Is there a free alternative to TMPEnc?

[magomago]

Okay

I finally found a GOOD FREE one @ simmdoctor.com

I did a burn test... and...







Nothing. The ram is fast and the test finished pretty quickly due to the speed of the ram

So -

My Hardrive is fine and the defrag/checkdisk worked perfectly

I burn test the ram and its okay.

Are there any other "programs" I'm missing?

I ask this b/c I did not have that VPAFI (sp?) codec and this is a clean slate of windows. Thanks

[arcorob]

Okay....lets see how far this thread goes.

You can keep the AMD...I'll stick with a P4 anytime.

The AMD is so good its found in what percentage of machines ? LOL

AMD is to Intel what Mac is to Microsoft. Just a supported competition to avoid anti-trust ....hell, Bill Gates probably buys Mac's and Barret buys AMD's just to keep the wheels turning....Then sends em to 3rd world countries (or VCD help members on a budget)

All said tongue in cheek...just like to poke the lion

[magomago]

LMAO are you naive!

AMD Machines decimate their Pentium Counterparts.

If you actually pay attnetion to benchmarks from places like Anandtech.com Sharkyexterme.com Tomshardware.com and other respectected places you'll notice that Intel is VERY bloated.

Ie-

The 2700+ AMD Athlon is clocked at 2.13 Ghz.

A 2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 is clocked in at well...duh! 2.8 Ghz

In the majority of Benchmark tests (including encoding) the Athlon is EQUAL or it SURPASSES the Pentium 4 (save for Quake 3...) DESPITE BEING CLOCKED IN AT 700MHZ SLOWER!

Even if the Athlon is NOT LEADING in a test, it is behind by a few points (or percentages depending what we are using to benchmark) AT MOST.

It is VERY obvious. Notice how Intel gave the creator of Virtual Dub a 3.06 Ghz Pentium 4 and a Intel C Compiler because they are trying to make their product look more attratice in hopes people will create programs specifically for it and entire potential buyers.


I'm not saying the p4 is bad, they are both blinding fast, but the Athlon is a MUCH faster product and if we compared Ghz (rather than AMDs nomenclature) the Athlon would decimate and cause havoc upon the P4.

IE- a 2700+ clock in at 2.13 Ghz would WASTE a 2.2Ghz Pentium 4.

But if we follow nomeclautre (Ie 2700+ vs 2.8Ghz Pentium 4) the Athlon is still equal, or surpasses it

Sounds like someone might be mad they got a Pentium 4.


Oh, and on top of that, AMD's prices are usually 1/2 the cost of their compeitin P4 processor.

[vitualis]

Um, I'm sorry but you're the one that is naive magomago...

AMD supporters that beat the drum of "MHz does't count" should actually at least try to understand what it means. It means that the P4 and Athlon are different architectures so you can't simple compare clockrates. Your comparisons are meaningless. I could on the same account say then that the G4 wastes the Athlon!

Yes, the Athlon performs much better at the same clockrate. So what? The P4s are also clocked much higher.

There are a number of ways to make meaningful tests and that is to get a P4 system with EQUIVALENT performance to an Athlon system while trying to maintain everything else as equal as possible (no mean feat when you are talking about different architectures). Then, look at the relative costs of the systems. In such a comparison, the Athlon system is usually shown to be more cost effective. However, the difference is FAR from 1/2.

Another way of doing a test is by looking at the performance of the top processor + system. In such a test, the P4 blows away the Athlon. Nothing AMD produces at the moment matches the power of the top P4.

As for the new Intel C compiler, you are missing the point. The P4s contain a number of technological enhancements OVER the Athlon (e.g., SSE2 and with the newest processors, HT). Thus, if you get a P4, there is increasingly software produced that are more and more optimised for the P4 (i.e., greater performance without changing hardware). Intel has the industry clout to actually make this happen (e.g., MMX, SSE).

There are a number of other reasons why some people CHOOSE an Intel system over an AMD one. Note I highlight the word system. The PC is more than just the CPU and an advantage in using the P4 is you get a choice of some top rate mobos and chipsets. This area, whether perceived or real, is not as good for AMD.

This isn't to say that the Athlon is bad. Far from it. It is a top rate CPU and fantastic value for money. However, comparisons between CPUs have to be objective and should not be based on erroneous arguements.

Let's not turn this into another Intel vs. AMD flamewar. Note that acrorob said "All said tongue in cheek...just like to poke the lion". You took the bait...

