Pentium 4 vs. AMD

[psycaz]

Frisco,
You may want to a ctrl-alt-del and see if findfast is running in the backround - that thing will cause all kinds of headaches - it indexes your harddrives so it can perform searches faster - most people consider it unnecessary.
Any one else know of this - I am know running W2K and am unsure of what actually installs it.

[Frisco]

psycaz,

I have looked extensively with the ctrl-alt-del function you have described (in order to free up as much memory as possible - close anti-virus, etc.) and have never found findfast running in the background. So, unfortunately, that program would not appear to be the cause of my problems.

At this point, I am pretty much resigned to the fact that even though I just installed everything last weekend, another fresh install is in order, this time using W2K and with the bare minimum components required to run the capture program and see if that results in any improvement.

[psycaz]

Frisco,
Might I suggest that once you get your system to your liking that you use a product like Norton Ghost to image it to allow you to revert back should you inadvertantly do something to degrade your capture ability. I have done it myself trying different codecs and even though I have uninstalled them, things weren't quite the same.

[Frisco]

Psycaz,

That is good advice...I think I'll use it.

[psycaz]

Sefy, Vitualis
It's too bad that there isn't more benchmarking being done with the apps being used by the folks here on the newer cpu's. I am in the market for a new cpu and haven't been able to find much info as to any differences betwen the P4 and the Athlon say in capturing with VirtualDub (dropped frames/resolutions)or encoding with Tmpgenc (time to encode with various filters). It would help some of us to make better choices on what to buy. For the record, I am holding out for the AMD Palomino - I think the complete SSE instructions support will be a big boost over the Athlon Thunderbirds.

[incognito]

Ahhh. Another entertaining thread.

However, it seems to have very little to do with Capturing.
Perhaps it ought to be moved to "off topic".

My two cents:

MHz sells
==========
MHz is cool. Users love it. They love fast machines
with big numbers to go along with them. What good is a
fast machine without BIG numbers?
Designers love it. They're tired of the days when they
were sneered at by the Alpha 21xxx design team and
their 600+MHz wonderchild. The engineers at intel love
showing up at conferences with 2Ghz on their t-shirts.
And yes, Marketers love it too.

But (and I'd make this bold if I knew how) designing a
processor that you can clock very fast is a perfectly
acceptable way of increasing performance. Intel
designers made this decision: instead of squeezing the
most out of each clock cycle, we'll make it go as fast as
we can. They've done a teriffic job of making up for the
high latencies that come with this (as well as the
RDRAM baggage) by taking advantage of a high
bandwidth interface and aggressive pre-fetching. (That,
by the way, is what makes the P4 so good at
MPEG video tasks). And let's face is, at high frequency,
the P4 screams.

Athlons need love too
==================
But an Athlon system is a lot cheaper. Cheap is good.
Money matters as much as MHz to quite a few people.
And most benchmarks put a 1.4GHz Athlon somewhere
in the neighborhood of a 1.8Ghz P4 -- except the cache-
unfriendly ones like video encoding which happen to
be the ones that most of us here will care about!.
The Athlon4 is supposed to have some kind of
hardware pre-fetching capability, so it will be
interesting to see how this changes the situation.
I haven't read any complaints about poor compatibility
in athlon systems, with the exception of Dazzle stuff.


Sure, the P4 is expensive, and it needs to beclocked very
fast to compete. But I wouldn't call it crap. On the other hand, my next system will probably be
AMD-based.

[Sefy]

I don't see where is the contradicion, i've not argued clockrate isn't meaningful,
I've always complain (or scream as you call it) that when Intel Lovers compare P4
to an Athlon, they don't use the clock per clock!, and I also say, that if us AMD
"fanatics" as you call us, would have had the AMD 2.0 vs an Intel 1.4, you would
have complained even MORE then I would.

I am not afraid to accept the comparison, as long as it's a valid comparison! and
using a much newer CPU which was just released, like what, a few days ago ? to an
older CPU, which came out over a month ago, and in PC terms that is ALOT of time!
and on top of that, you are not even daring to use clock per clock, cause then oh
god, Intel P4 would look hurrible in benchmarks!, what I AM saying is, if you are
going to call a P4 2.0ghz, then by all means AMD has all the right to call their
equivelent in performance CPU, in this case the 1.4, they can call it 2.0ghz too!

