VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. I think maybe the way to go is a duel core?anyone with suggestions that has worked well for them?don't want to spend 1000's but just something that is faster than 3400+Semprom with 1 gig memory that I have now...

    Brand of cpu and mother board..good place to buy?
    How much memory where is a good price?
    Power supply requirments?

    This machine will not be used for gaming..Just video..what would be the perfomance speed difference with the upgrade?..worth it for the time or speed?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Dual core processing helps only when programs take advantage of it which most don't. I would just get a good fast cpu and adeuqate memory unless you have programs that do utilize dual core processing. NewEgg usually has best prices for CPUs, mobos, etc. I''ve found, and their service is outstanding tool.
    Quote Quote  
  3. If you're after a good encoding machine, and that's all it will be used for, go for a Pentium 4. If you're after a good all-rounder, consider one of the new Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs. They're outstanding in every respect. Maybe an AMD Athlon64 if your budget won't stretch to a Core 2 Duo.

    Motherboards - Asus make outstanding boards. Avoid VIA - I have a VIA chipset on my motherboard and it's buggy. Try for an Intel or nVidia chipset (ie. nForce 4 for AMD).

    1GB of RAM will be required for running Microsoft Vista (the new operating system) smoothly along with some applications. Crucial RAM is the only brand that has been totally reliable for me - other brands have sometimes been OK and sometimes let me down. Evidently, Crucial have good quality control. Corsair seem to be fairly good, too.

    PSU (Power Supply Unit) - try this link:

    http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculator.jsp

    ...and get one that will allow you to expand your system too! You don't want to have to upgrade your PSU again when you want to add another graphics card or something.

    Talking of the graphics card, make sure it is DirectX 9 compatible for Windows Vista. Nearly all the video cards sold today are, with the exception of some cheaper models.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Intel P4 CPU
    Intel motherboard.
    500W power supply
    good case with fans all over
    1GB RAM or more
    at least 2 hard drives, Western Digital, 80GB each minimum

    A "full" CPU will act better than a 'ron CPU (like Sempron)
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  5. contrarian rallynavvie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Minnesotan in Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Actually if you are just using this for encoding with SMP-aware encoders such as TMPGEnc or Premiere (MainConcept) then you will get a lot more performance out of a dual-core chip. For instance a 2.8 Pentium D will outperform even the 3.6 P4 EE for simple encoding. However when gaming or pretty much anything else that expensive EE P4 will perform much better.

    And I can't stress the importance of getting a quality power supply near enough. For one of the absolute best get a PC Power & Cooling Turbo530. If you don't want to spend that kind of cash check out Antec's TruePowerII series, Sparkle, and Fortron. Be very cautious of PSUs that come with some cases. In fact you're better off to buy a case that has no PSU in it and just add your own. A bad PSU can destroy almost every part of your PC if it goes bad so you never want to skimp.
    FB-DIMM are the real cause of global warming
    Quote Quote  
  6. rallynavvie's advice is sound. I bought a cheap PSU and it died a year down the line. Took a hard drive with it, too.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    All great advice. New versions of XVID (and the command line encoder XVID_encraw) are SMP aware. The new "pro" version of CoreAVC (the awesome h264 decoder) is also SMP aware. And AviSynth has a MultiThreaded plugin (MT) that speeds up processing as well.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Plus if you are expecting to go to Vista at anytime in the future go Dual Core. If you have DDR 400 go with the AMD and reuse the memory, If you have DDR2 then think Intel.

    In the past Intel ran cooler, Now the AMD Dual core run cooler. I stress cool running as Encoding runs the CPU flat out.

    I use TMPGEnc for encoding and it supports Dual core.

    I have a 3 Ghz P4 800 fsb and a AMD 64 X2 4200 and the AMD is much faster. You could wait and buy the latest from either but you would be paying a premium. I'd say for the best bang for buck, especially if you have DDR 400 memory then go for a AMD dual core.

    FWIW I'm not super impressed by Vista so far and it runs decent on a 3.73 P4 Extreme edition with 4Gb of memory (dual core with HT) but once again it appears as if MS has stupified the interface. Running Vista 32bit (what customer supllied) it shows 3 Gb memory despite the 4 Gb physical and the fact that the Mobo supports up to 8Gb so it is the OS IMHO.

    I also suspect that this hobby of ours may be harder with the DRM in Vista.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Just about all video encoders are multithreaded at this point and render significantly faster with dual core processors. I wouldn't even consider a single core processor for a video encoding machine.

    Originally Posted by TBoneit
    In the past Intel ran cooler, Now the AMD Dual core run cooler...
    For a few more days...

