Intel or AMD

[vermilion]

Would I see a big speed difference in my video encoding times with a Intel 3.2 over a Althon XP 3200?

[Vejita-sama]

FIrst define 'big', second unless you use a program that utilizes SSE2 then most likely not. One of the main reasons people (myself included) prefer AMD over intel is cost. I can buy an AMD Barton 2500+ and OC it to 11x200 (3200+ speeds) no problem. IF I decide to get a good HSF, case, MB, etc. I can OC beyond that without to much trouble.

In the end thou this has been discussed, so try a forum search. IIRC TMPGenc can use SSE2 but CCE, Mainconcept and Ulead do not (most programs don't).

[holistic]

Define Big

Some think of it as 12 inches others a seven figure bank accout an still more a 490 cubic incher or better

Encoding is CPU intensive . All things being equal the faster the CPU the faster the encoding.

[Ripper2860]

I agree with Holistic and Vejita-samma. Encoding is typically raw MHz. The faster the processor speed the faster the work gets done. Even L2 cache size has virtually no bearing on Audio and Video ripping and encoding. If the application used supports SSE2, then a P4 would be ideal.

IMHO ...

If you are building a system dedicated to rippng/converting audio and video and you use TMPGenc -- then a P4 would be the way to go. Even a Celeron P4 as the smaller 128MB cache sizes are not a liability w/ encoding. L2 cache is just not used for these types of applications as data is never re-used and has to be fetched from RAM anyway. A Celeron P4 1.7 or 1.8GHZ O/C's via FSB to about 2.5GHz or higher (some as high as 3GHz). That and SSE2 can make short work out of encoding with TMPGenc. And the processors run approx $80.00 USD.

[fargoman]

clean underwear or poopstained drawers? Personal preference.

[vermilion]

I use TMPGE for my encoding. I guess big would be maybe 1hr. Do you think using a P4 3.2 would encode a 2hr video 1 hour faster then a 3200XP?

[lordsmurf]

I would always suggest INTEL over AMD ... several reasons, but I've discussed this on previous posts.

[fargoman]

In my experience, my brothers cpu Intel P4 3ghz versus my AMD 2400 in an encoding race he will smoke mine but not by an hour. Maybe 10-15 minutes quicker.

[LanEvo7]

The Intel will definitly perform better, no arguements, but all all comes down to money. Low budget amd, high budget intel.

[mujahid7ia]

If you already have a 3200+ XP, don't spend your money on a P4 now!

[funkguy4]

If you have TMPGEnc and you PLAN on buying a processor, P4 no doubt. I'm sittin' here with my first generation, barely-OCing Athlon XP 1900+, yep. Takes about 12 hrs for aout 2.5 hrs of video on TMPGEnc with filters and frameserving from VDub. AVISynth is too complicated for me and doesn't work the EXACT same way as VDub, so don't tell me about AVISynth. Yah. I'm in a bitchy mood yo.

[sacajaweeda]

AviSynth makes things so much easier. VDub I use mainly for scene chopping and doing a direct stream copy of my edited source. Then I resize, filter, etc and feed the edited AVI to CCE with an AviSynth script and my AMD box chews through an encode like nobody's business. 2 hours of video usually takes about 2.5 to 3.5 hours to encode using 1-pass VBR.

[Bondiablo]

As far as the CPU is concerned, AMD or Intel, it really doesn't matter. I gave up on AMD because they can't seem to get a decent motherboard chipset that doesn't have compatibility problems. Maybe if they cut VIA loose and put more effort into making their own chipsets they could finally beat Intel. Even the NForce boards don't seem to be doing that well.

[BobK]

Do you think using a P4 3.2 would encode a 2hr video 1 hour faster then a 3200XP?

I think the XP3200 only operates at around 2.2 Ghz, so (if that's correct) the P4 3.2 would be about 40% faster.

[funkguy4]

Aight BobK, in a word, no. You gotta understand how each processor works. Intel, however, just seems to be much better and video encoding since it has big memory pipelines and better motherboard chipsets. The AMD's die because of their low memory bottlenecks. The pentium 4 has over twice the memory bandwidth.

[LanEvo7]

Even a Celeron P4 as the smaller 128MB cache sizes are not a liability w/ encoding. L2 cache is just not used for these types of applications as data is never re-used and has to be fetched from RAM anyway. A Celeron P4 1.7 or 1.8GHZ O/C's via FSB to about 2.5GHz or higher (some as high as 3GHz). That and SSE2 can make short work out of encoding with TMPGenc. And the processors run approx $80.00 USD.

Actually Celeron's pretty much blow at any application. If you are going intel, P4 only. Otherwise you are much better off with a Athlon of a similar price. Celeron's are a waste of money.

