I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
Who Dat? wrote:
> I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>
> Thanks
Your not going to find a clear winner there.
Get the most processor you can afford and the most ram you can afford.
"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...
>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>
> Thanks
You said "the best", without taking price in account? Go for a dual
processor board, with the fastest Intel CPU's.
But to remain realistic, you should first tell us what you plan to do.
Amateur or pro? What editing software? Which video editing hardware? It all
influences your PC hardware. Some video cards have a lot of build-in video
acceleration, others expect it all the power from the cpu.
"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...
>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>
> Thanks
First, do you intend to work with HDV or other High Definition
formats?
If not; then any good high end (+3000MHz) system will do, if it
is properly setup. A number of software packages claim some
optimizations for the Intel processors. I'm not sure that those
aren't swamped by some of the efficiencies of the AMD
processors, especially the new Athlon 64 CPUs.
A good supply of memory will have a noticeable positive impact,
2 GB would be the cost benefit point about now.
Throughput is a major objective, having at least two fast hard
drives, can allow a more efficient data flow. The SATA drives
with their unshared connections would be preferred over the IDE
master-slave setup. The price of the 74GB Raptor 10,000rpm
drives, has fallen to a point where they are worth considering,
and I certainly noticed an overall improvement with mine.
There are few video processing programs that can make any use
of the 3D engines on the new video cards. A good 128-bit 2D
engine and a >500MHz RAMDAC should be all you need. That
said; there are a few that are starting to take advantage of the fact
that the new video cards have all that 3D processing power not
being used, and they are starting to find ways to use it to aid or
speed up their 2D processing. I know all you miniDV types are
serious Videographers, and would never be playing PC games, so
you wouldn't want an expensive 3D Gaming card.
If you are planing on working with HDV there are a number of
specific requirements laid out by various relevant software, you
might want to take a close look at those you intend using. On a
more general basis it appears to me (and you might wait and see
what "Smarty" has to say, he's been looking at this more than I)
that you will want a multi-processor setup of relatively fast CPUs.
It appears that this is an area where they have taken the step
beyond multi-threading, to actual multi-processing.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:51:48 GMT, Who Dat? <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote:
>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
>processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
>As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
>Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
>on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>
>Thanks
The cheapest dual core from AMD 3800 X2 around $360
Heres XBIT labs :
The launch of Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor indicated that AMD dropped
down the price bar for dual-core processor systems. Now mainstream
platforms can easily acquire not only dual-core solutions from Intel,
but also dual-core solutions from AMD. This way, the release of Athlon
64 X2 3800+ balanced out the situation somehow: now both companies
offer not only extremely expensive dual-core CPUs, but also similar
processors for the mainstream segment.
We will not repeat what has already been said about the application of
dual-core architectures in general. I would only like to say that
according to the benchmark results, Athlon 64 X2 3800+ appeared a
faster processor than its competitor from Intel, the Pentium D 830.
So, it looks like this new AMD solution has pretty promising future
ahead. Especially, if we take into account the compatibility of
dual-core AMD processors with the existing infrastructure, their low
heat dissipation, Cool’n’Quiet technology support and the ability to
switch to 64-bit operating systems and corresponding applications.
As for the drawbacks of the newcomer, we have to say that for some
reason we were not at all impressed with its overclocking potential,
as it only reached 2.4GHz. However, even in this mode its performance
is high enough so that it yields just a tiny bit to the faster models
in Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon 64 FX processor families.
There are more expensive AMDs but this one OCed 20%. They said that
was disappointing cause the more expensive X2 OCed more. But they cost
twice as much they said that would make the 600-700 bucks or more. The
cheapest one 3800 already is decent but with OCing 20% they get close
to the 700 buck X2s. The higher end X2s of course can also be Oced.
If you have money to burn --- theres news that INTEL is shipping the
Preslers. Intels have been bashed a lot for being really hot and power
hungry. The 65 nm process they claim will make it competitive again by
running real cool and hopefully efficient.
Xbit labs Intel Initiates Commercial Shipments of Dual-Core 65nm
Processors.
Intel Ships Presler Processors Commercially
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. said during a conference dedicated to the company’s
financial results for the third quarter of its fiscal year that it had
initiated volume shipments of its dual-core processors code-named
Presler. The processors are designed for desktops and are made using
65nm process technology. The announcement not only proves that Intel’s
new chip is ready for commercial launch, but also that the firm’s 65nm
manufacturing capacities are ready for volume manufacturing.
