Just upgraded from Athlon XP to Intel Dual core....WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT

[lenti_75]

I just upgraded from my beloved AMD Barton 333Mhz at 1.8 overclocked to 2.2G to a garbage Intel Dual Core at 2.6G....what a piece of garbage.

the encoding speed is about 10-15% faster, not eben a 30% considering is a dual core and the more Ghz.

the only reason a got a intel was $$$$ it was cheaper than a AMD, but this is my last intel processor....I always like more AMD, it looks more stable and IT IS FASTER even though the actual speed is lower....

I just felt like letting everybody to know what a crap intel is.....

[jagabo]

What encoder(s) are you using? Some do better than others with dual core.

[unclebud]

What software are you using to render with. Does it support 2 processors?

[MOVIEGEEK]

The advantages of "dual core" is multi-tasking so running one program isn't a fair test:
http://www.intel.com/personal/desktop/pentium_d/demo/popup/demo.htm
For me HT was a let down because few programs support it...so I disable it.

[jagabo]

TMPGEnc encodes nearly twice as fast when using both cores of my Athlon 64 X2 3800+. I'd be curious to see if this holds for the Intel dual core processors too. Here's a thread regarding TMPGEnc benchmarking:

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=251737

Careful though, the benchmark used has some flaws and some people didn't perform it properly.

If you do a lot of encoding but your encoding software doesn't support multithreading you may still be able to render twice as fast by running two instances of the program. VirtualDUb with Xvid would be a good example of this.

[ofbarea]

I recently upgraded to Intel Pentium D 920 (Dual core 2.8GHz) from a P4 3GHz 1 MB cache.

After the upgrade the responsiveness of my system has improved greatly. Why don’t you perform the VideoHelp.com Video Benchmarking and see how your system compares to others.

With this system I was able to render the sample movie in 25 seconds. Check this post for my system specs.

Finally try using Tom´s Hardware CPU Charts to get an idea how processor looks against each other.

[GMaq]

Hello,
I just ebay-ed my P4 3.4Ghz Desktop and bought a Intel Duo Laptop 2.0 Ghz, There is no comparison in performance, With the desktop system I could encode video to Nero Digital with Nero-Recode at about 41 frames per second, This laptop with the Duo will encode to Nero Digital at about 63 frames per second. This is an apples to apples comparison, Of course there will be differences in how other programs utilize the second core but so far I am very impressed and with the slower clock speed this processor runs far cooler than a P4 does as well.

[edDV]

It all depends on your software and most software is not multicore ready. Higher end software that targeted multi-processor performance tends to be more multi-core ready as would be expected.

[lenti_75]

I use Canopus Porcoder for video encoding. I know that most of the software is not multi core yet BUT....even multitasking is worse than AMD.

I use Asus mobo, and dual channel ram, and when I do multitasking I feel like the Intel processor DOES ONE THING and doesn't like to do anything else.

some people see improvement over an single core Intel, BUT I see INtel a lot worse than an AMD.

I feel bad now that I didtn't go for an AMD, but Intel was cheaper...

I can only hope for better when vista 64 comes out, if not, probably I will ebay it soon.