Shorter and to the point, if you dare to call a CPU that can't beat a 1.4ghz old
CPU model a 2.0ghz CPU, then I want you to stop saying AMD is behind Intel on the
CPU speeds, cause their 1.4 should be called a 2.0ghz just like Intel labeled P4!

Now, as for Benchmarking, that's a completly irrelevent story, CPU isn't the only
part of your PC that can cause the speed to go up and down, your mainboard is a
MAJOR (in my opinion) player in that department, i've seen an IDENTICAL system,
which the ONLY diffrence was a mainboard, while one having awfull performance!!!!
and the same system, with a diffrent brand board seemed to fly rocket!!

"On a more realstic purcahse schedule", yeah sure, in a year or two, when all the
software is ready and optimized, sure, the P4 will be an amazing CPU! but now let
us get REAL! you want to buy NOW, something for a YEAR from now ? I don't know if
you know, but in PC Hardware, in a YEAR, it's like a LIFETIME, everything can and
WILL change! Intel will propably have a P5! it will run on Energizer too!
Reality Check! People who buy now, want their performance NOW, they don't want to
wait for NEXT year's model to be superior, they want their superiority RIGHT NOW!

I don't want to make AMD looks superior, and defenetly not because of prices, all
I want you to see, is whatever a P4 gives you, an equivalent CPU will give you as
well!, and a comparison is available! i've given proofs all over the forum! same
systems running the same GRAPHIC intensive applications, and if you tell me that
the rendering of Final Fantasy isn't intensive, that's when I start ignoring you!
and a Dual AMD uses the Dual P4 as a door matt to clean it's dirty bits on!

AND, finally, as for 64bit!, well, by the time Microsoft gets out court in pieces
you won't be seeing a 64bit Operating System in a LONG time, I could be of course
wrong, and will see a 64bit Images covering a 32bit shell of a 16bit OS desgiened
for an 8bit CPU, running in 4bit mode, by a 2bit company, that doesn't have 1bit
of competition left! (Which is what will happen if Intel has no competition!) and
then Intel will be in BIG trouble! cause all their wonderful 64bit, which by the
way runs even slower then the P4 in running TODAY's application is gonna go down
so hard, Intel won't know what hit them!

AMD 64bit isn't based on old instructions, it includes old instructions so it can
run them as well, so you don't end up having a super computer that can't run ....
I don't know, DIGGER!, so again you will need to wait for all the programs to be
Intel 64bit ready to take advantage of the 64bit CPU, and the battle begins....

[kinneera]

You're on dangerous ground when you say that a company should be able to claim their Mhz is whatever they want it to be just because the performance is equivalent to another chip's at a higher clock rate. There are federal laws against this: they're called false advertising laws! And this is exactly where you're arguing against yourself. Sure, the AMD has different chip architecture that makes the clockrate comparison unreliable, so either accept that we are comparing different architectures and it is thus acceptable to choose the best of both, or forget about the clockrate altogether. You can't have both, because then of course, it supports your pro-AMD position so conveniently.

Again, the argument I am making is that architecturally, we have not and do not have a fair comparison available of these chips. Whether you want to bank on current performance or future performance is entirely subjective, I've never argued for either position. The flipside of the argument is that those who buy P4s now may not have as good performance, but they WONT need to upgrade in 1 year as their processor's performance is progressively fully realized, whereas an AMD purchased RIGHT NOW most likely would have to be upgraded. Then where's your price advantage?

The OS argument you make against the 64 bit discussion is a red herring argument, it is beside the point. For the record, the 64 bit version of WinXP is entirely new, and not based on any previous OS architecture. Even if you don't believe that, there will be plenty of unix/linux variants that will be equally from scratch. Finally, the instruction set of the AMD 64 bit processors is entirely based on the old x86 instruction set or extensions thereof, it is not purely for compatibility - and this will be crippling. The intel 64bit instruction set is entirely new designed to most benefit from the new architecture, as well as the associated subsystems that will be used with the processor (read memory and cache addressing). The AMD 64bit machines will have much better 32bit legacy support, but the Intel machines will ultimately wipe the floor with them when it comes to true dedicated 64bit workstation tasks. This is currently how it stacks up in that arena, but again, I'm not saying a lot can't change in 5 years.

