Is a dual core or single core better for capturing?

[Rudyard]

I am about 2 weeks away from finally purchasing my new PC which will do all my capturing from both analogue and DV sources.

I am just wondering if the dual core processors running at 3.o ghz or a single core running at 3.4 or 3.6ghz will be better for capturing and editing? Or will both be fine?

The PC will have 2gb ram if that effects the answer at all.

I am still a little confused if these dual cores prcessors are better or not at all things or only certain specific tasks.

[jagabo]

Depends on the software, what you're capturing from, and what codecs you're using.

TMPGEnc for example is nearly twice as fast when encoding with two cores vs a single core on my Athlon64 X2 3800+.

Xvid on the other hand (the latest official release) isn't multithreaded so it doesn't benefit from dual cores. Although I can compress two videos at once (two instances of VirtualDub) to nearly double my thoughput.

DV capture via firewire shouldn't matter -- it's very low on CPU usage anyway. I don't know about capture from your BT card. Could go either way.

Inte's dual core chips are a little more constrained by their front side bus so the speedup isn't quite as great. A dual core 3.0 GHz Pentium D will likely be faster than a single core 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 in most multithreaded applications, slower at single threaded applications.

[whitejremiah]

3ghz...sounds like your getting a craptastic p4 rig then j/k i dont much care for intel myself, i rather use AMD...as for dual core vs single core, with those types of specs, it doesnt much matter which way you go, either setup (with a good video card) will work just as well for that type of task....

[Rudyard]

Jagabo, I am using VEGAS 5, and ULEAD Video 9 studio mostly.

Would your opinion be to get a dual core as future applications are most likely to take advantage of it, rather than go for a faster single core which may help for current versions but not be able to take advantage of newer releases?

Whitejrmiah, ah.... craptastic?? Intel no good? What would an AMD equivalent be as I dont know much about AMD and is there any reason why you think they are better??

[Kairo]

1. An AMD equivalent is cheaper.
2. AMD CPUs are easily overclockable.
3. Windows XP Pro x64 is talerd for AMD's Athlon64, FX, And Opteron CPUs if thats what you are useing.
4. You wont be supporting a monopoly.

[jagabo]

Would your opinion be to get a dual core as future applications are most likely to take advantage of it, rather than go for a faster single core which may help for current versions but not be able to take advantage of newer releases?

I'd go the dual core route. Most video applications that need more speed (encoding/transcoding) have already been made multithreaded. Those that haven't will soon be. Or with quad, and more cores, coming in the future the companies will soon be out of business!

Whitejrmiah, ah.... craptastic?? Intel no good? What would an AMD equivalent be as I dont know much about AMD and is there any reason why you think they are better??

For many applications, especially games, the AMD chips beat Intel (on equivalently priced CPU's). Most video applications have been better optimized for the P4 so Intel chips generally performed better on those apps in the past. But now the two are pretty close.

See this recent comparison of video encoding (Mainconcept, Divx, Xvid) at Tom's Hardware as an example (bottom of the page, and the next page):

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/05/the_65_nm_pentium_d_900s_coming_out_party/page8.html

[redwudz]

The PC will have 2Gb ram if that effects the answer at all.

Probably no effect at all for capturing, encoding or editing. (In most cases)

You would have to move to a 64bit OS to make use of much more than 1GB of memory natively. Some graphics programs like photoshop or some of the CAD programs can use it for temporary storage, but not any video programs I am aware of. It does help some with multitasking.

If you are running XP, open the Task Manager and select 'Performance' and watch how much RAM is being used during encoding. My setup sees 420MB usage occasionally when I am encoding and running a program like Bitcomet that sucks up a lot of memory. Just encoding it runs about 200-300MB. And that's with 100% CPU.

[Rudyard]

Ok thanks for the info. Just one things, is there a particular AMD chip that sucks and I should steer clear of? I just recall a thread about an AMD chip that was no good.

I find it hard to compare to AMD because I dont understand much about them. What would a 3GHZ dual core intel chip be equivalent to, so I can compare the prices? Is there a particular chip from AMD that I should look at for Vid editing, a little gaming and a lot of CAD and rendering programs?

redwudz, I actually do run several CAD and rendering prrograms, but didnt know 2gb ram isnt utilised much in XP. I will check how much memory is used.

A few people have told me to shell out for the extra ram, so I just assumed the more the better.