Best regards.

[arcorob]

He not only took the bait, he swallowed the hook too !! Guess thats why you had to gut him to get it back...LOL

Everyone has freedom of choice. I can choose my beloved P4 for more reasons than just clock speed and he can choose his AMD. That is his choice. Hey, some people buy Hugo's don't they ? LOL

Sorry for poking the lion...maybe I should have also asked him if his AMD decapitalon had a DVD RW or a DVD +RW.......LOL

(oh and to stick to facts, Toms hardware most recent articles on Pentium have them wondering how AMD can even stay in the market since Intel has so thoroughly TRASHED AMD. Look for Intel to also start selling equipment retail again....Like MOBO's)

Peace be unto all

[arcorob]

By the way...Just for Giggles

The AMD ATHLON XP 2800 is more than 319 bucks...While its equivelant Intel P4 2.4 533 Mhz is about 178 ....or in other words..about 55% more..

As to equivelant.RUN FOREST RUN
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021216/p4_41-12.html

[Craig Tucker]

Slightly bias, just using quake for your benchmarks :P

[magomago]

"I could on the same account say then that the G4 wastes the Athlon! "

- It does. What is your point.

Lmao. You are trying to tell me that the 3.06 Ghz P4 "Wastes" a 2800+ Athlon?

I freely admit that when it comes to the topi tier put the best systems togheterh type of deal, yeah the Pentium4 wins.

But it is anything but the "Blow it out of the water"

However, the difference is FAR from 1/2.

Newegg.com 1600+ 48$. 1700+ 57$

Find me something that competes with those prices.

Intel's new C compiler will probably be what MMX was - to try to edge out compeition by hoping that developers/programmers will make a product tuned to it that won't work on the competin platorm - IE AMD.

Lmao, mobos not good for AMD? Talk about an understatement. When it comes to stability Intel rules the roost - then again AMD's two attempts at a board were nothing more than reference designs. In the earlier days of socket7 amd relied on Intel's chipets. Instead of controlling it all (well...Sis is the only liscened[sp?] distributor...) AMD is trying to get ANYONE(sp? as you can I can't spell that word) to develop. Why do you think it encouraged Nvidia (I'm running a Nforce2 mobo right now...its beautiful) so much? It didn't want VIA to maintain its virtual lock on AMD Chipsets.

Just like you sit there babbling how they are different architectures; (the processors...that is true but i'm talking preformance in the end. With AMD you get more on a Preformance/Price Ratio) each company "strategizes (to use a Bushism if I may) " differently within the Mobo Market. If we expand this idea furthur to include Macs you have Macs literally controlling nearly every process, you have Intel only controlling motherboards (which actually a good thing because you get stablility) and you have AMD liscensing it out to anyone who can (which is also a good thing because it promotes competition and makes the companies produce better products if they are to capture market share)


And still I do not see how I "took the bait". As long as I can continously give my counter points I do not see where your arguements are.

Like vitualis I don't act (or didn't mean to atleast initially...but there is a difference between comparing and what arcorob did. He just threw the "insults" so to say around and hoped someone else would have picked up the slack...and it was a informed person too) as if one processor is the godsend. There are goods and bads about both companies.

But instead of actually discussing he likes to make idiotic comments.


As for the Toms hardware articles I would agree, but you are overstating the "trash" amd.

To say the 2800+ does not hold its own ground when compared to the 3.06 is FAR from the truth.

As for selling "retail equipment" I doubt that...They unloaded a LOT of the products because they never sold well just last yera and it'd be pretty crazy to just jump right back in.

And no. I don't hve a DVD rw/+rw and I plan to wait till they are affordable in a few years(Ie- 100-150 dollar price range)


And I as muse over arcorob's lastest post it amazes me....nothing to say beyond the "bashing" and I don't see how i "started" this per se. I stated that the P4 using SIMD intructions to make up for some shortfalls (which is true) and the AthlonXP doesn't have them because its FPU is strong enough to crunch all that (AMD learned for their K6/-2 mistakes). I don't see anything incorrect about it. SIMD aids the P4, where is the flaw right there? If that was the comment that caused him to go beserk I laugh because then perhaps one should revaluate who is really the "My processor is better than yours and nothing can change that HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH" person.

[Baldrick]

Please try to stick the topic next time...I dont want to read about amd vs intel in every topic.