The Presler products, which are claimed to be branded as Intel Pentium
D 900-series, are expected to be clocked at 2.80GHz, 3.00GHz, 3.20GHz
and 3.40GHz and use 800MHz processor system bus. The chip will have
4MB of cache in total, or 2MB per core. Intel is also projected to
launch “extreme” version of the Presler for enthusiasts. The processor
which is claimed to be branded Intel Pentium Extreme Edition processor
955 will operate at 3.46GHz, sport 1066MHz processor system bus,
feature Intel virtualization technology and will only operate with
mainboards based on Intel 975X. Each of the processor’s cores will
sport Intel Hyper-Threading technology and 2MB of level-two cache
(which will result in 4MB of L2 cache per central processing unit in
total). All the processors are expected to support such technologies
as EM64T, EDB, EIST and iAMT2.
Presler design features two independent processing engines located on
a single piece of substrate. Current Smithfield design employs two
processing engines located within a single piece of silicon. CedarMill
is single-core flavour of the Presler.
Advanced Micro Devices is reported to be preparing three new types of
sockets for central processing units in 2006. Depending on the target
market, AMD will have different processor form-factors for laptops,
desktops and servers starting from mid-2006, if the reports are
correct.
For desktop and uniprocessor workstations AMD supposedly readies the
so-called Socket M2, which will have 940-pins, but will not be
compatible with existing Socket 940 infrastructure. DigiTimes web-site
claims that the Socket M2 will be used for AMD Sempron, AMD Athlon 64,
AMD Athlon 64 FX and AMD Opteron 100-series processors and will
substitute existing Socket 754, Socket 939 and Socket 940 desktop and
workstation infrastructure. For AMD Opteron processors for 2P and MP
servers AMD reportedly prepares a 1207-pin Socket F that will be
utilized instead of Socket 940. For mobile computers AMD is expected
to offer Socket S1 with 638-pins, which will replace existing Socket
754 for laptops.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:51:48 +0000, Who Dat? wrote:
> I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>
> Thanks
I'm not an expert, but as coincidence would have it, I have friends who
do this for a living/hobby. All this is as a result of conversations with
them.
As the others have pointed out you need to be more precise. In terms of
taking an existing image (post processing) and sticking it on a DVD, any
processor will do as long as the machine is fast enough to write a DVD.
For processing work (editing and the like) there are plenty of amateur
quality programs available. You would like to have both RAM, and at least
one powerful processor. The amount of hard drive space is also a factor. A
friend who is doing wedding videos says there is a need for the space to
store intermediate and incomplete forms of the video. He's using a G4 Mac
at 800 (could even be 750) MHz with a Gig of RAM. He is running OS X
Panther. He finds 160GB hard drives to be a bit small. Also, his Mac has
never crashed.
A different friend works at a professional shop. He is their computer
guy. They do computer animation for Hollywood. Specifically films like The
Core and Swordfish. They have a cluster of computers taking up an entire
floor of an office building. Mostly fast single processor units. I can't
remember the exact number but it is LARGE. Their OS of choice is Free BSD
because of the speed and reliability. They also have Linux in various
capacities and a couple of M$ boxes as terminals. Everyone carries around
Mac laptops partly because they do the job of demoing the product really
well, but also because they are so cool. ;-) It's a real mixed shop.
They've done some IMAX stuff and were tested to the limit. They just
bought more computers. The key here is distributed number crunching and
storage. They are constantly adding newer and faster computers to their
cluster. They don't care about the processor. It's the number of machines
which gets things done.
I'm going to guess you want to run a single machine like my friend doing
the wedding videos. You CAN buy individual machines running up to 16
processors. The most common multi-processor boxes (at the moment) are dual
cores (two processors per chip). The multi-processor boxes are handy
because they can split up tasks so when the operating system wants to do
something, processing is not affected as bad. The problem is operating
systems (yes plural) have bloated. You are trading off speed for
capability. There is no argument XP is MUCH slower than DOS. Look at what
you get in exchange for speed... Larger file sizes, decent
"multi-tasking", a GUI (some people find them more intuitive),
connectivity, the capability to run up to (I think) four processors. The
down side (in MY experience) is it is far less stable and is prone to
other problems when connected to the net. It's fine for an amateur
production meant for TV. It is certainly a common setup for amateurs and
you'll get lots of help when you need it. For a simple production not
requiring a lot of processing time (a couple of hours), I'd say a dual
core or fast single processor would do the job. If you want to go for
more, I'd look at what the professionals use. The majority are moving to
variants of BSD. Groups like Netcraft have shown versions of BSD to be the
most stable platform out there. They show uptimes (how long a computer has
been on and running) in the decades. You certainly wouldn't be happy if
your machine crashed 10 minutes before completing the video. A single 16
processor BSD box (not cheap) won't be as fast as the professional setup I
mentioned earlier, but it is a serious start.