[Sefy]

I've not said a company would claim their MHz is whatever! there should be a TRUE
unbiased source which will compare both companies products, using the same benchs
and using ALL technology of BOTH products! but if Intel is playing dirty, then id
say, AMD should play just as dirty! but wow!! see, now you are screaming i'm on a
dangerous ground! and why ? because then we'd see what GHz AMD will be, and where
in the dust Intel would be!

Now, you are saying that someone that buys, lets say for the argument sake a P4
running at 1.4ghz is a better and more future proof buy compared to someone like
me that would buy an AMD 1.4ghz because in about a year from now, that same 1.4g
of P4 will beat the same AMD 1.4ghz when all the applications take advantage of
for arguments sake, we'll say the two CPU's all their features included ?
I say you are wrong, why you ask ? because the only benchs using all technology
that is available to both CPU's today, even with software that is optimized for
the P4, the Athlon still wins!, but lets look ahead in the future after 1 year..

1 Year Later!
Do you really think that either P4 or Athlon will still be around ? be honest!
can you REALLY vouch for me, telling me, go ahead, pay ????$ for a P4, don't you
worry! in a year from now you can still upgrade it! can you HONESTLY convince me
or better yet, can you HONESTLY convince YOURSELF ?? please don't be ridicules!
We ALL know Intel! they have already changed a socket design! how do you say and
guarntee me that a future CPU lets say at 2003 will still work on your board ?
On the OTHER hand, AMD has given public announces that the currect Socket A will
STILL be supported with future CPU's! with a BIOS update you can have all new &
improved features, who knows, maybe you'll even get SSE2, after all, Morgan and
Palomino already support SSE! and there are other "cool names" features that you
will get from AMD which already beat Intel in specs (HyperTransport for example)

And Price Comparison ? please don't tell me you think CPU is the only thing you
invest money in on a PC ? where's the RAM ? where's the Mainboard ? you get it
for free or something ? if you do, let me have some too!, and THAT is the total
that makes a P4 WAY TO EXPENSIVE! but even Vitualis admits that this is Intel's
weakest point! he doesn't argue about Price/Performance, cause he knows AMD is
beating Intel hands down!

NOTES: Regarding 64bit's, I know of all the flavours and tastes of OS's that do
support 64bit, but your claim that "AMD 64bit processors is ENTIRELY based...."
that is totaly false! i've read some of the specs when I was bored, it will run
both 32bit faster (and faster then Itanium will run 16/32bits) and it will also
run 64bit at a competitive performance, yes, true, it won't beat it, but that's
not the market they are aiming.

Lets not fight over the future yet, lets way till it comes, then we can have yet
another healthy debate

[H@Mouse]

(Read the START and very END if you don't want to read up on some interesting AMD/Intel points... skip the middle.)

Here's an odd thing: two friends who were staunchly Intel (no this isn't a blatant AMD is better than Intel rant... please read) were in the market for new computers. One, just looking for speed. He updated an old 550 PII or somesuch to a 1 GHz Athlon and was totally blown away. He ended up dumping his other 900 PIII for another 1 or 1.2 GHz Athlon (I forget which exactly)... (BTW: Anyone who says a 1 GHz PIII is faster than a 1.2 or 1.3 GHz Athlon is just flat out lying.)

The other is an audio professional. Nothing light here at all. He decided to STAY with Intel. As of about 1 month ago, he picked up (get this) a PIII 933, a couple 8 channel audio boards, etc. and is thrilled! You see, with all the hoopla about MHz, Intel forgot one thing: STABILITY. Just wander into any audio enthusiast newsgroup or forum and see what processors they recommend. PIII is tops due to the old "tried and true" mantra, but the P4 is outright ridiculed. The stability and compatibility is deplorable. Consistency in recording is next to impossible. The only saving grace for speed fanatics in the audio recording end of the spectrum is the Athlon due to its consistency. More and more PROFESSIONAL mixing and recording packages are focusing on the Athlon in their optimizations and recommendations (Steinberg AG for one) not only due to its speed, but it's stability. The PIII is still given as the "if you must go Intel" choice however.

Where am I going with this? BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION POSTED... (no, really!) I'm wondering if this isn't just another example of that wonder P4 compatilibity problem... could be the motherboard, could be the chip, who knows?!? I tend to think it's the OS myself. But P4's have a NOTORIOUSLY bad reputation in the audio recording community. Not my word, this is fact.

psycaz: I'm with you... I wish some of these darn benchmarking sites would test with real-world USUABLE apps such as VirtualDub, TMPGEnc, etc. Ok, so Quake III runs fast... big hairy deal. Ok, "Business mark" leans heavily towards Athlon, "Internet Content Creation" to P4, so what?!? I need to see some number crunchers... someone's doing a "Science Mark" here pretty soon I think... JC's News had something about it. This has potential, but could easily be biased too. Filtering, compression is the Athlon's stronghold however, so I'd be surprised to find the P4 even close... just look at the QUALITY settings tests for Flask - the P4 is trailing big time...

kinneera: uhh... not sure where you're been reading these "golden P4" stories, but it's been stated in various tech breakdowns over the months since the P4's release, most software will not get ANY better for the P4. Due to the inherently long pipeline in its design, some software cannot be improved for the P4. The FPU is inferior. If the code can get by streaming along in the SSE2 realm without a FPU opcode call, it's FAAAAAST... otherwise, mix in a video or audio filter, and a PIII will even walk the floor with it. THIS IS THE WEAK LINK. It will not improve. It's a nearly "apples to apples" comparison as of this date... it's not going to get much better if at all for the P4. The only hope Intel has is to up the MHz quickly and get people to buy new hardware... and since they're changing the pinout (once again... doh!), you'll have to get a new motherboard as well.

I say, if you're stuck with a P4, you can live with it. It's still decent performance in most things... just very subpar in others and can have some serious compatibility issues... you need to find what software it's best with and go that route.

As for some tech anaylsis on the P4, Athlon, G4, Alpha, not to mention Sun's and VIA's chips from time to time, check out JC's News - http://www.jc-news.com
(He was fairly Intel friendly for ages, but is leaning more toward AMD with every fubar Intel makes and crap they push out... I wouldn't call him completely impartial, but tends to back up everything with detailed links and code-test info. Note: this can get analytical and well over my head at times!)

PS: The AMD x86-64 instruction set is COMPLEMENTARY at this point. They've seen how poorly performing Intel's Itanium is currently performing and AREN'T PLANNING to produce a 64-bit chip yet. This is only for compatibility at this point. It'll run 64-bit, but it's no ALPHA. Then again, neither is the Itanium. AMD's going for pure 32-bit performance in the hammer series, but is designing 64-bit opcodes into the chip for decent performance... they're pretty much betting 64-bit won't take off yet. This is nearly a year off, most arguments pro/con Itanium/Hammer are moot here and now, and especially this subject anyhow.

Wow... this thread sure has grabbed some heated attention. See what you started Frisco by titling it "Pentium 4 vs. AMD"!!! (At least you've gotten a ton of replies... hopefully some good suggestions in private mail by now too.)

Last note: hey - just hit me... what motherboard chipset do you have? I'm not a VIA fan myself, and a load of trouble these days can be traced to their chipsets... with AMD or Intel CPUs! Have you tried a BIOS update of the MB? AND, whether it's VIA or not, have you checked your BIOS settings? Could be your memory timings are off! The P4's didn't all ship with PC800, some had PC700 or PC600... you might be hitting a speed/quality issue! You don't have a soundblaster in your system do you? The Live! cards tend to cause a weird bus throttling problem on ALL motherboards... most of the time it only affects audio, but can be worse in some configurations. There's an article up on VIAHardware.com discussing the Creative Labs "creative" PCI bus throttling issue... it's an independent site that does a VERY good job proving other manufacturers' boards, including Intel's chipsets, have similar problems.

How's the heat within the case? Running hot or in a hot room?

Hmm... Ok, I'm done for tonight... GOOD LUCK!

- H@

[AnnihilatorTokyo]

Sefy, are you being sponsored by AMD? You sure are defending them and yourself a lot.

Maybe a little Napoleon-complex from all the AMD users?

[d_hitman]

Frisco - am currently using a P4 1.5 on a P4TM Asus motherboard with 256 MB RAM, and a 7200 RPM 40 GB hard drive for capture. Computer running Win2K with SP2, DirectX 8.0a and DirectX8.0 Video Capture update installed. Capture card is the cheap but effective Lifeview 98/FM.

Quite satisfied and happy with it.

Can capture hour long movies in virtual dub with only approximately .000144 percent frame drop at YUY2, 352x240 using either Huffy or PicVideo compression. Have not tried capturing yet at higher resolutions or in RGB in virtual dub.

But I have done higher resolution capturing in iuVCR with basically the same results except that in iuVCR I can't get the sound and video synchronized perfectly. Still looking into that. Probably did it at times when hard disk was so fragmented. Or probably it's because of something else. Any iuVCR user out there who has any idea about this? Need some advise.

Oh, btw, processing in TMPGenc basically goes 1:1, meaning one hour long movies done in one hour but that is without any filter. But soften block noise is set to on at its default settings. Haven't not tried other MPEG encoders yet. But will soon try CCE and Flask and etc...

[taylor42]

I recommend dropping Windows ME for Win2k, ME is just 98 with a few new toys and it doesn't use memory over 64MB as well as Win2k. Another possibility is you second drive slaved to thr primary ide controller or the master ont the secondary. If its the slave and the computer accesses the first drive while capturing to the second you may see a momentary dip in the throughput rate of the second drive.

[VelocityCoder]

Well, while the processor debate made for some interesting (though inaccurate) reading, you might want to check and see if you have DMA mode enabled on your IDE controller. PIO will result in high CPU utilization and could possibly cause the problems you indicated. As for the processor debate, I have dual Palaminos (o/c'd to 1.466 on Golden Sockets from Plycon).... I really doubt many people here are running faster than that (as it runs circles aroung my 1.68 AYHJA).

[Aoshi]

I wanna argue too! I've used Intel and AMD processors. At same speeds with basically same specs (ram, hd speed, capture devices, etc...) the AMD processors beat out Intel, and this was not on crap processors, I was using an Athlon 700 and a P3 700. The Athlon performed better in gaming (Counter-Strike) video encoding (DivX, MPEG-1, and MPEG-2) although only by a little, but as far as video capturing went, they were both about the same....
I've also used Duron and Celeron processors and Duron soooo beats Celeron, AMD makes wayyyy better price-to-performance processors.
As far as P4 and Athlon4 goes, I know shit. I haven't tried a P4 because of all the compatability issues I've heard of and I'm broke! You can't buy a P4 system without a lot of money so I didn't even consider buying one. Instead I upgraded my previous 800 Duron processor with a 1gig Athlon processor and upgraded ram. This flexibility to upgrade to a different, more superior processor with AMD motherboards is one of the main reasons I bought my Duron based computer (I got rid of all my other comps).
Obviously I'm taking AMD's side in this argument because I'm an everyday POOR customer. I can't spend $500+ to upgrade my computer to a P4 system (considering I'd have to get new ram and motherboard) unlike some of you Intel lovers seem to be able to.
I'm guessing that Intel lovers are all filthy rich or something. Sure there might be a LITTLE performance superiority between a P4 2.0ghz and an Athlon 1.4ghz, but there's also a $400+ difference... WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE GO FOR THAT?! Especially when it's been proven that the performance advantage is either non-existant or minimal...
For anyone that can affor a new 2.0ghz P4 system, use your money and go buy 2 1.4ghz Athlon systems... You'll be very pleased....

[pacmania_2001]

This is like a modern day Coke vs Pepsi debate. Like that debate, is anyone going to change their views?

[vitualis]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-06 15:45:47, Sefy wrote:
I've not said a company would claim their MHz is whatever! there should be a TRUE unbiased source which will compare both companies products, using the same benchs and using ALL technology of BOTH products! but if Intel is playing dirty, then id say, AMD should play just as dirty! but wow!! see, now you are screaming i'm on a dangerous ground! and why ? because then we'd see what GHz AMD will be, and where in the dust Intel would be!</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

An "unbiased" sourch of benchmarking? I'm of the opinion that the benchmarking of the P4 2GHz (best of Intel's line) vs. the Athlon 1.4GHz (best of AMD's line) was very neutral, and indeed satisfied your above criterion. The conclusion of that review is that this particular P4 has better performance than it's Athlon counterpart. Now, for your argument to make any sense, then you must be suggesting that Tom's Hardware is biased and his benchmarks are inaccurate. Are you making this allegation?

Intel has every right to call its 2GHz P4 as "2GHz". This is for the simple reason that it runs at 2GHz and that is all that it means.

AMD has absolutely NO RIGHT top call its 1.4GHz Athlon anything other than 1.4GHz. To do so would be false advertising.

If you are annoyed that people are simply looking at the clockrate and making comparisons, the solution to this is education of the general public, not the deceitful use of PR ratings. AMD should be proud that their 1.4GHz Athlon has similar performance to the P4 2GHz and should stress or advertise this point.

Sefy, I'm only going to comment on this one point. What kinneera stated before was completely true. You are twisting arguements to serve your own purpose of supporting AMD -- at times in a completely contradictory fashion.

Regards.

[Sefy]

AnnihilatorTokyo, I wish, and I don't defened anyone, i'm trying to help users to stop
thinking that if you buy a name that will give you quality with it.

pacmania_2001, I highly doubt it

vitualis, yes, there should be an unbiased source, and although I have nothing against
Tom's Hardware and no i'm not making allegations or accusations, all i'm simply saying
is that if Intel can label their CPU 2.0ghz and you think it's right of them to do so,
(although the last performance it has is 2.0ghz) because compared to other P4 speed it
is the fastest, why doesn't another company X comes out, in busXmultpier it will be 3g
but it's performance will be 300mhz, so they have the right to call their CPU that?

What the public needs is a way they can compare two competing CPU's using an external
unbiased (not web guys like you and me) that has access to all the latest tech stuff,
and can run applications on two equivalant systems, using the same hardware, except of
course CPU/Mainboard/RAM, and then they should say what GHz that CPU you should be at!

Someone who goes to the store to buy a CPU and sees a lowly Athlon only at 1.4ghz and
a Pentium 4 at 1.8ghz will take the P4, because it will think the 1.8ghz can actually
beat in performance when in reality they are either at the same performance or the P4
is losing to the Athlon.

As for the PR rating, it's not false advertising, cause if you recall on Cyrix and the
K5/K6, the true CPU was also there, it was just said that this CPU running at ??? will
give the performance of a Pentium running at ???, and that's all i've ment by using PR

We can try your advice of educating the public, but it will never work, have you got
the money to compete with Intel's publications ? if Intel wants, it can show the P4 at
3ghz and show an AMD at 3ghz losing to it by buying off another benchmark suite, as we
all know, Ziff Davies is a big fraud when it comes to Benchmarks, does anyone remember
Norton System Information ? that's what sells, and Intel knows it.

Lastly, you should know me better then that, I haven't twisted any facts, i've merly
shown you what would happen if I changed the roles, and I was right, I had an outburst
by everyone just like I said would be, if we made AMD at 2.0ghz and Intel was 1.4ghz,
all Intel users would say, why am I comparing a 2.0 to 1.4, that's not fair comparing.

For all I care, if someone wants to spend thusands of dollar's to buy a Pentium 4, he
can be my guest, it's his money, but to tell me he is buying it cause in 5000 years it
will perform amazingly, is pure idiotic, cause no one knows what happens in the future
and i'm not buying things now to save them up for the future, i'm buying things to do
my work on them NOW, and enjoy them NOW in the PRESENT, and yes, I want the ability to
upgrade for as less as possible, each P4 upgrade is defenetly NOT cost effective.

[gf]

PERFORMANCE!
PERFORMANCE!
PERFORMANCE!!!
Why do you think AMD is going to a PR rating on their CPU's??? Because of the uneducated consumer that is buying the Intels SLOWER PERFORMER PENTIUM 4! And if the Pentium 4 is so great why can't they kill the Pentium 3? PERFORMANCE! And why the does the Pentium 4 @ 2Ghz have a hard time against the Athlon @ 1.4Ghz, PERFORMANCE!. Surely a 600Mhz faster processor should wipe the floor with the slower one.
So what's the answer? That's right, say after ME--PERFORMANCE!!!

[d_hitman]

I say ... Live and let Live!

[gf]

GREAT ANSWER LET'S BURN SOME VIDEO's, AND HELP OTHERS DO THE SAME!!!!!!

[Frisco]

H@Mouse,
I am running a DFI WT70-EC Motherboard with an Intel 850/ICH2 Chipset and the BIOS is Award BIOS 4Mbit.

As for a BIOS update, I checked the manufacturer's website and the BIOS version I am running is apparently the most current.

I am using PC800 for RAM, four 128 MB RIMMS.

As for the Soundblaster Live question...it is interesting that you bring that up. This particular motherboard has on-board sound, but I had a Soundblaster Live card from my prior system. In the BIOS I disabled the on-board sound and then installed the Soundblaster Live card...the drivers would seem to install fine, but when I would try to play either audio or video, the applications would either show an error or not play.

As such, I didn't really care about having the card in there and just went back to the onboard sound...which works quite well.

