AMD vs Intel Question

[Dayna]

Any opinions about which processor is better, preferably for video editing/multitasking? I was told that the AMD Dual Cores were better. I currently have an Intel P4 w/ HT. I am looking at getting an AMD model.

Also, is the AMD is better, is there much difference in an AMD 64 X2 3800+ and an AMD 64 X2 4200+ ??

How much difference might I see going to one of the above from my Gateway P4?

Thanks for any opinions/advice

[deadrats]

the AMD dual cores are the way to go at the moment. they are better multiitaskers than the intel dual cores which in turn are better multitaskers than a single HT enabled P4.

the difference between the 3800+ and the 4200+ is not great enough to justify the price difference, in my opinion.

going from a gateway powered by a single P4 to a dual core AMD solution will be like someone put a 100 lb nitros-oxide bottle in your car.

[Dayna]

That Sounds Great To Me!! I had to update my PC profile as I have not been on here for a long time and my really old computers specs was still in my profile, lol. At the moment, IF my P4 sells (which I will find out Sunday) I may be able to get a 4200+ for the same price as the 3800+ I was looking at...so I am excited to check out the new technology. I am also going to be putting another GB of memory in it to make it 2GB and an ATI X1600 Pro 512MB card in the PCI Express slot too! I think that will make a big difference too.

[Doramius]

I see we got a bunch of AMD users here.

Any opinions about which processor is better, preferably for video editing/multitasking? I was told that the AMD Dual Cores were better. I currently have an Intel P4 w/ HT. I am looking at getting an AMD model.

What's your current intel rating? It just may be better than the AMDs you're looking at. For someone to just come out and say AMD is better is a bit general and may or may not be true.

Also, is the AMD is better, is there much difference in an AMD 64 X2 3800+ and an AMD 64 X2 4200+ ??

How much difference might I see going to one of the above from my Gateway P4?

cost is a big difference. You're gonna have to buy a new MoBo too, I take it. AMDs & Intels don't swap. You probably already knew that, but we've had a few people visit that weren't to tech savy. What are you trying to compare this too on the intel side?

[jagabo]

At the moment, IF my P4 sells (which I will find out Sunday) I may be able to get a 4200+ for the same price as the 3800+ I was looking at...so I am excited to check out the new technology.

Take a look at some of these benchmarks and compare to what you have now, especially the video conversions:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2736

I am also going to be putting another GB of memory in it to make it 2GB and an ATI X1600 Pro 512MB card in the PCI Express slot too! I think that will make a big difference too. :)

Neither of those will make much difference with video encoding. A litte with editing if you do lots of transitions, etc. Good for gaming though.

[Doramius]

The video card is impressive though and you will definitely not be disappointed with the ruslts it provides for you. I have an AIW X1900 on my newest PC. IT ROCKS!

[whitejremiah]

[quote="Doramius"]I see we got a bunch of AMD users here.

Any opinions about which processor is better, preferably for video editing/multitasking? I was told that the AMD Dual Cores were better. I currently have an Intel P4 w/ HT. I am looking at getting an AMD model.

What's your current intel rating? It just may be better than the AMDs you're looking at. For someone to just come out and say AMD is better is a bit general and may or may not be true.
[quote]

the only way this wouldnt really be true is if he JUST bought the gateway computer like YESTERDAY.........dual core AMD's generally speaking just SPANK every p4 made up till VERY recently.......depending on exactly how old the setup is, and what processor is in there right now, even a single core AMD may just obliverate what he's running at the moment

[lordsmurf]

Intel is optimized for video and day-to-day work, AMD is optimized for playing video games and goofing off on the Internet. It's really that simple. Buy the computer you need for the task you want to do.

The thing to really watch out for on AMD is those crap-ass VIA boards. Don't buy them, get something better. AMD does not have many motherboards to choose from, unfortunately.

All this talk of one "spanking" or "obliterating" the other is just silly. The performance differences are often very small, and only exist as major issues in the minds of fanboys and lab testing software that is out-of-touch with reality.

You will see some issues with certain video editors and encoders working much better on Intel because they're more attuned to it. Several of them outright say "Intel only" lately too.

Most of the dual-core, hyperthread, dual-CPU, 64-bit, blah blah blah, is still wasted on software. They don't use it anyway, they only operate off of the base single CPU information, all that other fancy crap is just wasted dollars.

[Cobra]

See this post for information as to why there are differences between Intel and AMD CPUs:

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1246860#1246860

AMD is better for everyday tasks and games than Intel CPUs, but not as good for video encoding and repetitive tasks.

