VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4
FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 91 to 114 of 114
Thread
  1. Originally Posted by rallynavvie
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    I haven't seen any benchmarks of the Pentium D 805 but it looks like it will be 15 to 20 percent slower than the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ when encoding video.
    I wouldn't say it's that close in performance. If we assume the PR clocks for both the 805 and 3800 the Intel would have 5.33 GHz of processing power to the 3800s 7.6 GHz of processing power. If we leave it at that the AMD would have about 40% more power. Given the architecture and platforms available to the AMD I'd maybe up the speed difference to be 50-60%.
    No, the 3800+ PR rating means virtually nothing as far as video encoding is concerned. Besides, the 3800+ rating is for both cores together. You don't multiply by two to get an expected 7600 performance. Look at the video benchmarks at Tom's Hardware (they match what I've seen with my limited variation of computers). They don't show the 805 (it's too new) but the Pentium D 820 (2.8 GHZ, 800 MHz FSB, dual core) is typically 5 or 10 percent behind the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (in video encoding). As you pointed out, video encoding isn't strongly effected by FSB and cache size but I cut my 805 estimate by another ~10 percent to be safe.

    Originally Posted by rallynavvie
    there is no definite winner between the two chip manufacturers
    The 805 is just one data point (low/mid range) in the spectrum. AMD would rather focus on more profitable processors since it doesn't have the capacity (ie, it can't make enough processors) to compete in all segments. If they made a dual core 3400+ or 3600+ to compete with the 805, every one they made would mean a faster, more profitable, processor wouldn't get made.

    What's happened over the years is that the two companies have leapfrogged over each other. It looks like the forthcoming Intel Core Duo chips will put some hurt on AMD. The way AMD is now putting the hurt on Intel.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SingSing
    We should keep Intel and AMD ( VIA too ) go at it forever. We are the benifactor of this competition.

    The Blue-Ray and HD war instead is working hard to find a way to empty our wallets.
    I'd like to see Cyrix return or another chip maker enter the central processing unit fabrication marketplace. With only two competitors it's a choice between one or the other.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by ROF
    Originally Posted by SingSing
    We should keep Intel and AMD ( VIA too ) go at it forever. We are the benifactor of this competition.

    The Blue-Ray and HD war instead is working hard to find a way to empty our wallets.
    I'd like to see Cyrix return...
    Via bought Cyrix and cells updated verions of the Cyrix processors under the Centaur name. The chips are bottom of the barrel. No, lower than the bottom, Pentium III level performance, even less with floating point.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    I know the buy out situation. I was just using them as an example. Any third party player in this field would benefit the customer by driving down costs while forcing an increase of all three to innovate.
    Quote Quote  
  5. C4 has its place if you are adapting PC to applicances like cash register.

    See also http://www.transmeta.com/
    Quote Quote  
  6. Does anyone here actually have this processor????
    Quote Quote  
  7. Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    Not here. If you can't already tell I've talked most people out of wasting their money too.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member Treebeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Search Comp PM
    the processor is not worth it.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    kenmo,

    my own thoughts on intel's D 8xx dual core cpu's can be summed up with this article:

    http://manicgeeks.com/viewstory.php?id=137

    incidently, i wrote that article, i own both an D 820 and the P4 630 and personally i would avoid all dual core cpu's (including AMD's offerings) until the Conroe is released.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Sorry but not according to this review on Pentium D 8xx cpus...

    http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/pentiumd-820/index.x?pg=16


    The Pentium D 820 typifies Intel's new approach, which looks very appealing given the numbers we've seen here today. In multithreaded applications, the Pentium D 820 races by the Athlon 64 3500+, which is a more expensive CPU. In fact, the Pentium D 820 frequently outperforms the Athlon 64 FX-55 and the Pentium 4 670, and our Pentium D system consumes no more power under load than our Pentium 4 670 rig.

    expect the Pentium D processor, teamed up with the 945G chipset, to dominate the mid-range PC market once folks discover its virtues. For everything from corporate desktops to boxes for power users, from video editing workstations to home theater PCs, the Pentium D looks tough to beat. (AMD's Athlon 64 X2 is an amazing CPU, but with prices starting at over $500, it will be a high-end choice only.) Even casual gamers will want to take a long, hard look at the Pentium D. It fuses the creamy smoothness of true symmetric multiprocessing with the simplicity and affordability of commodity desktop PC components—a combo that's awfully hard not to like. What's more, the Pentium D, P4 670, and the 945 chipset should all be available starting today, according to Intel. Make mine twins, please.
    Quote Quote  
  11. deadrats obviously had problems from insufficient cooling.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    deadrats obviously had problems from insufficient cooling.
    i was using the stock intel cooler with the thermal pad gently removed and the heat sink and cpu cleaned. i then applied artic silver 5.