[b1tchm4gn3t]

I run a Celeron 2.0 and I dont see where they blow at ANY application. I use alot of progs here and I have yet to find one that makes my celeron blow. Im not saying I dont like the P4 but I do know one thing, my Celeron does what I need it to do.

[tal65]

Why not get a AMD Opteron? Even at 32bit mode it slaughters the Intel chips, and once Windows gets off it's ass and makes the 64bit version Windows, then Intel will be left in the dark.

Just search google for AMD Opteron reviews and you will see what I'm talking about.

[LanEvo7]

I run a Celeron 2.0 and I dont see where they blow at ANY application. I use alot of progs here and I have yet to find one that makes my celeron blow. Im not saying I dont like the P4 but I do know one thing, my Celeron does what I need it to do.

I'm sorry, I phrased it wrong. AMD Athon will offer better performance than any Celeron at a similar price. Its nice that your Celeron does what it needs to, so does my Piii. So its not useless, but as of right now, there is no reason to get a Celeron over a Athlon if you are building a new system unless you are an Intel fanatic.

[b1tchm4gn3t]

So its not useless, but as of right now, there is no reason to get a Celeron over a Athlon if you are building a new system unless you are an Intel fanatic.

AGREED
I have a system that I just 'bought' not 'built' and I was just saying they have their purpose in mass produced machines. (or HAD their purpose).
Granted I would like a p4 or a fast AMD, but with this mass produced P.O.S. Mobo...I do not have that option. Anyway....no need to apologize man, I understand now what you mean. Laterz

[triphop]

I run a Celeron 2.0 and I dont see where they blow at ANY application. I use alot of progs here and I have yet to find one that makes my celeron blow. Im not saying I dont like the P4 but I do know one thing, my Celeron does what I need it to do.

The current crop of celerons are a rip off. They do not have enough cache to keep the CPU pipeline fill. This is clearly demonstrated at Anandtech.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1

If you do not have enough $$ to buy a p4, buy an athlon coz Celerons are a rip-off.

Currently the CPU to watch is the Athlon XP 64 3000+ This is costs about $200 and is only slightly slower than the P4 3200. This Kicks monumental ass!

[lordsmurf]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1

What a garbage, useless test! Any test that can show an AMD Duron (the cheap AMD) outperforming an Intel P4 has "user error" or "defective hardware" written all over it. Those tests are about as flawed as they come.

Or worse yet, a Celeron outperforming the P4? Give me a break.

Somebody had something messed up.

Let me be stupid and use garbage, and I'll "prove" an Intel P2 can outperform an AMD Athlon.

[triphop]

Uhhh... The article pitted a celeron (based on p4 core with reduced cache and reduced FSB) to a Duron and Athlon.

excerpted from the conclusion:

It is very obvious from these tests which line of budget processors is worth the money. When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear.

It's obvious that the long pipeline of the Pentium 4 just can't handle the crippled cache of the Celeron. With more cache misses and pipeline stalls, the processor isn't getting as much useful work done as it is trying constantly to refill the pipeline. We are seeing these results for the same reason we saw the performance gains from the P4 Extreme Edition with its 2MB L3 cache: the pipeline needs to stay full for the P4 to really shine.

I would also like to draw your attention to this page:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=6

Lets just say that I would tend to give credence to Anand Lai Shrimpi. No where do you actually say where the test is defective. Carry on waving your arms - we believe you.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1

What a garbage, useless test! Any test that can show an AMD Duron (the cheap AMD) outperforming an Intel P4 has "user error" or "defective hardware" written all over it. Those tests are about as flawed as they come.

Or worse yet, a Celeron outperforming the P4? Give me a break.

Somebody had something messed up.

Let me be stupid and use garbage, and I'll "prove" an Intel P2 can outperform an AMD Athlon.

[Ripper2860]

LanEvo7,

I'm afraid my quote is a little out of context. Here is the portion that correctly frames my recommendation ... "If you are building a system dedicated to rippng/converting audio and video and you use TMPGenc -- then a P4 would be the way to go. Even a Celeron P4".

Anand has proven my point! Even a 1.6GHz Duron w/ the smaller cache outperforms the higher cached and slightly slower slower XP-1700+ (even w/ a 133MHz FSB). The XP and the Duron have equal pipelines -- so the real difference is MHz.

As I was trying to state -- RAW CPU MHz is the real factor when encoding audio and video. A 2.2GHz Celeron P4 will yield virtually equal performance to a 2.2GHz full-blown P4 especially when O/C'ed to a 133MHz x 4 FSB. That was the fact I was trying to reveal.