    Originally Posted by TBoneit
    I'd say for the best bang for buck, especially if you have DDR 400 memory then go for a AMD dual core.
    The situation is in flux right now. Intel is releasing the Core 2 Duo chips in a few days. AMD will be dropping prices by ~50% right afterwards. Dual Core PentiumD chips have already dropped in price as Intel has been clearing out inventory. Even after the AMD price drop the Core 2 Duo family looks like it will be a better deal (and run cooler) than the AMD equivalent, especially at video encoding. Just about every hardware review site has published comparative benchmarks within the last few weeks. Here are a few examples:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page15.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=12
    http://www.hardware.fr/articles/623-14/intel-core-2-duo-dossier.html

    The biggest problems with Core 2 Duo are likely to be availability and the cost of motherboards. Since the family is brand new it will be in short supply (unless you want to buy a top end machine from Dell or HP!) and so will the motherboards. If you can, you should wait a few months and see how things shake out. In any case, don't buy an AMD CPU before July 23!

    Rumored AMD pricing:
    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3361

    Rumored Intel pricing:
    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3228

    Here's an article which benchmarks a wide range or processors. It's several months old but give you an idea of the relative performance of other CPUs, including Semprons like yours:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/

    Combine that with some of the newer benchmarks and you'll see where things will be in a few days.

    If you are planning on reusing your DDR2 memory with an Athlon 64 X2 be aware that you'll need a socket 939 motherboard and you will probably never be able to upgrade that beyond the current A64 X2 4800. AMD is switching everything to the new AM2 socket and DDR2.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by TBoneit
    In the past Intel ran cooler, Now the AMD Dual core run cooler. I stress cool running as Encoding runs the CPU flat out.
    Not true any more. The new Conroe-core (Core 2 Duo) CPUs run cooler. 8)
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Faustus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Search Comp PM
    Faster encode box? Real full encodes? Intel CPU with at least a 800mhz fsb. Like a 3.4ghz.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    One more thing....
    Do not worry about Windows Vista. Nobody gives a crap. It's silly to build a computer for software that does not yet exist. Build a computer around your current needs.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  13. One other thought about the new Intels and AMDs.

    Wait before buying because:
    a. the price will be highest when the new models are intoduced.
    b. Let the motherboard makers get some experience. Even Mobos come in hardware revisions, don't get stuck with the 1.0 version.
    c. For good bargains always buy one or two steps below the top (newest) thus the socket 939 AMD dual core will run cooler than the Dual core P4s and will give a good bang for the buck. Just buy good brands such as Asus Mobos, Had good luck with Foxconn too. A inexpensive S939 Foxconn with Nvidia chipset and built in video will work for encoding where you don't need the latest for gaming video.
    d. You will be able to get some dynamite hardware at reduced costs once the new stuff comes out.
    Quote Quote  
  14. If your Sempron processor is socket 939 you should be able to just swap the CPU with an A64 X2 and get a lot more speed. For example look at the Xvid benchmark at Tom's:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page32.html

    Sempron 3400: 7 min 3 sec
    A64 X2 3800: 4 min 21 sec

    That will only cost you about $150.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by lordsmurf
    One more thing....
    Do not worry about Windows Vista. Nobody gives a crap. It's silly to build a computer for software that does not yet exist. Build a computer around your current needs.
    That's one way of looking at it. On the other hand, Vista does exist. It is wise to build a machine that will last, as opposed to perpetually replacing components to keep up. That is more expensive in the long run.
    Quote Quote  
  16. contrarian rallynavvie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Minnesotan in Texas
    Search Comp PM
    I dunno, I know several people who are still using Win2k with no complaints so you don't need to jump in to the latest OS just to use your system. And I'm certainly not jumping my primary workstation over to Vista until it's thoroughly proven itself. I don't want to see another Windows ME, 98, or Bob debacle again, let alone take part in it.
    FB-DIMM are the real cause of global warming
    Quote Quote  
  17. Windows 98 Debacle? BOB wasn't a windows it was a add-on and didn't catch on.