    there are numerous reports around the 'net from people experiencing a similar result to mine.

    kenmo: there are a number of things wrong with all the typical benchmarks review sites run, the primary being that they are not long enough. converting a movie trailer in VOB form to divx takes all of 5 minutes, if that. 5 minutes is not a sufficient amount of time to get an accurate view of a cpu's overall performance.

    a perfect example is the old dual core opteron vs dual core extreme edition P4 comparisons. i have seen review after review crown the dual core athlons as champs in video encoding, but all those tests are flawed because they only last a few minutes and then the reviewer extrapolates overall performance.

    yet when tomshardware did this tests:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/14/live_stress_test_rundown/

    the 840EE absolutely destroyed the X2 4800+, at one point the 840 had completed a divx encode 1660 times compared to the 4800+'s 110 times:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/03/dual_core_stress_test/page29.html

    the situation with cpu reviews is similar to the situation with car reviews, where a car magazine will run a car through the quarter mile and 0-60, but that doesn't really tell you anything about it's overall drivability. all it means is that under certain circumstances, if you know how to get get maximum performance out of a car and if you are on the right surface, you can achieve a certain acceleration rate.

    but if you want to buy an 805, knock yourself out. all i know is that i own both a D 820 and a P4 630 and i believe the 630 is the better overall chip.

    but hey, it's your money, good luck to you any way you decide to go.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Deadrats,

    I can't comment either way as I own a Duron 750, AMD Athlon 1800 and AMD Athlon (Barton) 2500...

    I was merely pointing out that there are so many reviews on this chip...
    Quote Quote  
  14. Finally, some benchmarks of the 805. As expected it looks pretty good for a low cost A/V processing system, bad for games. Power consumption is high.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2736
    Quote Quote  
  15. A comparison of the Pentium D 805 and the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, stock and overclocked:

    http://www.techwarelabs.com/articles/hardware/dcOAB/
    Quote Quote  
  16. Should be some Triple Cores around the corner?
    Quote Quote  
  17. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    jagabo: this is exactly the type of reviews i was talking about. if you don't read the review carefully enough, you would think the temps he recorded for the D 805, stock and o/c, idle and underload, where done with the intel heatsink. in reality he's using some radical air cooling to get those temps:

    http://www.silentpcreview.com/article251-page1.html

    http://www.silentpcreview.com/article267-page1.html

    and i'm willing to bet that the test setups were probably in an air conditioned room, with the all the components sitting on a test bench rather than in a computer case.

    tell this guy to use the stock cooling with everything in a computer case and we'll see what kind of temps he gets.

    handyguy: there won't be any tri-cores, both intel and amd have announced that they will have quad core offerings for sale by the end of this year/beginning of next year.

    of course, with 4 cores we can expect to see temps and power usage go through the roof.

    personally, i don't care how many cores a cpu has as long as it's effiecent. if amd would take any of it's single core cpu's and increase the L1 to about 2mb and the L2 to about 4mb, add another FPU and ALU to the chip and make it's hyper-transport link a bit more effiecent, they would have a monster cpu.

    that and getting software that can fully utilize 64 bits cpu's...
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by deadrats
    if amd would take any of it's single core cpu's and increase the L1 to about 2mb and the L2 to about 4mb, add another FPU and ALU to the chip and make it's hyper-transport link a bit more effiecent, they would have a monster cpu.
    Cache doesn't come out of thin air. That would more than quadruple the size of the die and power consumption would go through the roof. Since AMD is already at full capacity every "jumbo cache" processor they made would be several other processors they don't make. They would very quickly go out of business.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by jagabo
    A comparison of the Pentium D 805 and the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, stock and overclocked:

    http://www.techwarelabs.com/articles/hardware/dcOAB/
    The 805 owns at overclocking for a $134 CPU. I normally buy AMD but common it's not worth $295 when a little old $134 805 comes nipping at it's heels and defeats it in certain benchmarks.