Mine was not a AMD vs Intel post -- but a P4 vs Celeron and SSE2 vs non-SSE2 when using an SSE2 optimized application. We all know that a Intel MHz is not equal to a AMD MHz. MHz to MHz -- the nod goes to AMD in my opinion.

Now -- if the intent is to use an SSE2 optimized application -- any P4 will beat the non-SSE2 AMD at similar GHz. I too believe that Anand is one of the most thorough, knowledgable, and balanced reviewers on the WEB. However, Anand's tests do not include an SSE2 optimized application and rightfully so, as it would favor the P4's in what needs to be an objective comparison with neutral test sets.

My post merely recommended a P4 if TMPGEnc (which is SSE2 optimizes) was to be used, and put the focus on GHz/MHz as opposed to Cache in selecting the processor.

BTW -- I own 3 AMD-based systems -- so I am not an Intel bigot. In fact I'm not a AMD bigot either -- just one who prefers the right tool for the job.

[b1tchm4gn3t]

The current crop of celerons are a rip off. They do not have enough cache to keep the CPU pipeline fill.

Read what I said BLIND MAN, I said it does WHAT I NEED IT TO DO!
I didnt say they rule....get some damn glasses!


and go back and look what I said about my MOBO too while you are learning to read.

[LanEvo7]

Now -- if the intent is to use an SSE2 optimized application -- any P4 will beat the non-SSE2 AMD at similar GHz. I too beleieve the Anand is one of the most through, knowledgable, and blaanced reviwers on the WEB. However, Anand's tests do not represent an SSE2 optimized application and rightfully so as it would favor the P4's in what needs to be an objective comparison with neutral test sets.

I'm not sure you are right about that, but since I can't prove you wrong I guess you can say that. Still from all the tests I've seen, a similarly priced Athlon will outperform a Celeron in every application.

BTW -- I own 3 AMD-based systems -- so I am not an Intel bigot. In fact I'm not a AMD bigot either -- just one who prefers the right tool for the job.

I never meant to direct the "intel fanatic" comment at you. I was merely saying it to the general public. I am not bias against intel or amd either, I just get whatever the job calls for. I own both AMD and Intel systems.

[triphop]

Relax man - just cause you have a sh*te cpu, doesnt mean you have to take it out on others.

Actually my posting was an attempt to dispel the idea that a celeron is any kind of bargain. If you value your dollar then you will want to steer a wide path around the sellouteron. Remember the original poster wanted to know about AMD vs. Intel...

I DO think that the P4 is a fine processor, I own one and I am very happy with it.

The current crop of celerons are a rip off. They do not have enough cache to keep the CPU pipeline fill.

Read what I said BLIND MAN, I said it does WHAT I NEED IT TO DO!
I didnt say they rule....get some damn glasses!


and go back and look what I said about my MOBO too while you are learning to read.

[Ripper2860]

Holy cow -- I'm an awful typer !!

Anyhow -- I do want to clarify one statment I made and was quoted earlier. Anand's test suite does not include an SSE2 optimized VIDEO or AUDIO encoding application as part of the test suite. There may be other applications used which are SSE2 optimized (although I doubt it due to the fact that it would unfairly favor the P4 when compared to AMD -- and Anand is a very fair reviewer), but no application is used which represents one that does not benefit from L2 cache and also benefit from the SSE2 instruction set.

In other words -- the 2 critical components that warranted my recommendation, may not be represented in the tests -- i.e. a process that does not benefit from or effectively utilize L2 cache (i.e. encoding) AND benefits from SSE2 instruction set optimization. My recommendation of a Celeron P4 assumed that the primary intended use and application met both criteria.

AMD processors consistently represent an outstanding value across a broad swath of use and applications. Plus they were until recently -- very O/C friendly.

** Although a P4 w/ 800MHz FSB and P4's such as the P4 2.4 and it's insane levels of O/C'ing are hard to ignore !!!

[Redd]

Short and sweet...

Speaking for myself only...I find Intel is more compatable with various hardware and drivers

[triphop]

Ripper

Not having the numbers here but the crippled cache of the Celeron will cripple the processor pipeline - this means that the CPU will have to wait on the slow FSB to fetch memory. The P4 is really is the only CPU to have from this family. Sorry I could not recommend the Celeron to my worst enemy. The p3 Celeron is a different story - there the pipeline is not so deep, meaning that cache misses aren't so bad.

Now, in my mind the current most interesting processor is the Athlon 64 3000+ and the new SIS 755 based socket 754 motherboards. This looks like a dynamite combo. There motherboards are coming in at under $90 with RAID, SATA - the whole thing. So work it out - you get a CPU/MOBO combo for about $300 - that will only be beaten by the high-roller p4's out there. It looks like my next comp is going to be Athlon 64.

www.ocworkbench.com