Later
Mike
P.S. If you are looking at producing multiple copies of your DVD, there
are separate boxes available to copy DVDs to multiple disks at the same
time. These aren't cheap either.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:26:15 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
>news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com.. .
>>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
>> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
>> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
>> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
>> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> First, do you intend to work with HDV or other High Definition
>formats?
>
> If not; then any good high end (+3000MHz) system will do, if it
>is properly setup. A number of software packages claim some
>optimizations for the Intel processors. I'm not sure that those
>aren't swamped by some of the efficiencies of the AMD
>processors, especially the new Athlon 64 CPUs.
>
> A good supply of memory will have a noticeable positive impact,
>2 GB would be the cost benefit point about now.
>
> Throughput is a major objective, having at least two fast hard
>drives, can allow a more efficient data flow. The SATA drives
>with their unshared connections would be preferred over the IDE
>master-slave setup. The price of the 74GB Raptor 10,000rpm
>drives, has fallen to a point where they are worth considering,
>and I certainly noticed an overall improvement with mine.
>
> There are few video processing programs that can make any use
>of the 3D engines on the new video cards. A good 128-bit 2D
>engine and a >500MHz RAMDAC should be all you need. That
>said; there are a few that are starting to take advantage of the fact
>that the new video cards have all that 3D processing power not
>being used, and they are starting to find ways to use it to aid or
>speed up their 2D processing. I know all you miniDV types are
>serious Videographers, and would never be playing PC games, so
>you wouldn't want an expensive 3D Gaming card.
>
> If you are planing on working with HDV there are a number of
>specific requirements laid out by various relevant software, you
>might want to take a close look at those you intend using. On a
>more general basis it appears to me (and you might wait and see
>what "Smarty" has to say, he's been looking at this more than I)
>that you will want a multi-processor setup of relatively fast CPUs.
>It appears that this is an area where they have taken the step
>beyond multi-threading, to actual multi-processing.
>
>Luck;
> Ken
>
>
Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
At this time I am only looking at video conversion and making dvd's
from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
Thanks
"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...
>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>
> Thanks
Intel has always had AV encoding and decoding in it's pocket. AMD excels in
the gaming category. So the choice is yours. If you've got the money go
ahead and get a dual core, regardless of whether you go for AMD or Intel.
--
"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
- Alceryes
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:10:54 GMT, "Alceryes"
<replytopost@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
>news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com.. .
>>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
>> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
>> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
>> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
>> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
>Intel has always had AV encoding and decoding in it's pocket.
This I didn't know... So I guess it must be Intel then.
>AMD excels in the gaming category.
This I have heard of.
>So the choice is yours. If you've got the money go
>ahead and get a dual core, regardless of whether you go for AMD or Intel.
Dual core seems the way to go this time and from what you said it
appears that Intel is the way I should go.
There will be no gaming on this pc.
In article <75ddl1hnq3ocfcdq7dbupd0dpci096af8p@4ax.com>, Who Dat? <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
> the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
> At this time I am only looking at video conversion and making dvd's
> from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
> that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
> model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
> Thanks
Look for some benchmarks. There are plenty more besides these.
"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:75ddl1hnq3ocfcdq7dbupd0dpci096af8p@4ax.com...
>
> Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
> the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
> At this time I am only looking at video conversion and making dvd's
> from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
> that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
> model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
> Thanks
In that regard, as in several others relating to high tech; trying
to pick any long term winner is unproductive and frustrating.
Whatever you find today will be surpassed tomorrow. Just
choose that you are comfortable with and shows the most
promise. Any choice in the current upper 10% should last for
a reasonable time as fully capable of effective performance with
the available software releases.
"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:jfldl1dudd5mbtdguh3g45n6ihtqjc7r0o@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:10:54 GMT, "Alceryes"
> <replytopost@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
>>news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com. ..
>>>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
>>> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
>>> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or
>>> Intel?
>>> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your
>>> opinion
>>> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>Intel has always had AV encoding and decoding in it's pocket.
>
> This I didn't know... So I guess it must be Intel then.
>
>>AMD excels in the gaming category.
>
> This I have heard of.
>
>>So the choice is yours. If you've got the money go
>>ahead and get a dual core, regardless of whether you go for AMD or
>>Intel.