[pchan]

I agree with loardsmurf. I have 1 Intel and 2 AMD pcs. Users must know their needs. There is no one size fits all. Avoid VIA chipset motherboard if you assembly your own PC. For Intel CPU, stick to Intel chipset and for AMD, nVidia chipset.

[Bjs]

Amd is more designed around multimedia (include's gaming) , where as intel is more generalized .

To tell the difference between the two would require two system's built around the lastest hardware , using similar specification's and running the same task's ... only then will you be able to tell the difference and be able to understand the result's .

In some of these "online" result's , much of the hardware in the comparative system is not equally matched , therefore the result's are both negative and unjust ... and completely miss-leading .

Many of the result's mention such difference's in video card's , motherboard chipset's , all of which add up too result's not designed to reflect accuracy between the system's .

There is nothing wrong with via chipset's ... it's a matter of knowing how to get the best package and result's from each given chipset .

As for motherboard's that support amd cpu's ... there are just as many of these , as there are for intel cpu's ... the only issue at the moment is the current stock availablity for the newest cpu's ... this will in a very short time become less of an issue .

There have been issue's with some chipset's in the past , and one would think that the motherboard manufacturer's would be trying to keep these from reappearing ... thus the reason for slower than expected development and release .

Such as the pro motherboard's with north and south bridge chipset fan's ... that issue was not fully understood by both the chipset manufacturer and the software designer's until user's complained about fried motherboard's ...

Amd will alway's provided better value in the long term .

As for : https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1246860#1246860

Very unpredictable review ... it all depend's on the hardware and chipset being used .

Even my old amd 2400xp can kick a p4 3.00 system in video editing , and yes , that's a via chipset .

As for multitasking and underlying pipeline's ... this in itself will never be fully exploited with the modern design as currently , if you perform one fuction , then go to do another ... in 90% of case's , the other task stop's and wait's till it has sole usage of the processor and memmory .

This is why you can download at the same time play a game on the pc ... it's random access in full swing .
It is also why when burning dvd's , you should not do anything else till this task is completed .

This is currently only fully exploited with dual server board's where each process has it's own dedicated processor and bank of memmory for each task .

[pchan]

Even my old amd 2400xp can kick a p4 3.00 system in video editing , and yes , that's a via chipset .

Wow ! Maybe I am missing something ! I have done comparison using my AMD Xp 3000+ vs Intel P4 3.0c using TMPGEnc. No overclock. Intel comes on top all the time.

[Dayna]

"What's your current intel rating? It just may be better than the AMDs you're looking at. For someone to just come out and say AMD is better is a bit general and may or may not be true. "

My current system. I have a Gateway 506GR Model. The system specs can be found here:

http://support.gateway.com/s/PC/R/3724/4367sp3.shtml

Except, I have upgraded the memory to 2GB and the Video card to an ATI Radeon AIW X1300 256MB 2006 PCI-Express Edition.

It was my first NEW PC I ever owned....my first 2 I had built and apparantly no one around here knows what the heck they're doing, because I was not impresses at all on any of them. This Gateway I have blew those other 2 away. I am not downing my Gateway at all because it does get the job done for me using Pinnacle Studio vers 9 & 10, but I get a lot of shutdowns I have to go through just to get the project done...I do mostly photo slideshows and use a lot of transitions and when doing so I get the shutdowns quite often. I was told that it would be an improvement to have the new AMD I am looking at...Which there are 2 I am interested in as I am currently selling My P4. One can be found here: (the specs)
http://support.gateway.com/s/PC/R/5878/5878sp3.shtml

And the other one here:
http://support.gateway.com/s/PC/R/1008835/1008835sp3.shtml

But whichever one I was going to get, like I mentioned above I was going to add in the Xtra ram and video card. I was told that when video editing the key specs to look for and have are the processor speed, PC Memory and Video Card, becuase on baord video memory is shared.

Because of my bad experiences with the first 2 being built, I prefer to just buy one with the warranty, becuase I have had better luck this way. I already know that retailed PCs don't usually have much "room" for other cards except a few, but with what I use mine for, it is plenty of space for me.

[Dayna]

And then I found this Intel that has the newer technology. Its also a Gateway...what are thoughts on this one?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7644739&type=product&id=1134699430238

Is this one better than my current system?

I know I am asking a lot of questions, but I want to know the best option between the 3 I am looking at before buying one this weekend or the first of next week.

This system I posted above at Best Buy states it has EM64T...is that stating that the processor is like a 64 Athlon?

[Jester700]

Some interesting dichotomies going on here...