    Thread Over !!!
    Quote Quote  
  20. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    knightcrawler: you need to look at more than just the cost of the cpu. assuming you currently have a non dual core cpu and a non-775 capable motherboard. to go with a D 805 you need to buy a new motherboard, new ram (DDR2, unless you get a hybrid board like i have), a new video card (unless your old motherboard supported PCI-E or you get a hybrid motherboard) along with the cpu, not too mention a new power supply (if you get a motherboard with an intel chipset, you will need a ps that has a 24 pin connector).

    assuming you currently have a 2500+ barton (like the guy that started this thread does) that means that $135 cpu is going to end up costing you between $600 and $700, assuming you don't opt for a high end video card.

    if you go with a 3800+, you can reuse your ram and power supply, you will just need to buy a new motherboard and video card.

    either way you look at it, it's still going to cost you quite a bit of dough to go dual core.

    making matters worse is that both options are dead ends as far as upgrade path is concerned: amd is going with a new socket and conroe will only work with certain boards that have a 975 chipset in them, otherwise you will need intel's soon to be released new chipset.

    either way you're screwed.

    best bet is to hold off on buying anything for a little while...
    Quote Quote  
  21. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    Originally Posted by deadrats
    if amd would take any of it's single core cpu's and increase the L1 to about 2mb and the L2 to about 4mb, add another FPU and ALU to the chip and make it's hyper-transport link a bit more effiecent, they would have a monster cpu.
    Cache doesn't come out of thin air. That would more than quadruple the size of the die and power consumption would go through the roof. Since AMD is already at full capacity every "jumbo cache" processor they made would be several other processors they don't make. They would very quickly go out of business.
    that is incorrect. on the amd side, going from a single core to a dual core doubled the L1 and L2, doubled the number of ALU's, FPU's, registers, etc, yet the power consumption and thermal output didn't double nor did it double the size of the die.

    if doubling (and soon to be quadrupling) the number of course doesn't have the effect you describe, what makes you think that only increasing the L1 and L2 and adding another ALU and FPU will?

    no matter which way you look at it, a quad core cpu will have 4 times as much L1, L2, ALU, FPU, registers, etc as a single core will. i just want to take some of that, sans all the addtional cores and use it on a single core, which i believe would make for a more efficient chip.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by deadrats
    knightcrawler: you need to look at more than just the cost of the cpu. assuming you currently have a non dual core cpu and a non-775 capable motherboard. to go with a D 805 you need to buy a new motherboard, new ram (DDR2, unless you get a hybrid board like i have), a new video card (unless your old motherboard supported PCI-E or you get a hybrid motherboard) along with the cpu, not too mention a new power supply (if you get a motherboard with an intel chipset, you will need a ps that has a 24 pin connector).

    assuming you currently have a 2500+ barton (like the guy that started this thread does) that means that $135 cpu is going to end up costing you between $600 and $700, assuming you don't opt for a high end video card.

    if you go with a 3800+, you can reuse your ram and power supply, you will just need to buy a new motherboard and video card.

    either way you look at it, it's still going to cost you quite a bit of dough to go dual core.

    making matters worse is that both options are dead ends as far as upgrade path is concerned: amd is going with a new socket and conroe will only work with certain boards that have a 975 chipset in them, otherwise you will need intel's soon to be released new chipset.

    either way you're screwed.

    best bet is to hold off on buying anything for a little while...
    You have to spend your money at some point and the 805 is a decent machine to get today. AM2 isn't much of an upgrade and Conroe won't be out until Fall.

    Prices;

    1. CPU = $134
    2. Mobo = $100
    3. 1GB DDR2 = $71
    4. PSU = $60
    5. Video = $120 { msi x1600 }

    All stuff I found on newegg.com

    Nice bang for you buck machine could be built that would last 18 months until Conroe 2 and "AM3" is out.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by KnightCrawler
    Conroe won't be out until Fall.
    The latest rumor is that Conroe will ship in July. Intel's official word is still "third quarter".
    Quote Quote  
  24. Knew It All Doramius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    If only I knew
    Search Comp PM
    GIve it 5-10 years and you'll be able to buy a carbon (AKA diamond) material processor for $150-$200 running at 60+GHz without a heatsink or fan. However, it may start a new thought of cooling the motherboard.

    All this as single core and very low voltages. Incorporate this same technology with RAM and a few other semiconductors, and all future computers will be modular like todays towers, but only need to be the size of a tablet PC.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads