Pentium 4 vs. AMD

[Sefy]

Frisco, i'd like to apologise to you, not about recommanding AMD, but about turning this into a debate and not even trying to help you find a solution to your problem, so, I hear by promise you I will help you find a solution and I will not go into another debate on your account!

Now, as I last recall, you reformated and install a fresh Windows2000 on your system, I am hoping you made a GHOST of that primary installation as someone here suggested, it's a great idea, and god knows I do it myself!

Secondly, after having a fresh installation, the best way to do testing, it to JUST install the system drivers, and the application that causes the trouble, most of the time, it's just drivers that cause all the trouble, after that it can be the software, on the bad note, in can be hardware incompatibility.

SB Live! has problems with VIA, but that was fixed, since you got a P4 i don't see any reason for that to affect you since you are using Intel chipset, so let me know how testing went and if you see any improvments.

[psycaz]

Frisco,
Out of curiousity, have you tried changing the capture drive to the other just to see if it acts differently?
Do you have overlay on or off? Just trying to get an idea as to what setup you're at when this happens.
Also, are you verifying your codec selection before each capture? I have had a problem that for some reason it will appear to change codecs if I stop my current capture - I can tell by my cpu and drops going way up - ends up using the cinepak codec and my machine isn't fast enough - Yet!!!

[Dug]

Hey H@Mouse,

I have an Athlon 850 Mhz and am having trouble getting it to go past the capture mode. I use a firewire from my Canon Elura2 and when I send what I've captured back to the camera and play it on TV it is great. HOWEVER, when I try to go from capture to a saved format such as avi or mpg, etc, the quality is terrible. When I try to play it back on my computer, on a celeron and even using a vcd through creative DVD player it is grainy and unacceptable. Have tried to use IntroDV (which came with the firewire card from Digital Origin), Premier 6, VirtualDub, and a couple of other programs. None have worked thus far. In fact VirtualDub refuses to accept that my camera exits so I can't even capture with it! Any thots?

<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 2001-09-04 09:16:16, H@Mouse wrote:
Nononono... it's quite adequate. Must have been a REAL die-hard AMD fan who told you that!

I greatly prefer the AMD Athlons personally, and they do handle real-time compression and filtering effects leaps and bounds better than the fastest P4 (just due to the weak FPU of the P4 design), but for basic capturing, I've actually read that it's supposed to be slightly faster than the Athlon series.

In general, take a P4 speed * 3/4, and this will yield the corresponding speed of a similarly performing Athlon chip. For instance, in many apps, a 1.2 GHz Athlon will beat a 1.5 GHz P4 and just about all games but Quake III (does anyone actually play that crappy excuse for a game??? I don't think I have one single friend playing it! PRACTICALLY EVERYONE plays or has played Unreal Tournament, Deus Ex, Rune, or Undying though - which (the UT engine) still runs faster on 1.4 GHz Athlons even against the 2.0 GHz P4... unbelieveable!) It's just a matter of the apps though. There are a select few where the P4 will edge out that Athlon, you just have to look for them!

Watch the benchmark results on various hardware sites and choose the software that runs faster on the P4. Same with the video editting software (though I know of NONE that run faster on a P4)... you'll likely find some CAPTURE software that runs better on a P4 though! Flask I've heard is much better optimized for the P4 for DVD conversion also!

Games, same way... there's got to be a few that run better on the P4... Q3, sometimes Mercedes Benz Truck Racing, and Dronez are the only ones so far... there might be more in the future...

Sorry... truly... getting way off topic, but I noticed you did strike up the "hot topic" (tm) of P4 vs AMD in your subject and it just got me going.

Anyhow, no, your system is quite adequate for video capturing. Conversion tends to be much weaker with the exception of Flask. Is it usuable? A definite yes! Junk? No. By no means.

PS: yes, I've gone the AMD way for video capture, and all things are quite happy here.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[juice]

AMD Athlon just loveing rocks. Intel go suck an egg, your not getting money from me.

By the way. I wonder when the "New" AMD Chip is going to be released. Code Named "Clawhammer" a 64 bit chip with backwards compatability to run 32 bit apps and games. AMD looks promising.

[Freddie100]

My video capturing results in real life.
Western Digital 40G 7200rpm ATA100 drive used in all setups.
ATI Radeon 64m ddr video card used in all setups.
Hauppauge WinTV PVR used in all setups.
Windows 98 SE operating system.
Used Virtual dub and Ulead Video Studio 5.0 as capture programs.
Used same Thunderbird 1.4 G 266 FSB on all AMD motherboards.
Used P4 1.4 G on P4 motherboard.
Used 256m of PC2100 on AMD ddr motherboards.
Used 128m Rambus 800Mhz on P4 motherboard.

AMD boards used.
Epox 8K7A
Epox 8KTA3
Asus A7A266
Abit KT7 Raid
FIC AD11
P4 board used.
Abit TH7-RAI
Used the same video capturing time of 10min with same video VCR and DVD video sources.
I had various frame drops on all the AMD motherboards.
No frame drops with the P4 board.
I know AMD is a better processor for games.
My conclusion is the P4 is better for video capturing.

[Sefy]

Freddie100, i've done capturing on these without a single frame drop, use realtime MPEG and AVI captures on a Hauppauge WinTV Radio:

CPUs
K6-2 550
Duron 600/750
Athlon 1400 (266bus)

Boards:
EPoX MVP3 G5
EPoX 8KTA2
EPoX 8KTA3

RAM was the same on all board: 384mb PC133 SDRAM.
and according to every single benchmark the AMD beats Intel, and as far as I know, i'm not a figmint of my imagination, i'm in real life. so you might have had other problems, but they aren't neccesserly with AMD or AMD boards.

[juice]

Well I guarantee that all you Intel fans will change your tune next year when the 64 bit chip is released. Intel's version is NOT backwards compatible. That means all of your 32 bit programs will not work on it. You will have to run Windows XP on it too.

How ever AMD version code named Claw hammer (Home version) is backwards compatible. They also have a Server version code named Sledgehammer that will be out in 2002.

Time for Intel to die from the home computer user. Do you want to start all over again finding a 64 bit version of everything you own? I don't think so.

I've been using AMD since the days of the K5 and I'm sticking with them though the long run.

[Sefy]

Frisco, any news ? is everything working now ? haven't heard from you in awhile now.
I hope all your problems are solved.

[kinneera]

<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 2001-09-09 06:08:14, juice wrote:
Well I guarantee that all you Intel fans will change your tune next year when the 64 bit chip is released. Intel's version is NOT backwards compatible. That means all of your 32 bit programs will not work on it. You will have to run Windows XP on it too.

How ever AMD version code named Claw hammer (Home version) is backwards compatible. They also have a Server version code named Sledgehammer that will be out in 2002.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

This is what we need to avoid: flat out WRONG information. The Intel 64-bit processors are entirely backwards compatible with 32-bit (you actually bother to read any of the above posts?), but it will be slower because the focus of the new instruction sets is optimizing for 64-bit performance. AMD has taken the exact opposite approach with Sledgehammer, creating merely extensions of the x86 instructions (exactly the same kind of logic for which Intel has been so criticized with the Pentium line).

Odd, Intel already has sever and workstation versions of their 64-bit processor available. AMD in 2002? Once again they play catch up.

Like was mentioned previously in this thread, none of this is really relevant because the price points won't be viable for consumers from either company for several years. The 64-bit war is a battle for business customers, not home users. By the time it is ready for general consumers, you can bet that all the software you want will have 64 bit versions.

[Frisco]

Sefy,

Sorry for the delay...I have spent my free time this weekend getting Windows 2K up and running. I happened to have a spare 10GB 7200 RPM drive that I wasn't using, so I was able to get that drive running and was able to leave my 20GB (with Windows ME) untouched, just in case.

I have just did a couple of test runs using Virtualdub, and I have found the processor no longer maxes out at 100% as it did under Windows ME. In my two minute sample, I dropped no frames and the CPU was never above 20%

I will be doing some further tests, but under Windows ME, I was already seeing dropped frames by the 2:00 mark and the CPU was being taxed quite heavily. I have only just over 1 GB free on my 10GB hd, so I can't do any large tests unless I hook up one of the other drives.

I'm thinking about getting a fasttrak Raid card for the 20 and 60 GB drives, so that I can use all three drives that I own. What is your opinion on that...is it worth the money?

I will let you know how my tests go.

[Frisco]

Well, I ran another test, this time on a 10 minute clip...and there was not a single dropped frame!

I never would have realized that Windows ME was such a poor OS.

I'm still thinking about that Raid card though...

[psycaz]

Frisco,
Glad to hear you may have it figured out.
Good Luck!!

[d_hitman]

Frisco, congratulations! Happy burning!

[AnnihilatorTokyo]

When I was first introduced to PC, AMD had some problems running certain applications, and sometimes Win95 didn't work like it should. So naturally I choose an Intel CPU instead.
Since I know Intel is working fine, I bought Intel again.
However, I'm no stranger to buying an AMD next time, depending on what's available when my next upgrade will be.
I'm very happy with my P4 1.7GHz, does video conversion fast, 90min AVI to MPEG in 100min. Fine by me, and all my games run really fast. Performance is not only limited to the CPU, I bet that my machine is faster then some of the AMD at 1.2GHz (think that's the number that they compare AMD to Intel with in terms of GHz), and some are faster then my machine. All AMD-fans says Intel people look at the GHz, but I must say the same to you. There are many factors involved in making a PC fast, and CPU is only a part of it. So by making these accusations that a 1.2GHz AMD sweeps the floor with a 1.7GHz Intel, that might be true but not in all cases.

Sefy, you of all people should know that, I assume!?

Frisco, don't think RAID is for you. You need equal size disks, preferably, otherwise you loose GB on you drives.
You're not getting over 100mb per second in from your capture, so you should be fine with your ATA100 disks.

[Sefy]

AnnihilatorTokyo, i've already replied to what you said in another topic where you wrote it, no need to write the same thing twice, and as I promised, i'm not gonna go into another debate as it's not helping anyone, it won't change any of our opinions and it's just not going anywhere.

Frisco, i'm glad to hear that troubels are starting to disapper on you, and yes, Windows ME is even worse then what you think! i'll never know why Microsoft even bothered releasing it in the first place!

As for the Raid, I agree with AnnihilatorTokyo! it's not for you, and it's not worth it.

[Frisco]

Yes, I decided against the Raid...one big reason is that I don't have any free PCI slots.

Another, is that I did a quick test in Virtualdub at the highest resolution I could and I still wasn't losing any frames...CPU usage was higher (around 50%), but that cyclical problem is now gone, so it wasn't a problem.

I would like to thank everyone who gave me suggestions as to what the problem could be. I'm quite glad the problem is solved and look forward to tonight, when I finish up with my computer and get the computer room looking a lot less like a tornado hit it!

Frisco

[shochan]

Ok here ya go folks i heard someone talkin about playing catch up. Catch up is what amd does best. It is where everyone wants to be. Why you get to see all the flaws and the problems that intel has and fix them. P4 2ghz vs And 1.4 is pretty stupid. It is like comapring a 486 to a 586. ITs all differnt. Intel made the first 686 (p3) and then Amd followed later with a better version that blows intel's 686 away. The real comparison is a p3 1.2 vs a tibrd 1.2 compare same clock levels.
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q3/piii-1.2/biz-winstone.gif

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q3/piii-1.2/cc-winstone.gif

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q3/piii-1.2/pov-ntreal.gif

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q3/piii-1.2/lame.gif

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q3/piii-1.2/q3a.gif

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q3/piii-1.2/3dmarks.gif

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q3/piii-1.2/sciencemark.gif

As you can see the Amd 1.2 whopped ,pretty much in all but one bechmark, the 1.2 p3. And th amd 1.4 pretty much whooped the p4 also. Look at the benchmarks read them say what you want. but like I said earlier playing catch up is alot better Its all about builind a better mouse trap. Intel has their p4 amd will build a better one. Intel has their 64bit itanium amd will build a better one.

The only reason why intel is poping out such highspeed processors is because that is wat the consumor wants to see. They dont really understand that their p3 beats the crap out of their new p4 why because its 1.8ghz. Amd beat intel to the 1ghz processor and that was a true mileston for the processor industry, the 2ghz barrier isn't a big deal. SOme say it is but amd went into the 4 digits first, the 5 digits is where the next mile stone will be.

Intel does it first, but Amd does it right!

[Sefy]

Frisco, i'm glad to hear all is working for you finaly!, and again i'd like to apologise for the debate I caused for you

[Chris X]

Yada Yada Yada


takes me 2 hours to encode and Entire DVD movie into VCD with TMPGenc using Highest Quality (very slow), Use Floating Point and Soften Block Noise enabled.

1.4GHz Tbird c
iwill KK266-R
512 pc 133 memory
Voodoo5 5500
WD 40 7,200rpm mode 5

Not to brag or anything lol, However, I don't dislike InteL, My older 466MHz celeron was very fast and stable.

[Frisco]

Sefy,

Don't worry about it...I look at it this way, I started a topic that has received well over 100 replies!

Also, I learned a number of things.

[Sefy]

Just as long as there are no hard feelings
Just out of curiasity, you were the one who emailed me and I told you to get an AMD ?

[d4n13l]

The problem is now the more Hz a CPU runs at the better it looks on paper. In short, to the average dumbass that goes to a computer store (especially a chain store), the bigger the number of hertz that shouts out at them and grabs their attention, the more likely they are to purchase that computer. They wont even begin comprehend the huge differences between the architecture of different CPUs, thus they perhaps buy a slower, more expensive computer due only to a marketing practice. You cannot compare an AMD and Intel CPU purely on Hz, the difference in architecture is too great. The best mark is the price that they retail and what performance you get at that price. One CPU maybe more suited to your specific needs so you look at how it performs under certain benchmarks (and yes, there are actually circumstances that you would be better off with a P4, though be they small). The only problem now is that people are buying CPUS that they will never harness the true power of: its like taking a helicopter to work instead of your car. My P3 500 suits all my needs fine still, and I would consider myself a power user - compiling, encoding etc...
Too many people become entrenched in the GHz war. They should take the blinkers off and make an informed, intelligent decision on what to buy if they need a new computer; not one based purly on 'cred', fuelled by emotion or misguided by people who *think* they know so much but cant even explain SSE.

[Frisco]

Sefy,

Yes, I was the one who had e-mailed you prior to my posting this thread. I was hoping to find out that there was another option other than taking back my new computer and getting an new AMD based one.

As it turns out, there was.

Now, if I can just get a really good capture of a VHS tape that contains something I taped off of my dish, I'll really be happy...

Here is a question...
Is it better to capture at 59 fps rather than 29.97? It's just that with my attempts so far at 29.97 fps, the resulting VCD has been much worse than the original VHS tape it was captured from.

I would also assume that having no compression on the capture is better than Huffyvu or some other compression.

Correct?

[kinneera]

The framerate doesn't impact the quality of the video, other than affecting smoothness. 59/60 fps is a function of interlacing, no video is actually recorded at that framerate, so you stand to gain nothing by capturing at that framerate. It might even make your audio twice as long as your video.