People with various conflicting results, a general idea that "AMD=games, Intel=real work", when all the charts I saw had AMD on top for video encoding (except for Pinnacle Studio, and who uses THAT?)

Is it that certain PROGRAMS are optimized for Intel? Maybe some big ones like Premiere? If so, that's well worth knowing - if you use Premiere. But it doesn't mean that "Intel=video" if I use Vegas instead.

[lordsmurf]

when all the charts I saw had AMD on top

This is what I meant when I said this earlier:

The performance differences are often very small, and only exist as major issues in the minds of fanboys and lab testing software that is out-of-touch with reality.

Those "charts" don't really mean all that much.

[SingSing]

Amount of Cache memory on the CPU is another mystery. I have laptop with Pentium M running at 1.7GHz with 1MB of Cache, but it is running slower than any Celeron with 512KB of RAM at 3GHz.

Does this means Clock rate is linearly coresponding to performance. Cache size only add like 10~15% on the best performace of that CPU.

[Dayna]

I found this on the net:

http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/pcs/0,39029439,40058761,00.htm

[jagabo]

using Pinnacle Studio vers 9 & 10, but I get a lot of shutdowns I have to go through just to get the project done...I do mostly photo slideshows and use a lot of transitions and when doing so I get the shutdowns quite often.

What do you mean "shutdowns"? If you mean the program is crashing -- it's because Studio is the buggiest piece of software on the planet. I used Studio 6, 7, and 8 in the past. I finally gave up as the program got more and more features -- and more and more crash-and-die bugs to go along with them. I haven't used 9 and 10 but I doubt things have improved.

If you plan to continue using Pinnacle Studio you should check out how well multithreaded it is. If it's not multithreaded, switching to a dual core processor won't get you any increase in speed.

[lenti_75]

I had AMD and Intel....

AMD IS BETTER, don't matter what charts and people say, I have an Intel dual core now, and I'm so sorry that I didn't get amd.

[deadrats]

See this post for information as to why there are differences between Intel and AMD CPUs:

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1246860#1246860

AMD is better for everyday tasks and games than Intel CPUs, but not as good for video encoding and repetitive tasks.

this isn't addressed to you per se, it's for everyone that says the P4 is better for video editing/encoding while the AMD cpu's are better for gaming.

this generalization took hold back when the P4 was first introduced and was the only one that supported SSE2. in tests between dual athlon mp's and a P4 using apps heavily optimized for SSE2, like windows media encoder and TMPG Express 3.0, the P4 could actually beat the dually setup.

the athlon's in turn had better FPU's, which is why they ran games faster.

today, AMD's dual core cpu's support SSE/SSE2/SSE3 and they still have superior FPU performance as well as more L1 and faster memory access.

and in case anyone wants to call me an AMD fanboy, i have a 630 P4, a D 820 and 2 3400+ (socket 754). about the only P4 i would recommend would be the extreme edition dual core P4's that have hyperthreading, and even then it's only if you could get them at a cut throat price.

[Jester700]

when all the charts I saw had AMD on top

This is what I meant when I said this earlier:

The performance differences are often very small, and only exist as major issues in the minds of fanboys and lab testing software that is out-of-touch with reality.

Those "charts" don't really mean all that much.

I don't think you looked at those particular charts. They were using pretty standard encoding software, like windows media encoder. There were many tests run, from office apps to audio encoding and video encoding, to yes, games. I was only taking about video encoding results.

That's not to say that a simple encode is necessarily indicative of a system's response in Vegas, or Premiere, or DVD Workshop. But other than actually testing with those apps (and I'm open for such info), it would seem to correlate pretty well, unless I'm missing something. Certainly more so than "common wisdom" like "AMD=games; Intel= real work" that tend to only be valid for a particular CPU generation or two but hang on long afterward.

Unless your point was stability, in which case I'd say this was also true at one point but but no longer. NVidia's last couple chipsets have been rock solid in my experience, but as ever, YMMV.

[Doramius]

The war rages on.

How about how long the chips last? Without overclocking either chip, Compare side to side an AMD & Intel of similar nature. Why is it Intels have proven to last longer? Why can't AMDs match the longevity? So let's look at overall cost. You'll probably get more time off of your Intel chip than your AMD.

On the reverse side, The Intels usually claim more power usage than AMD, so your electric bill may equal things out. The average is an extra $30-$40 a year in power consumption for Intel than AMDs.

Again, they are similarly matched. To say one is better than the other without talking about a specific application is just a poor and thoughtless statement. I know cheap Intels that would blow a better AMD out of the water depending on what you use it with. Then You got low end AMDs running more stable than high end Intels for many gaming applications. Match them similarly and they still run better than each other for different applications.

At some point there is going to be a major split and you won't be able to compare the 2. Trying would be like comparing real fruit to glass fruit.

[Grain]

Why is it Intels have proven to last longer? Why can't AMDs match the longevity?

Any evidence to back that up? First I've heard of such claims. I have a 1GB AMD Athlon TBird with roughly 25000 hours on it in my old machine, running like new. This is one of those "Chev VS Ford" arguments where personal preference taints most arguements.

[dphirschler]

I have two name brand AMD boards (MSI and Asus). Both have problems (lockups and glitches in capturing). The cheap-ass Intel mobo I have is spectacular. No problems whatsoever.


Darryl

[Doramius]

Why is it Intels have proven to last longer? Why can't AMDs match the longevity?

Any evidence to back that up? First I've heard of such claims. I have a 1GB AMD Athlon TBird with roughly 25000 hours on it in my old machine, running like new. This is one of those "Chev VS Ford" arguments where personal preference taints most arguements.

Go to Intels site and doa 'durability comparison' search with Intel vs AMD. They matched a bunch of similar CPUs to each other under stock conditions of continuous running. Even the longest lasting AMD died before the first Intel died.

They also show (surprisingly) when overclocked how much more stable the AMDs were, but they still died faster than the Intel. SO Intels overclocked aren't stable, but last a long time. So one could argue you're stuck with a long lasting problem. Or on the AMD side you've got a great chip, for a short period of time.

[Jester700]

Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think I'd trust any info from Intel's site on comparitive chip longevity...

Having said that, there WERE times when AMDs were fragile. No heat spreader, so they chipped easily (no pun intended) They also ran hot and had no good shutdown mechanism, so they'd cook themselves if a fan went south. IIRC this was in the ~1GHz Thunderbird era. Those particular problems were solved and the current ones run cooler and on less power than Intel. For now.

LS is right when he says the differences are blown out of proportion, and this is true on both sides. I'd really have no issue using either brand.

[lordsmurf]

the current ones run cooler and on less power than Intel. For now.

Yeah, but isn't this a farce? The chips are engineered to run faster (the reason they can overclock so easily), but AMD forces them to run at a reduced rate so they quit with the kamikaze stuff. To run it at the "true" speed (or the "overclocked" speed, depending on your point of view), they basically require cooling systems that cost more than the CPU itself. And therein would lie more issues, running an electronic/electrical device for lesser than designed rating often will result in odd experiences and reduced lifespan.

Just a thought.

[rallynavvie]

So much nonsense regarding dual-core processors. I can't even keep up anymore. People really need to wake up and realize that until companies start programming more software to take advantage of SMP that having that second core is really just a marketing ploy. For the general user it may take some of the mundane OS tasks and leave them on one core and free up more of the clock from the other core, but that's about it. Not very many users really multi-task like such an SMP platform is meant to do. We're talking having a few design applications open and working between them as one or the other is rendering something out.

And to be really honest, for the Windows OS nothing, nothing is going to touch two Opteron 280s on a good platform. If we want to get really ******* serious about putting down some silly-short encoding benches then that's where to start. Anything else is laughably consumer. I even feel inferior to such a machine with both my Intel SMP rigs.

Unfortunately my days in the video biz are over so I won't be able to finish building that machine. But if someone wants to pick up where I left off please feel free to get in contact with me as I'd love to see just what a machine would be capable of. Makes me all tingly just thinking what it could do with TMPGEnc

[Jester700]

the current ones run cooler and on less power than Intel. For now.

Yeah, but isn't this a farce? The chips are engineered to run faster (the reason they can overclock so easily), but AMD forces them to run at a reduced rate so they quit with the kamikaze stuff. To run it at the "true" speed (or the "overclocked" speed, depending on your point of view), they basically require cooling systems that cost more than the CPU itself. And therein would lie more issues, running an electronic/electrical device for lesser than designed rating often will result in odd experiences and reduced lifespan.

Just a thought.

I don't think so. "Binning" has been around forever, and it just depends on how the cores fare after manufacturing. From Celeron 300s that ran at 450 up to today's AMD 3800+ that overclocks well, it's no secret that the cores are identical across many speeds. But the makers have to cover a range of speeds & prices; I don't think it has anything to do with kamikaze stuff, because I haven't seen data that recent cores have such issues. If you mean longevity, I guess hypothetically an Intel that'll run 24/7 for 20 yrs is nice vs. an AMD that'll only do 10. But neither will still be in my hands at that point.