[genki500]

A little off topic here. I have a few capture card. In the end, I use Replaytv as my capture device most; record, then download to PC for editing. Quality has been very good (offhand I can't recall all details, however it is dvd compatible MPEG2). Most important, it is very convient. If you already has a suitable computer for editing, it worth a look.

[redwudz]

I'm not against large amounts of RAM, but I don't want people to think that adding more RAM is a cure-all for their problems.

Dual core is a good deal. I prefer AMD myself, mainly because of the price. Intel may be better in some ways, but I can spend the savings from using a AMD processor in other parts of the computer.

It may be even this year that MS comes out with the Vista OS. A lot of changes coming if they deliver on time. I would definitely recommend a 64bit CPU, dual core is even better. Your motherboard should be PCI-E capable and be able to run a 64bit OS. This should keep your system up to date for a few more years. SATA hard drives help also.

I am reluctant to recommend a particular processor. You really need to check the motherboard review sites, see what's out there. Get as much info as possible and try to digest it. Changes happen so fast, I have a hard time keeping up. Standard recommendation: Get as fast a CPU as you can afford. I would have at least 2 hard drives. One boot, another for edit, capture. Nvidia chipset MBs are on top at the moment for AMD.

Sorry, I ramble on.

[lordsmurf]

Intel is still a better CPU for work (especially video), no contest. AMD has focused completely on gaming performace these days.

AMD for video work is like trying to use a Volkswagon Beetle to haul furniture. Intel for video games is like picking a snail over a cockroach in an insect race. These are, of course, very exaggerated analogies, but I wanted to get the point across.

As far as the type of Intel CPU, depends on what the software wants. Most of them just need true SSE/SSE2, and any P4 will be fine.

[anitract]

Another thing to consider: how a processor performs depends a lot on the MB chipset you are using it with. My only advice here is do not try and save a couple $$ by getting a lower-end MB.

[Jester700]

Intel is still a better CPU for work (especially video), no contest. AMD has focused completely on gaming performace these days.

AMD for video work is like trying to use a Volkswagon Beetle to haul furniture. Intel for video games is like picking a snail over a cockroach in an insect race. These are, of course, very exaggerated analogies, but I wanted to get the point across.

As far as the type of Intel CPU, depends on what the software wants. Most of them just need true SSE/SSE2, and any P4 will be fine.

Why do you say this? Are you saying Intel has it all over AMD WRT speed? Because the tests I've seen on places like anandtech show no great disparity in media encoding tests. Sometimes Intel takes the prize, sometimes AMD. But recent CPUs don't result in a "no contest" situation unless comparing CPUs from very different price ranges.

[ROF]

Why do you say this? Are you saying Intel has it all over AMD WRT speed? Because the tests I've seen on places like anandtech show no great disparity in media encoding tests. Sometimes Intel takes the prize, sometimes AMD. But recent CPUs don't result in a "no contest" situation unless comparing CPUs from very different price ranges.

Some people are biased against certain CPUs. That being said, I wouldn't trust any website or magazine that publishes tests of any nature. If you notice most of those places are also biased towards certain video cards or certain CPU manufacturers. It happens all the time where people test their own system and even with comparable systems to the posted tests, their own tests prove to be entirely different from what these other people claimed to have achieved. The only true test of your system is to run your system.

When all is said and done I'd still go with AMD for video or other related work. Why? Because it's cheaper to purchase, cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to overclock, cheaper to keep cool, and you can replace the words cheaper before each of those with more efficient. I'm biased towards AMD for the simple reason that they perform on par or better than comparable Intel chips at a much cheaper and much more efficient operating cost. When Intel chips can be overclocked a 1/2 ghz or more with stock cooling system and no overheating or extreme system power draws I might change my point of view. Up until about 7 years ago I was biased towards Intel, but I've since been converted. Until Intel realizes their hype is lost on most people due to the above listed problems I'll be sticking with AMD.

I'd recommend the original poster look into the Athlon 64 X2 line of processors. The power consumption saved by using this chip will better spent on powering a RAID system with dual optical drive support, and SLI video.

[lordsmurf]

The "AMD is cheaper" days are mostly gone.

[ROF]

The "AMD is cheaper" days are mostly gone.

For initial purchase price, perhaps in some sectors, but certainly not in cooling systems required and amount of power consumed by the chips. AMD still crushes Intel in both categories.

[whitejremiah]

my main issue with intel (other than the fact that they are a sleezy company) is the fact that they make kinda lousy processors...ive seen a few p4's die out on people...that and what the heck is with the FSB's or lack thereof on p4's? I see these 3.8ghz processors with what? an 800mhz FSB? there's 2ghz AMD processors that have like a 1ghz or better FSB...........and although the prices are getting to be closer where intel has basically been forced to drop their pricing or end up losing out on sales, AMD seems to be more focused on putting out better quality processors...........thats just my two cents, and it may be biased, but still my opinion :P

[ROF]

The problem with Intel processors is heat. I've seen both my share of dead AMD and Intel processors. Both are quality built but Intel doesn't seem to able or willing to lower their power consumption. Their dual cores draw more than twice the power of comparable AMD Opterons. In real world math, what you save by purchasing a Intel Preslar you will be spending in the first 3-6 months to power it.

[jabloomf1230]

Intel is still a better CPU for work (especially video), no contest. AMD has focused completely on gaming performace these days.

Neither are better. Some software works a tiny bit better with Intel boxes and some works a little better with AMD. Thta's been borne out by a ton of benchmarking with not only video games, but also video encoding. Equivalent CPUs from either manufacturer perform about the same.

If one had to make a blanket statement, it would be that AMD has more history with both 64 bit and dual core CPUs, but whether that translates into drastically improved performance depends on whether the software can handle multiple threads and/or 64 bit.

Try using VirtualDub 64-bit for encoding with a dual core AMD processor like a 4800+ (or the new FX-60) and then get back to me on this.

[edDV]

Some additional observations.

- CPU intensive tasks (video) are format conversion, effects rendering and encoding. CPU power is only an issue for capturing if you are software encoding on the fly. Software encoding while capturing is OK for PVR type applications, but higher quality will usually result from a two step capture-encode process. Also hardware encoders are available which reduce CPU load during one step capture-encode.

Format conversion, effects rendering and encoding all benefit from higher CPU power but even the fastest current CPUs are not capable of highest performance in real-time.

- Prosumer level applications like Avid, Premiere and Vegas have been written with multi-processor Intel P4 or Xeon as the target and support Intel's Hyperthreading. Current versions also support multi-core to some degree but full optimization may be a next release issue. Also optimized support for AMD FX up series is likely in next releases due to their increased popularity and pricing advantages. Currently, AMD FX needs to use raw CPU power/price advantages to match Intel's optimizations but this is happening.

- Avoid use of low-mid range AMD if running programs like Avid, Premiere Pro is your goal. Premiere Pro v2 requires SSE2 which is only supported by Intel Pentium and uprange AMD FX.

- Dual core is nice but quad core will be out before software is fully optimized for multi-core. The optimal path may require a second upgrade for quad core. Don't spend all your money now. Save some for application upgrades and quad core.

PS: quad core will happen this year.

[jabloomf1230]

Here's a recent bunch of assorted benchmarks. Pick your poison, err, I mean CPU:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=fx60&cookie%5Ftest=1

Most of this stuff is 90% marketing and 10% technology. Whether it's AMD vs. Intel with CPUs or ATI vs NVidia with graphics cards, there's a constant push to have the "best" product. Who's buying?

[edDV]

The only video related benchmarks in that test were "Macromedia Flash", MPeg2->WMV and possibly MP3 encoding.

AMD will be faster for games but for video format conversion, effects rendering and encoding Intel will be optimized but AMD FX will be competitive on a performance/cost basis. AMD must offer higher raw CPU power at a discount to match Intel. And that is what is happening. Result is a near tossup and the winner is determined by retail pricing and targeted discounts.

[Rudyard]

Wow...... so much to take in and so many differing opinions. I thank everyone for their input, reading these does help educate me.

Seems to me like there is no definate choice.

Could someone please suggest or direct me to where I can learn about which type of motherboard I should get for an Intel 3.0GHZ dual core and AMD equivalent?

And is there any motherboard that I could pay for that if I need a quad core in years to come, that I could just replace the chip?

One last thing, when people do upgrade chips etc what do you do with your old ones? Is there any resale or recycling that happens?

Thanks again for all the replies.

[TBoneit]

1. An AMD equivalent is cheaper.
2. AMD CPUs are easily overclockable.
3. Windows XP Pro x64 is talerd for AMD's Athlon64, FX, And Opteron CPUs if thats what you are useing.
4. You wont be supporting a monopoly.

1. Somewhat cheaper but the AMD Retail Box fan seems less durable than the Intel Retail Box fan.
2. A reason I don't like selling them. I don't want warranty problem from overclockers. Typical overclocker conversation, Do you have the AMD XXX and Abit model XXX Motherboard.
3. Could be or it could run just as well on the New Intel 64bit designs.
4. If Intel is a monoply where are you getting AMD CPUs from?