    Anybody remember the original Microsoft Access?
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member ntscuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Personally, I wouldn't run Windows XP in less than 2GB of RAM let alone Vista.
    Quote Quote  
  19. DVD Ninja budz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the shadows.....
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by ntscuser
    Personally, I wouldn't run Windows XP in less than 2GB of RAM let alone Vista.
    i run xp pro with 1gb ram with no problems. at work the pc's only have 256mb of RAM with xp pro. it runs fine just can't have too many applications opened up but it runs.

    dunno where you're coming from by saying, "I wouldn't run Windows XP in less than 2GB of RAM".
    i do video encoding with 1gb of ram with no problems. but i do have 5 pc's to choose from so there's no serious rush.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Cobra wrote
    That's one way of looking at it. On the other hand, Vista does exist. It is wise to build a machine that will last, as opposed to perpetually replacing components to keep up. That is more expensive in the long run.
    Cobra, your logic is perfectly correct but the way I see it, you can bulid a PC with Vista in your mind, lots of memory, the latest CPU, a killer MoBo, etc...but in a while, when Vista takes over, you´ll still be wanting to upgrade for one reason or another and not only you don´t stop spending money trying to keep up but you´ll have spent even more due to the penalty of having bought the "latest" stuff.
    TBoneit...I agree with you when you say that you should buy one or two steps below the top(at least with CPUs), when I built my 3.2 GHz, the price diference was much bigger between a 3.4 and 3.2, than between the 3.2 and the 3.0 or 2.8 (and I don´t think I lost a lot of performance in the deal)
    Quote Quote  
  21. Nice price/performance and power/performance charts of AMD and Intel processors:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_13.html

    The rest of the article is good too.
    Quote Quote  
  22. I'm not saying to buy a top-end box (it'll lose value very quickly), nor am I saying that you have to upgrade to Vista as soon as it comes out (I won't be doing that). What I am saying is that you should simply ensure that your machine supports it - 1GB of RAM (that's another £25 over 512MB) and a DX9 graphics card (they nearly all are, even the £25-35 ones). You don't need anything more than that.

    It's a balance of keeping your options open and price/value loss. Not to build a machine capable of running Vista when you could so easily do so isn't logical.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member ntscuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by budz
    Originally Posted by ntscuser
    Personally, I wouldn't run Windows XP in less than 2GB of RAM let alone Vista.
    i run xp pro with 1gb ram with no problems. at work the pc's only have 256mb of RAM with xp pro. it runs fine just can't have too many applications opened up but it runs.

    dunno where you're coming from by saying, "I wouldn't run Windows XP in less than 2GB of RAM".
    i do video encoding with 1gb of ram with no problems. but i do have 5 pc's to choose from so there's no serious rush.
    I didn't say it "wouldn't run", I said I wouldn't run it in less than 2GB. For one thing you're relying on a page file to run many processes which puts extra strain on your hard drive. Variable sized page files get defragmented quite easily and slow the system down. With maximum RAM you can dispense with a page file (almost) altogether and even load the most commonly used Windows routines directly into RAM. As far as I'm concerned a Windows PC sold with less than 2GB is an incomplete machine.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    I'm sorry ntscuser, but that's nonsense.

    Even when you have 1GB of RAM, the system does not ever use more than about 700MB worth. Few applications take advantage of it. Few need it. Maybe Photoshop, maybe Premiere, but even then, you'll still use a lot of paging file anyway.

    512MB is minimum, 1GB is comfortable, anything more is throwing money at something you really do not need. Better take that $$$ and put it into hard drives or CPU.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  25. contrarian rallynavvie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Minnesotan in Texas
    Search Comp PM
    I have 2GB of memory and still set my pagefile size to 2048MB. XP pretty much dictates setting one so you may as well use it rather than make a small one. I had set mine to my SCSI scratch disk but the access noise drove me nuts and I got one of these instead:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16815168001
    Haven't decided yet if it's really much of a performance increase but at least the constant access ticking has gone away.

    From my experience there are a few applications that will utilize more than 1GB of memory alone. Of course running tons of apps at the same time will use more but then the bottleneck is probably your chipset/CPU. The Adobe programs, pretty much all of them, as lordsmurf mentioned will use as much as you've got depending on the files open. Lightwave will use a lot when you're rendering out lots of polys and textures, even if you're using a workstation video card. The CAD programs tend to use as much as they can to load the drawings into memory for faster access as you pan over them. And there has only been one game that I've seen that will utilize more than 1GB physical: the original Battlefield 1942 client. In particular I saw 3GB total utilization when playing the DCX variant of El Alamein. I think it loads the entire map into memory so it can pop up quicker when zooming around in a plane, and those maps are enormous. BF2 doesn't suffer from this problem even though the maps seem much bigger.

    But since most boards now have 4 DIMM slots why not just get 2x 512MB to start out with (if you plan on loading Vista right away) and then add another pair of 512MB down the line if you notice your memory is getting utilized to its fullest quite often.
    FB-DIMM are the real cause of global warming
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!