Athlon64 or P4?

[straliss440]

I have built my last 3 systems myself and have used AMD chips purely due to the price differences at the times. My current system is an AMD XPAthlon 2400 with 1024Mb PC2100 RAM. To be honest with you it`s been brilliant, running virtually 24/7 for well over 2 years and have capped countless hours of video/DVD on it with no problems. However I now feel it`s getting close to upgrade time. The new duel core chips are out of my price range reallistically, but have noticed that the price difference between a barebones Athlon 64 3000 system and a Intel P4 530 3.0GHZ 800FSB 1MB LGA775 one is only £40. I`ve read pro`s & cons for both and just can`t make up my mind whether to switch to P4 or not. I would be grateful if anyone who has experience of both would be able to give me a pointer or two of which way to go. I will be using the new system for capping but no timeshifting as I use my Sky+ box for that.

[MJA]

for gaming AMD for video Intel

[junkmalle]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/index.html

[junkmalle]

I don't think updating from A 2400+ to A64 3000+ or P4 3.0 GHz is worth it. But this may help you decide:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/index.html

[johns0]

You will notice a big difference going to a amd 64 3000+.

[straliss440]

I don't think updating from 2400+ to 3000+ or 3.0 GHz is worth it. But this may help you decide:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/index.html

I know what you mean about the difference in upgrade, but I`m thinking of an upgrade more due to the age and "mileage" of my current PC, not the fact that it`s underpowered for my needs. There`s certainly some good info on there to digest so thanks for that.

[EAO]

First off...unless you've really abused your PC and/or game on it, then it's fine for another 2 years at least.

That aside... I also like to build my PC's and I build AMD for price purposes. If you do the increase your discussing, then I would suppose that Intel is faster handling video encoding.

I think you will notice about a 10 - 15% increase if you jump to the A64 chip... I would not do it. Not sure on the Intel, but I know they encode and transcode better.

Frankly... I would wait another year - save a bit - and either get a 3500+ or get a dual core X2. I have moved to a 3800+ X2 and I've overclocked it (easily) to X2 4400+ speeds. I have never seen anything encode or transode this fast in my life! And... I'm encoding video, burning on NEro and typing this at the same time.

That said... I would hold out for a 3500+ or the Intel equivalent when your budget allows.

[junkmalle]

I don't think updating from 2400+ to 3000+ or 3.0 GHz is worth it. But this may help you decide:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/index.html

I know what you mean about the difference in upgrade, but I`m thinking of an upgrade more due to the age and "mileage" of my current PC, not the fact that it`s underpowered for my needs. There`s certainly some good info on there to digest so thanks for that.

About a year ago Tom's did another big CPU comparison. It has the Athlon 2400+ in the list along with the A64 3000+. Not to mention zillions of other processors!

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/index.html

[lenti_75]

for what you do, not even dual core doesn't worth the money, unless you really want to spend them

if this is the case, then in real world there is not difference, even the numbers are so close, that you don't realize in reality the difference.

I would go for the cheapest, no reason to spend more for same result.

[ROF]

My personal choice would be AMD 64 over the Intel P4 Single Core. The AMD 64 is an incredibly fast processor, doesn't suck alot of the juice, and can be kept cool with stock fans under some extreme operating conditions.

The AMD 64 comes in two flavors the budget Sempron and the economy Athlon. In my opinion, they are the same processor in that applications load the same, games play the same, and windows load time is unchanged. There is also the AMD 64 X2 for those needing dual core processing.

If you are choosing dual core processing, I favor the Pentium D Class. I do not recommend Windows XP x64 because of it's high incompatibility factor at this time.

What motherboard(s) are you looking at?

[redwudz]

I think you would be happy with a AMD 64. What ever speed you can comfortably afford. With dual-channel DDR 400 memory and using SATA hard drives, it should be much faster and responsive than your 2400 Athlon. I have a 3200 A64 939pin and it is much faster than my previous AMD 2500 Barton. Runs very cool also, so you can turn down the fans.

I also have a A64 Sempron 3000 in the 754pin version. For a cheap processor, it works very well.

I would look for motherboards with the Nvidia NForce 4 chipset. They seem to perform the best with the A64 and if you have a mind to overclock, they do it easily.

Most of the newer MBs use PCI-E for the video. You gain a bit of speed as far as graphics displays with it. The Nvidia Nforce 4 is a PCI-E chipset.

[SatStorm]

You won't see a real difference IMO. I use a XP 2600+ myself.
IMO, keep the CPU you have for a year more and spent the money on something usefull for this hobby. A device like ACE enchancer, or a VCR or a better capture card

[ROF]

You won't see a real difference IMO. I use a XP 2600+ myself.
IMO, keep the CPU you have for a year more and spent the money on something usefull for this hobby. A device like ACE enchancer, or a VCR or a better capture card

The difference between an Athlon XP2600+ and even a 64 Sempron XP2500+ is like the difference between night and day. Applications load faster, games function smoother, and windows boot time is quicker. All things considered equal. I've built both several times over and speak from a builders and an end users experience.

[SatStorm]

I don't care for games, applications and the windows boot time.

This is a forum about video and when I state "you won't see a real difference", it is obvious that I talk about the things this forum exist: Encoding / authoring / editing

When I encode a 3 hours project (a grabbed VHS tape) to mpeg 2 and the difference between my 2600XP+ and a 3000XP+ is about 10 minutes in 12 hours , I don't consider it a "real difference".

Also, let me remind you, that for us, which this thing here called video proccessing is a hobby, a dedicated for this job PC is essential.

[ROF]

I don't care for games, applications and the windows boot time.

This is a forum about video and when I state "you won't see a real difference", it is obvious that I talk about the things this forum exist: Encoding / authoring / editing

When I encode a 3 hours project (a grabbed VHS tape) to mpeg 2 and the difference between my 2600XP+ and a 3000XP+ is about 10 minutes in 12 hours , I don't consider it a "real difference".

Also, let me remind you, that for us, which this thing here called video proccessing is a hobby, a dedicated for this job PC is essential.

Last time I checked video encoding, authoring, and editing all require applications. While the jump from 2500+ to 3000+ Athlon doesn't make a difference, the difference between a 1600mhz FSB and a 400mhz FSB is blistering and will show significant increases in processing power for video applications as you implied is the purpose of this forum. Do you work with video without using applications? If not, an AMD 64 will make a load of difference while working with those applications.

[SatStorm]

ROF, there is no considered difference between my XP 2600+ and a Sempron 3100+ when I use my PC to framesave a mjpeg captured file with virtualdub to TMPEGenc 2.5 so to encode to mpeg2. I also use w2k, because I don't see any reason to use winXP.

I jump off the train of theory, when I first started to pay for myself, about 8 - 9 years ago. For you maybe a 10 min difference on 12 hours is a considerate difference. For me no.
Neither I wish to pay for that 10min difference a single penny.

[straliss440]

Some interesting comments there, thanks to all for your input. I don`t use my PC for gaming, the hardest work the processor goes through is video work, even capturing full screen Mpeg2 CPU use never goes above 65-67% and I have plenty of cooling. From what has been said, I think I`ll stick with AMD as I`ve never had any issues with them. At least I can rest easy that there should be plenty of life in my current system so I can see what happens price wise in the new year.

Once again thank you for your comments.