are a reflection of PC skills of the user. In well maintained system AMD is as good as Intel (every bit). It is MB's that may be unstable not the CPU. Cheap MOBO is a cheap MOBO nothing else. Buy a MB that is stable and not too expensive and go with fastest Barton core AMD you can afford. Check the sites that I gave you and pick your MB carefully, this is the most important part of your PC. "Gurus" who have discovered at their homes AMD "flaws" are underinformed, undertrained and inept.

[Nelson37]

I have been an AMD guy since the days of the Harris chip, based mainly on price/performance ratio.

BUT - I have been dealing with the same parts wholsaler for almost 15 years. When he tells me he is experiencing problems with a particular product, I pay attention. When he says he has ceased stocking something, that is a RED FLAG. He recently made this decision with AMD chips.

His decision was made based on a very high failure rate for AMD CPUs, even those either pre-installed or done in the shop. This is accompanied by an unusual number of chips failing after 1, 2, or 3 years, compared to Intel. Also AMD's slow rate of replacement on RMA'd chips.

This high failure rate continued after he went to using ONLY the AMD boxed sets with the included fan, and AFTER he stopped selling chips for user-installation.

AMD has always had a slightly higher failure rate, attributed mostly to the greater number of user-installed chips and higher percentage of fairly cheap boards used with them. The recent increase in failures has been significant.

This concern is not based on performance, nor profit margin - which is the same on both chip types. This is based solely on rate of returns.

I was recently financially prepared for another upgrade. This info was enough to stop that, I may have to save some more for an Intel chip, though I have not purchased one since the early days of the 386.

Hopefully AMD will get their act together. But the signs point to a company in financial trouble.

[vitualis]

The only thing that intel's got going is clockspeed,ever compare clock for clock ? Amd destroys them,also i find it funny when people say amd run hot,and they'll burn yer pc.Intel now are the warmer cpu .

Why are people still obssessed about clockspeed?

What is the point of comparing "clock for clock"? Athlon processors don't come in the 3.2 GHz variety while Pentium processors do.

There are generally two ways of comparing CPUs... looking at model vs. model (e.g., top processors of each) or at system price points.

The P4s have generally outclassed the Athlon processors in terms of the top models (pre-Athlon FX of course) though AMD usually gives better bang for buck.

As for "running hot", this is what happens when you make a few bad design decisions... the bad publicity stays in people's minds even after you have fixed the problem. The early Athlon certainly had problems with heat, lack of protection from thermal death as well as some chipset problems. Not much of an issue these days but many corporate buyers will still choose Intel over AMD for these perceived differences.

Regards.