AMD versus Intel

masteroftherealm

Hes just stressing the fact that p4's are by far phenomonly(sp) the best at video ripping and encoding in general due to the length of their pipeline

Gilgamesh

masteroftherealm wrote:

Hes just stressing the fact that p4's are by far phenomonly(sp) the best at video ripping and encoding in general due to the length of their pipeline

ahhh.... longer Pipeline means bigger C*ck size, LOL

any DVD movie will do, DVD-9 is DVD-9
but to make an arguement short, try it with, let's say.... Starwars 3?


I just couldn't resist to bring this up after Demonofthefall said the AMD s were the kings here.
it just isn't true, not even ripping to DIVX.

tbh, I took the Intel for two reasons.
first of all, I am loyal to Intel due to the fact, that I have NEVER had any problems whatsoever with their processors and I have had a good few in the past.

secondly, most of the performance for games still comes from the Graphicscard (with a few exceptions lile UT of course) so if I want to get a high on Benchmark scores, I would and will opt for a Highend card, and I will be getting the X1800XT shortly.

Also, as mentioned, you can practically see no difference in how smooth a game is running after 60fps so what's the point of discussing that point.
I have a 19" TFT screen with a native resolution of 1280x1024, so why on earth would I really need a card that can run 24 million frames a second at 1600x1200 when I don't use that res?

this topic should stay with your own personal preference as it has been chewed through so many a time in here.

DemonOfTheFall

Sorry Gilgamesh, didn't mean to say that the X2 would own at video compression, just that it would own at video compression *while* gaming. Didn't make the too clear.

Yeah, a similarly priced P4 should do a lot better than the X2 at video encoding. However, if the application is multithreaded I think it swings back around the other way, with the X2 beating the P4. As for the Pentium D, im not sure how that would fare at video encoding compared to hte X2, but they make so much heat and suck so bad at games that I don't think theyre really up for comparison in anything.

About the whole dismissing AMD as only for being people who want eleventy gajillion bungholio marks to brag about their e-penis, I'm not so sure. I'd always gone with the GFX card makes the biggest difference line aswell, before I got my current rig.

If I keep my 3000+ at stock it's a pretty good combo with my 6800gt, CS:S and HL2 playable at 1280x1024, everything turned up. However, some levels like office and port will drag it to it's knees, being way too slow to call playable ina big fire fight online. Bump it up from 1.8ghz to 2.3ghz and it'll be smooth as butter in those situations.

So I'd have to say that processor performance definitely has a large impact in some games. (This may only be CS and HL2, havent tried comparing in anything else).

po0k

Why are ye worried about transcoding between Divx and DVD? They don't really matter any more. You should be worried about whether or not your machine will be able to decode 1080p HDTV

Gilgamesh

just out of curiosity Syxpak, but are there any Apps do try that out yet?
am getting two new HD LCD TVs in the next two weeks and woudl be interested in trying it out

astrofool

Gilgamesh wrote:

just out of curiosity Syxpak, but are there any Apps do try that out yet?
am getting two new HD LCD TVs in the next two weeks and woudl be interested in trying it out

last benchmarks I looked at had the x2's fairly even with the p4's encoding wise.

Anyway, loyalty to any company is stupid. AMD right now provide faster chips, that run cooler, and use less power. Intel knows this, they even published figures lately for their server market showing how bad THEIR OWN chips were compared to their new chips in 6-9 months time (the pentium-m based chips). They know they suck right now, but they also know that if they can keep prices low, and ride out the next 6-9 months, that they will finally be competitive in performance terms again.

DemonOfTheFall

Gilgamesh, try seeing if your PC can decode these clips with no dropped frames. I know that mine can't! It's not too bad decoding onto my monitor, but if I drag the window across to my second desktop (HDTV) it becomes a particularly slow slide-show.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

Unfortunately I think you need Apple's quicktime for this, quickalt won't do.

masteroftherealm

I dont know any PC that can play decent video on the secondary monitor but I think thats more graphics card related than anything else..

po0k

Gilgamesh wrote:

just out of curiosity Syxpak, but are there any Apps do try that out yet?
am getting two new HD LCD TVs in the next two weeks and woudl be interested in trying it out

Download some HD j-pop or j-rock videos. They are insane quality. Don't know of any formal benchmarking, bar grabbing whatever HD media you can find and logging frame-drops, cpu load etc. etc.

Gilgamesh

cool stuff, thanks for that, will give it a try tonight when I get home.

@ astrofool, I am not looking for benchmark test, I am more interested in people's own experiences at this point.

