Big Choice...

[coolego1]

I have a P4 2.4GHz, no HT, 533MHz FSB, 256MB PC1066 RAM. I'm going to get a different type of RAM since PC1066 is just too expensive. I'm getting some(1GB) PC3200 instead, which entails buying a new Motherboard. I figure while I'm at it, I'll . I have come to the conclusion that I am faced with the age old choice of AMD of Intel... I don't want this to be a thread of pure flaming, so let me add some guidelines:

1. I will be doing video editing

2. I will also be doing some(WCIII, CS, C&C: G) gaming

3. I am a heavy multitasker (6 windows of IE, Outlook Express, Media Player or TV Application)

4. I will not be overclocking.

I need to know if an AMD64 with "on-die FSB" will support my PC3200 RAM at 800MHz (does it do dual channel?) I know that AMD MHz are different from Intel MHz, but I was wondering if that applied to FSBs too... I need to know what the best course of action is.

 

[wkabel23]

Price range?

 

[byosys]

It really depends on how much of each you do. If you do more editing, get a P4. If you do more gaming, get an A64 and a good GPU. If you do both about even, then it's really somewhat of a coin toss. Your budget also plays a pretty big roll in you choice. If you've got some $$, the a P4 will likely be the better choice. If you've got a limited budget, then an AMD chip will likely be the better choice.

 

[Vette73]

Go with a Athlon64. Yes the A64 system can do PC3200 ram and if you get a board based off teh nForce3 250 chip you can overclock all you want.

 

[Mik3y]

IMO, i wouldnt judge an getting an athlon 64 based on games only like many people do. if i do everything besides encoding, then i'd get athlon 64. if i'll be mostly encoding and multi-tasking, i'd have to recommend you get the pentium, but i would still go for athlon 64 (socket 939), since it's shown its power over intel in nearly everything.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Go with a Athlon64. Yes the A64 system can do PC3200 ram and if you get a board based off teh nForce3 250 chip you can overclock all you want.

btw, he said he's not overclocking

 

[coolego1]

Well, I have about $200-300 allotted for CPU in my current config. I don't think I will be doing as much hard-core gaming as I will be video-ing, although I only get big jobs once every couple months... I do game more though, and I like to run games at highest settings just to say I can if nothing else. Right now I have a crappy Nvidia Geforce4 MX440 that I would like to upgrade, so any $$ saved here will probably be put towards a new GPU.

My total budget for the minute is $630, but that includes case(with PSU), mobo, RAM, CPU. Do matched sets matter when running dual channel, and do the AMD on-die FSBs support dual channel? I've been looking at an upgrade for a while, but this is the first time it has actually been attainable...

After I have made this choice, if I choose an Intel, I will have to choose between a 3.2C and a 3.0C GHz CPU($55 difference), if I choose AMD, I will need some suggestions, because I haven't looked at their chips too hard yet... I am only able to upgrade major system components every 2 years or so, so this has to last a while...

It really bugs me that the PCI Express isn't out yet or I would get that(so as to be expandable). If PCIe comes out in the next month or 2 though, I can hold off, Anyone heard about a mainstream date?

 

[SickBeast]

With that budget I'm almost positive you could easily get an A64 3500+ for the Socket 939 platform, and that's exactly what I would get in this situation.

Honestly, it's pretty much a toss-up considering what you want to do. The 64-bit technology gives AMD the edge in this type of case though. Windows 64 will be out soon enough, and you can rest assured that there will be more than a few applications and games for the platform within the next year when you will be enjoying your new rig.

 

[coolego1]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I'm going for $200-300 for a CPU... The A64 3500+ goes for almost $500 on newegg...

I was browsing the AMD chips a little, and I was wondering if it would be better to get an A64 3200+ with a 512K L2 and 2.2GHz or a 1MB L2 and 2.0GHz? I may be pushed back into the 3000+ range, I have to do a little math in terms of $$, but the question still stands...

Also, would the 3200+ perform comparably to the P4 3.2C? I know that the P4 is better for encoding and the A64 is better for games, but I need to know in general, which will run my day to day stuff better?

The 64 bit platform is a big lure in this case, but I don't know that I want to spend money on Windows 64... It doesn't seem worth $100+ for an OS you have to scream at every 5 minutes...

 

[SickBeast]

Oops...I didn't think the 3500+ was that expensive...sorry.

For day-to-day tasks, like I said, it's a toss up. Overall, the two chips are very very comparable. 64-bit is the difference IMO, and it has been shown to provide a massive benefit in many cases.

Just so that you know, you get a 10% boost overall just by running your applications on 64-bit Windows, so take that into consideration. It takes a moderate hardware upgrade to gain 10%, so $100 for Windows may not be so bad.