>
> Dual core seems the way to go this time and from what you said it
> appears that Intel is the way I should go.
> There will be no gaming on this pc.
You'll need a lot of memory and fast discs as well. Otherwise the
processor will be waiting for the data to be read and written. You
need at least 2 fast discs, one for input, one for output, to
avoid/minimize concurrent reads/writes on the same disc. Balance
between computer components is very important. The slowest one will be
the bottleneck.
Ken Maltby wrote:
> "Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
> news:75ddl1hnq3ocfcdq7dbupd0dpci096af8p@4ax.com...
>
>>Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
>>the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
>>At this time I am only looking at video conversion and making dvd's
>>from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
>>that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
>>model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
>>Thanks
>
>
> In that regard, as in several others relating to high tech; trying
> to pick any long term winner is unproductive and frustrating.
> Whatever you find today will be surpassed tomorrow. Just
> choose that you are comfortable with and shows the most
> promise. Any choice in the current upper 10% should last for
> a reasonable time as fully capable of effective performance with
> the available software releases.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
That I agree with a thousand percent. Anything I put in my computer will
be obsolete ten seconds later.
Video rendering is one of the few areas where a 'dualie' can be
beneficial. You can get a couple of Athlon MP's for a good price if they
are not latest and greatest and Tyan and Asus make stable boards for
these rigs. My Tyan is about 4 years old now with a couple MP 2600's in
it and its probably still competitive. Dunno if the editing programs
have yet been tweaked to take any real advantage of the 64 bit
processors though. Can anyone comment on this?
> Ken Maltby wrote:
>> "Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
>> news:75ddl1hnq3ocfcdq7dbupd0dpci096af8p@4ax.com...
>>
>>>Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
>>>the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
>>>At this time I am only looking at video conversion and making dvd's
>>>from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
>>>that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
>>>model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
>>>Thanks
>>
>>
>> In that regard, as in several others relating to high tech; trying
>> to pick any long term winner is unproductive and frustrating.
>> Whatever you find today will be surpassed tomorrow. Just
>> choose that you are comfortable with and shows the most
>> promise. Any choice in the current upper 10% should last for
>> a reasonable time as fully capable of effective performance with
>> the available software releases.
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
>>
>>
>
> That I agree with a thousand percent. Anything I put in my computer will
> be obsolete ten seconds later.
>
> Video rendering is one of the few areas where a 'dualie' can be
> beneficial. You can get a couple of Athlon MP's for a good price if they
> are not latest and greatest and Tyan and Asus make stable boards for
> these rigs. My Tyan is about 4 years old now with a couple MP 2600's in
> it and its probably still competitive. Dunno if the editing programs
> have yet been tweaked to take any real advantage of the 64 bit
> processors though. Can anyone comment on this?
The folks at the "pro" shop I mentioned find the software under BSD works
well in a multi-processor environment. In terms of 64 bit, the same holds
true except the machine is still dealing with a single process at a time
(ie. it has to suspend one process to run a second). Can't comment about
the programs in an M$ environment.
"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:jfldl1dudd5mbtdguh3g45n6ihtqjc7r0o@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:10:54 GMT, "Alceryes"
> <replytopost@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
>>news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com. ..
>>>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
>>> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
>>> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
>>> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
>>> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>Intel has always had AV encoding and decoding in it's pocket.
>
> This I didn't know... So I guess it must be Intel then.
>
>>AMD excels in the gaming category.
>
> This I have heard of.
>
>>So the choice is yours. If you've got the money go
>>ahead and get a dual core, regardless of whether you go for AMD or Intel.
>
> Dual core seems the way to go this time and from what you said it
> appears that Intel is the way I should go.
> There will be no gaming on this pc.
Does that make sense? Gaming requires fast renders and frames per second of
3 d video, so if AMD does that better
wouldn't it just make sense it can also process in general faster, encoding
and encoding of video?
What people might have said is, if your not gaming then you don't need the
extra power that the AMD chips can offer.
But its all dependant on the us speed, cpu speed etc.. not the actual brand.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:53:37 GMT, "AnthonyR"
<nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Does that make sense? Gaming requires fast renders and frames per second of
>3 d video, so if AMD does that better
>wouldn't it just make sense it can also process in general faster, encoding
>and encoding of video?
>
Yes that would make sense, but unfortunately most
professional codecs are optimized towards Intel CPUs.
"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AnT5f.4421$AO5.4333@dukeread01...
> Alceryes says...
>
> > Intel has always had AV encoding and decoding in it's
> > pocket. AMD excels in the gaming category.