The room the computer is in is not a hot room, and the computer does not seem any hotter than my previous ones. The big difference I notice is that the fan can be quite quiet at times, but then kicks into high gear at other times, generally when there is some major computing going on. I'm assuming this is due to the temperature control of this new computer.

[rtherr3184]

Does anyone know if all apps run on the AMD cpu? I had a problem with Cubase, Vegas Video, Adobe Premier running on an AMD processeor so I had to change to a PIII-500. The audio streamed in nicely. Vegas and Cubase people said the AMD was not supported and had no plans to do so. If I wanted to do so I needed to change to Intel.
If my programs don't behave well, speed doesn't mean a thing

[septor]

Ok intel is the microsoft on cpus
Amd is the linux of cpus
you all know winblows sucks compared to linux
but less support linux gets
because money and power talks
Ok Think about
wtf is going on comparing a cpu thats 2.0 gigs to a 1.4
not fair in anyway
the amd holds its own as well in this comparison and these benchmark tests
Ok they say that the chips are completly different as well as the clockrate if a 1.4 vs a 1.4 were to take place
thats just a way around the question
No doubt a amd would kill the p4
There would have to be a new class instead of mhz then if the chips are so different then
amds won't go by mhz I guess
I think I made my point
Don't know how u intel junkies are gonna take it

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: septor on 2001-09-07 09:06:00 ]</font>

[gf]

I did read some Via chipsets and some Intel chipsets had problem with sound blaster sound cards. Is the manufacture's (of the sound card) websit any more informative?

[Frisco]

I didn't check the Creative website - just the motherboard website, who said they weren't aware of any incompatibilities between my motherboard and Soundblaster Live.

Personally, if my biggest problem is not being able to have the soundblaster live card in my computer, I'll be laughing.

[ghengis2k1]

no i don't have a p4.. but you should have invested in a
new motherboard running dual p3's @ 1 ghz with win2000.

thats my next upgrade.

[tuanp40]

I used my desktop AMD 333Mhz with Dazzle DVCII to capture movies from VCR with no problem.

I used my laptop PIII 900MHz to rip a DVD. Smart Ripper took about 45min, FlaskMeg took 8hrs, TMPGen to split into 2 files to for VCD took 20mins.

FlaskMeg does a lot of conversion and may not need FP a lot; hence, clock speed is essential in this case. P IV may beat AMD in this case.

[kinneera]

All I really want to comment on here is this nonsense with the clockrate. A more realistic benchmark of processor performance is all fine and good, but you just cant make it the clockrate. The clockrate of a processor is a specific value that is verifiable and unchangeable. Thus, it is illegal for AMD to claim that a 1.4Ghz processor IS a 2.0Ghz processor. It is, however, legal for them to claim that the 1.4Ghz performs AS WELL AS a 2.0Ghz processor, which is precisely what Cyrix did (with older, slower speeds of course) in the example you gave.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the two companies have chosen two different solutions to the same problem: making our computers faster. Intel leverages the advantages of higher clockrates while AMD has focuses on squeezing the most out of their current clockrates. The BEST from both parties are more or less as good as eachother, whether or not you like the discrepancy between clockrates (or prices). I think what AMD needs to be careful of is Intel increasing the efficiency of their high clockrate processors, which would definitely outclass AMD. Achieving high clockrates is a difficult technical hurdle that Intel has already invested in, now all they have to do is fix pipeline, FPU, and other weak spots and they will easily beat AMD hands down if AMD doesn't invest in matching them. None of this has happened yet, but its no mystery that the top priority for Intel's next chip is fixing the FPU, which was probably the P4's greatest weakness.

Again, this is arguing the future, not the present, but there is an underlying moral. We are all losing sight of how beneficial the existence and efforts of BOTH companies have been to consumers. This is the free market at its best. And as surprising as it may seem, you better believe Intel is glad AMD is around, or they would be in the same world of hurt as Microsoft is in.

[jamawas]

AMD's PR rating is actually based on Intel's spec2001. The Palomino should start at 1.5 Ghz = PR 1800. I've read on the web that AMD's forthcoming Hammer chips which will debut at 2 Ghz will have a rating of 3500! For me price/performance ratio matters more than a clockspeed label. Why pay $600 more for a few percentage points performance gain in very few apps. When Intel can match AMD on price/ performance I'll switch, till then I'm in the AMD camp for the forseeable future.