That said, I'm pretty sure it will be some server edition of Windows that will be 64-bit, so that will probably cost in excess of $300. It's only a matter of time before they come out with a basic version for less than $100, but I'm not sure when that is going to happen.

In any event, I would go for the A64.

If given the choice at equal prices, of course get the chip with 1MB of cache.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

What encoding program are you using? The great myth is that Intel is superior to AMD in encoding. Intel is superior to AMD in encoding with Divx, measurable superio. Some encoders, however, work better with AMD processors. Remember when 64bit Windoze (excuse me Windows) comes out, from what I have seen in beta, the AMD encoding will obliterate Intel.

The 1meg L2 cache makes about a five percent difference in performance so I would get the Necastle 3200 with the 512k cache at 2200. Remember though, that encoding programs might use that extra cache but I would bet the cpu frequency makes the bigger difference. AMD 64 processors have no front side bus because the memory controller is now integrated onto the cpu itself so you can't compare directly to Intel. Rather, the 754 Athlons have a single channel controller capable of DDR 400 for a bandwidth of 3200 Megahertz. Because of the Integated Controller it will utilize about 90-95 percent of that. Also, AMD processors as a rule are not bandwidth starved and the difference between dual channel and single channel is like 2%. Basically nothing. However, AMD is definitely Bandwidth sensitive so getter the lowest latency DDR 400 you can get if you go AMD. AMD doesn't multitask as well as Intel so that is definitely something to consider but AMD kicks Intel's butt in games. I would go with AMD becuase of the future 64bit encoding and better performance when 64bit code driven apps hit the market early next year.

 

[coolego1]

I'm using Pinnacle Studio 8 for encoding.

After turning it over for a while, I've decided that an Intel is the way to go for now... I will probably be upgrading again a year from now, at which time I will be purchasing a new mobo with PCIe slots on it anyway, so I'll probably get a new CPU as well. With luck, Windows 64 will be out by then*cough*noway*cough*. I need the cash for a GPU anyway, and the decent AMD mobos are more expensive than the ASUS P4P800 I'm looking at. I appreciate the input you guys have given me, I've certainly learned a lot about AMD chips today... I will let you know how this whole thing works out. I'll just run my RAM dual channel, and get the 3.2GHz P4...

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Just so you know a dual channel 3.2 P4 is not faster than a single channel AMD 64 3200+. Different CPU architectures. Different pros and different cons. Megahertz is dead long live short pipelines!

 

[oldfart]

From the benches I've seen, Studio runs ~ 20% faster on the P4. When you can, upgrade to Studio 9. It has better HT optimizations than S8. I just patched mine to 9.1 and it GIVES YOU ALL the Hollywood FX transition stuff (a TON of them) on the 2nd CD that you had to pay for before the patch. There are a bunch of other improvements as well such as full screen preview.

Nice!

 

[coolego1]

A small problem with running AMD with the RAM I'm looking at is the latency. I'm looking at some Kingston stuff for $83 per 512MB module with a latency of 3-3-3... I heard that AMD's need the lowest latency possible. I can't afford that. I would absolutely love to get an A64 just to say I have one, believe me, but at the minute, I think that my games will run on an intel system, and the HT will help me in the long run...

In that case, I need to know if 200(Intel) MHz is worth a $50 difference. I have a feeling that it will be worth it, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: coolego1
A small problem with running AMD with the RAM I'm looking at is the latency. I'm looking at some Kingston stuff for $83 per 512MB module with a latency of 3-3-3... I heard that AMD's need the lowest latency possible. I can't afford that. I would absolutely love to get an A64 just to say I have one, believe me, but at the minute, I think that my games will run on an intel system, and the HT will help me in the long run...

In that case, I need to know if 200(Intel) MHz is worth a $50 difference. I have a feeling that it will be worth it, but correct me if I'm wrong.

No actually its the other way around. Because the memory controller is on the cpu the latency of the ram does not matter as much as it does for the P4's and A-XP's.

 

[xxichibanxx]

for sake of having a newer technology, i'd go for the A64. but if you're going to do a lot of video editing, i'd have to say go for the P4. if you want to save money though, a P4 setup would be a bit cheaper than getting a A64 setup.

 

[sisooktom]

Originally posted by: coolego1
A small problem with running AMD with the RAM I'm looking at is the latency. I'm looking at some Kingston stuff for $83 per 512MB module with a latency of 3-3-3... I heard that AMD's need the lowest latency possible. I can't afford that. I would absolutely love to get an A64 just to say I have one, believe me, but at the minute, I think that my games will run on an intel system, and the HT will help me in the long run...
.

That is completely wrong. RAM latency means almost nothing to an A64, but a lot to a P4. So with that RAM, you're actually hurting yourself more with the Intel chip. I would still strongly consider the A64, it's a very strong performer, plus it has 64 bit support and NX support. And 64 bit Windows will most certainly be out by this time next year, hell it's supposed to be out in the fall.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: coolego1
I'm using Pinnacle Studio 8 for encoding.

After turning it over for a while I have decided that an Intel is the way to go for now... I will probably be upgrading again a year from now, at which time I will be purchasing a new mobo with PCIe slots on it anyway, so I'll probably get a new CPU as well. With luck, Windows 64 will be out by then*cough*noway*cough*. I need the cash for a GPU anyway, and the decent AMD mobos are more expensive than the ASUS P4P800 I'm looking at. I appreciate the input you guys have given me, I've certainly learned a lot about AMD chips today... I will let you know how this whole thing works out. I'll just run my RAM dual channel, and get the 3.2GHz P4...

This is exactly what EVERYONE spreading the lies of "P4 better for encoding" should answer. What is my application? Pinnacle software runs faster in a P4, and by a good amount. I would suggest, however, that if speed is that important to you, then switch to Ulead VideoStudio, or if you have the money get Ulead MediaStudioPro. Ulead runs aprox 70% faster than pinnacle on intel hardware, and Ulead runs also faster on AMD than Intel..... It is "optimized" for SSE2, but not for HT. So this gives you the picture.


Alex

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
What encoding program are you using? The great myth is that Intel is superior to AMD in encoding. Intel is superior to AMD in encoding with Divx, measurable superio. Some encoders, however, work better with AMD processors. Remember when 64bit Windoze (excuse me Windows) comes out, from what I have seen in beta, the AMD encoding will obliterate Intel.

Good quote my friend, and you have to add than with some programs even encoding to DivX 5.11 runs faster on AMD hardware.... Try virtualdub, virtualdubmod or DVD2AVI for example.

 

[justly]

It really amuses me when people think having multiple web browsers open qualifies them as being a ?heavy mutitasker?. A web browser sitting idle requires very little from a CPU, in fact most common day to day tasks (things like web surfing, checking e-mail, word processing and even listening to music or watching video media) have such a minimal demand on a processor that any modern day CPU can do this type of multitasking just fine. If anything the shorter pipeline and the fast memory performance (that the on die memory controller provides) makes the Athlon 64 as good if not better than a P4 even with HT in this type of multitasking. Where Intels HT makes a big difference is when trying to run multiple programs that are throughput intensive, such as encoding or distributed computing programs. These programs take a big hit when they have to be stopped and restarted because the processor is responding to a request from another program.

I can?t recall the site where this type of testing was done (I thought it was at tech report but after looking it must have been elsewhere). The point is that that out of 3 (or maybe it was 4) multiprocessing benchmarks conducted, the P4 with HT was only able to score higher than an Athlon 64 when multitasking with programs that continuously require much of the processors throughput, not with programs that are dependent on the users input and only require short bursts of actual processing power.

All in all either one (the P4 or the Athlon 64) should perform quite admirably, its just I think a lot of people are unaware of the common misconception about multitasking with regards to HT.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: sisooktom

Originally posted by: coolego1
A small problem with running AMD with the RAM I'm looking at is the latency. I'm looking at some Kingston stuff for $83 per 512MB module with a latency of 3-3-3... I heard that AMD's need the lowest latency possible. I can't afford that. I would absolutely love to get an A64 just to say I have one, believe me, but at the minute, I think that my games will run on an intel system, and the HT will help me in the long run...
.

That is completely wrong. RAM latency means almost nothing to an A64, but a lot to a P4. So with that RAM, you're actually hurting yourself more with the Intel chip. I would still strongly consider the A64, it's a very strong performer, plus it has 64 bit support and NX support. And 64 bit Windows will most certainly be out by this time next year, hell it's supposed to be out in the fall.

Wrong. The AMD 64 memory controller being integrated has lowered the latency tremendoulsy compared to the Pentium IV Northbridge memory controller. Lower latency is a big deal for AMD while bandwidth is not as important (look at the the 939 3500 dual channel vs 754 3400 singel channel; about the same performance with the 3400 winning a lot of benchmarks because of the 200Megahertz frequency increase).

Intel, on the other hand , due to incredibly long pipelines on their cpu need much more bandwidth to keep it happy. Remember, AMD 64's have a shorter pipeline and need quicker access while Intel has longer pipelines and need more bandwidth to keep them filled.

Thanks

 

[CraigRT]

A64 because i am BIASed

 

[SneakyStuff]

If you have 6 windows of IE consider switching to MY IE 2, do a google search on it

 

[ALIEN3001]

PC3200 RAM with 3-3-3-12 timings CAN run at 2-2-2-7, you just increase the default voltage.