I currently have a X800XL in my rig, and for th HD stuff I am hoping that the X1800XT will bring a nice boost

spitfier

Is there any point getting a dual core processor if they're not supported by most programs yet? If i'm going to upgrade in the next year or two would I be better off going with a single core chip?

Gilgamesh

I think that if you are upgrading in a year or to, you shoudl wait and see if the dual core support has come along by then.
at the moment I think it is really a matter of what exactly you want to be doing.
Gaming and stuff, a normal single core woudl do fine.
Rendering videos, animation, and such, most of the new versions actually do even support the dual cores and bring a huge advantage.

btw, to my previous thing with redering HD videos.
the ones from the Apple Site worked without dropping a frame, using quicktime 7 Pro

DemonOfTheFall

Was that a 1080i video or a 720p ? There's a big difference. They show recommended minimum spec of dual core 3ghz P4 to be able to play 1080i. You got a Pentium D ?

po0k

In the style of a Barbershop Quartet:

Multicore, Multicore, Multicore!

Gilgamesh

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

Was that a 1080i video or a 720p ? There's a big difference. They show recommended minimum spec of dual core 3ghz P4 to be able to play 1080i. You got a Pentium D ?

1080i, and I have a Pentium D 840, so..... errr..... yes, I do.

was quite interesting to watch the CPU usage on the second run, too.
it was constant at about 47% per Core

DemonOfTheFall

Very nice, very nice. Oh all the divxing that could be done with that bad boy! Did you get much of an overclock out of it? Any special cooling ?

Gilgamesh

never really OC'd it, tbh, don't see any reason why.

astrofool

AMD annihilates Intel in dual core benchmark tests

can't make easy reading for the Intel fanboys...

gline

astrofool wrote:

AMD annihilates Intel in dual core benchmark tests

can't make easy reading for the Intel fanboys...

WOW intel were annihilated :eek:

Cuddlesworth

Not sure why you would be suprized, considering that amd designed the a64 chips to be dual cores from the start.

Gilgamesh

krazy_8s wrote:

Not sure why you would be suprized, considering that amd designed the a64 chips to be dual cores from the start.

do you have any links to prove this statement?
never heard of that before tbh

I just looked at that link astrofool, and to be honest, I am quite surprised at a few things on it.
one of them especially is the scanning 40GB of files while ripping to divx.
I have Never, and I mean never seen a full scan performed of 40 Gigs of data within 190 odd seconds as they state.
especially as it takes 800 seconds just to push that amount of data in one direction.
it just isn't possible on that spec'd machine they had.

another dodgy thing on it is the video encoding test they did.
They don't give any description whatsoever what exactly they did, only that everybody does it.


not trying to take Intel under my wing to protect it, but that is the first test series I can really say is a bit dodgy.
hell, I will even trust thg's tests more than that

astrofool

krazy_8s wrote:

Not sure why you would be suprized, considering that amd designed the a64 chips to be dual cores from the start.

It's fairly well known that AMD was going multi-core when they first started on the steps to making the Athlon 64. The hypertransport links being ideal for just such a situation, as well as the embedded memory controller.

Intel at the time was pursuing a mhz is king strategy, where it seemed the marketeers determined what way the chips would be designed. This worked well till the ath64 came out, the p4 from 2 to 3 ghz were better than the athlon xp's of similar range (model number wise). Intel since then has gone back to the drawing board, and the p3/athlon style architecture, and going multi-multi core as soon as they can.

The current dual cores are a hack, and are literally two cores stuck on the same die. For one core to communicate with the other, it has to go through the motherboard north bridge. The update to the pentium D will go even further and put two physically seperate die's on the chip packaging to improve yields. Athlon 64 however, shares the memory controller between the cores on die, giving far far higher bandwidth than Intel can with their 800/1066 mhz fsb. (they also have a connecting HT bus if I remember correctly)

Encoding wise, it really depends on what program to use, but in general, what can be found optimised for one chip, can be found optimised for its competitor. eg. xvid is better on amd, divx is better on Intel (which going by latest dual core benchmarks, where AMD have drawn level, or beaten Intel, seems to have been the result of hyperthreading).

DemonOfTheFall

Yeah I would have to say that those tests sound like a load of crap. As Gilgamesh said, you would be I/O bound, not processor bound in a virus scan like that. It is cnet though, theyre a pack of money hungry retards.

Dempsey

That test is AMD fanboyism at its best. The performance difference between them is unnoticable. Im a big fan of AMD but I choose Intel because I can get them half price.