Never had but one intel burn up since 1996, OTOH despite being a lower market penetration I've had to replace several AMD CPUs.

YMMV

[Jester700]

AMD had issues, no doubt about it. They had naked cores that were easy to chip (so did intel, actually, but intel fixed the problem first). AMD had cores that would destroy themselves if the fan died. I never heard of an intel doing this.

Now, that was history - current AMDs run cooler than equivalent intels, and no more naked core. I only point these out to say they do tend to leapfrog each other. But in cost vs. GENERAL performance, AMD generally had (still does, I think) an advantage. With specific programs, the story changes - Premiere Pro is a good example.

But all this just means you should do your homework as to what exactly you intend to use the CPU for. Blanket statements of superiority are likely to be wrong a lot of the time.

[lordsmurf]

The problem with Intel processors is heat. I've seen both my share of dead AMD and Intel processors. Both are quality built but Intel doesn't seem to able or willing to lower their power consumption. Their dual cores draw more than twice the power of comparable AMD Opterons. In real world math, what you save by purchasing a Intel Preslar you will be spending in the first 3-6 months to power it.

AMD has historically always been the one with a heat problem. They usually run hotter and having poorer cooling options. Many of them used to self-destruct. Intel never had that problem (not with P4 generation systems).

These days, they run about the same.

So I don't know where you're coming from on all this. It seems backwards to me.

[jtommyj]

I think i can add something here. I have both an Intel Dual Xeon system with 2x 3.06 GHz processors,a raid 0 set up,2 storage Hd's,and a Tyan 2668 ANR motherboard that i used for all my conversion and capturing projects.

2 weeks ago i bought an AMD Opteron 165 Processor (1.8GHz) and set it up very similarly to the Intel set up. Raid 0,2 GB's ram,etc. and overclocked it to 2.7 GHz. I got a DFI LanParty Ultra D NForce 4 chipset and 4 250 GB SATA II hard drives. I am running Xp x64 and have no trouble whatsoever.

Even thought the Intel system has a 20% advantage in clockspeed,the AMD system is 33% faster doing identical projects.

As for the heat issue the new Intel Pressler dual cores run MUCH hotter than anything AMD has. Since i already had my Intel system and liked it l looked at it first. Just go to Newegg and read the user reviews. 60c to 70c under load with 3rd party heatsinks ! I am using stock AMD HS with a Delta fan and full load i am only at 38c to 40c. And the power consumption is much greater on the Intels. We all know that (excessive) heat isn't really great for these things.

So since i own one high end system from each and am not a "fanboy" of either,i hope this unbiased opinion helps you but i woud definitely go for the AMD dual core set up similar to that i have and you can't go wrong.

Hope this helps,

Tom

[redwudz]

Rudyard to get back to your original question and away from the AMD VS Intel debate; For AMD, which I am more familiar with, I would recommend the Nvidia chipset motherboards. They seem to have the best interface at this time for the AMD 64 CPUs.

Dual core, ......better. Though not a lot of software can make good use of it presently. That will likely change for the better.

Bottom line, keep doing your research. The 'best' changes day to day. Future proofing would likely be a dual core and a PCI-E motherboard.

[Rudyard]

thanks redwuz and everyone, I am reading every post and doing as much research as I can.

[budz]

lordsmurf wrote:

AMD has historically always been the one with a heat problem. They usually run hotter and having poorer cooling options. Many of them used to self-destruct. Intel never had that problem (not with P4 generation systems).

These days, they run about the same.

So I don't know where you're coming from on all this. It seems backwards to me.

I have a P4 Northwood 3.00 ghz, 800 fsb processor that heats up fast when doing video encoding. Intel Prescott processors have higher heat problems compared to the Northwoods.

I recently started building pc's with AMD processors with the first one being a Socket 462 barton 2800 & a mobile 2400. Those two processors I learned ran high heat temperatures so I used a Swiftech heatsink & Vantec Tornado fan & Thermaltake heatsink & fan which kept the temps much lower than using retail AMD heatsink fan.

The next pc I used a AMD SEMPRON 64 2800+ PALMERO 800 FSB SOCKET 754 processor. I was to see how low the cpu temp was with overclocking it to 2.2 ghz using the stock heatsink fan.

Take redwudz's advice and get a nvidia chipset mobo for AMD processors. They can easily be overclocked with using that type of mobo. Good luck and happy capturing!