>
> Can you explain why that would be so? I'm facing the same
> question as the OP, and like him I expect to do lots of
> multimedia format conversions and similar things, but zero
> gaming. Would I notice the difference between Intel and
> AMD? Why? Is it an instruction set thing? What exactly?
>
I haven't the resources to setup two competitive systems, so
as to make such a comparison. It may not even be possible
to do so, as there are a number of factors that bear no one-for-
one relationship. A simple optimization in one direction may be
over balanced by the competing system's performance in another
area. That said; I would really take a close look at the software
that you want to use, especially encoders, to see if they are even
making a claim for a measurable performance gain, as a result of
an optimization. In most cases I suspect that any overall
processing efficiency or higher performance rating would swamp
the effect any optimizations. I believe you can still get more overall
performance for the money with the AMD processors.
The use of multi-threading or even multi-processing would have a
major impact, though. There are several encoders that can make
very effective use of such systems.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:06:12 GMT, Who Dat? <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote:
>Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
>the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
There's simply no straightforward answer to this. The Intel fanboys will
tell you that Intel processors are faster, and they'll be able to find
benchmarks to back that up. The AMD fanboys will do the same for AMD
processors. Generally speaking, it does seem that AMD has trumped Intel with
their fastest processors, and that Intel is scrambling to catch up (they
will, I'm sure), but there are still plenty of programs out there that do run
a lot more efficiently on an Intel processor. The result is that if you put
the fastest Intel CPU against the fastest AMD CPU, you'll find each processor
will beat the other with some software and some tasks.
>from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
>that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
>model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
I'm planning on making an X2 my next CPU. If you want raw power, go for the
4800 - it's the fastest X2 on the market currently. However, it's also
currently a lot more expensive than the 4400, and only a little faster
(there's also a 4600, but it's an older model with a smaller cache, so you'd
probably be much better off with a slightly overclocked 4400 than a 4600). I
can't speak to the Pentium D models. I haven't looked at them as closely. I
have read a number of articles that have suggested that the Pentium D was
rushed to market and not imlemented nearly as well as the Athlon X2
(including one article that quoted an Intel design engineer saying exactly
that), making the X2 the better option in the dual-core arena.
However, if you want raw power, you might also want to consider the Athlon FX
line (or Intel's fastest P4EE). The X2 processors are quite a bit slower
than the fastest single-CPU solutions from AMD (& Intel). Just as with the
AMD vs. Intel issue, there is no clear answer in the single vs. dual core
question. The dual-core option will be better if most of what you're doing
is multithreaded _well_. The faster single-core option will outperform it on
any single-threaded applications or functions within an application.
Then again, you could always do what Maximum PC did with their latest "Dream
Machine" - they built a dual-processor system with two dual-core processors.
Four effective CPUs, all of which are very fast. :) I believe they used
dual-core Opteron chips (which are virtually identical to Athlon X2 chips)
because of a lack of dual-CPU motherboards for the Athlon line.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:18:56 -0400, Erik Harris
<n$wsr$ader@$harrishom$.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:06:12 GMT, Who Dat? <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
>>the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
>
>There's simply no straightforward answer to this. The Intel fanboys will
>tell you that Intel processors are faster, and they'll be able to find
>benchmarks to back that up. The AMD fanboys will do the same for AMD
>processors. Generally speaking, it does seem that AMD has trumped Intel with
>their fastest processors, and that Intel is scrambling to catch up (they
>will, I'm sure), but there are still plenty of programs out there that do run
>a lot more efficiently on an Intel processor. The result is that if you put
>the fastest Intel CPU against the fastest AMD CPU, you'll find each processor
>will beat the other with some software and some tasks.
>
>>from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
>>that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
>>model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
>
>I'm planning on making an X2 my next CPU. If you want raw power, go for the
>4800 - it's the fastest X2 on the market currently. However, it's also
>currently a lot more expensive than the 4400, and only a little faster
>(there's also a 4600, but it's an older model with a smaller cache, so you'd
>probably be much better off with a slightly overclocked 4400 than a 4600). I
>can't speak to the Pentium D models. I haven't looked at them as closely. I
>have read a number of articles that have suggested that the Pentium D was
>rushed to market and not imlemented nearly as well as the Athlon X2
>(including one article that quoted an Intel design engineer saying exactly
>that), making the X2 the better option in the dual-core arena.
>
>However, if you want raw power, you might also want to consider the Athlon FX
>line (or Intel's fastest P4EE). The X2 processors are quite a bit slower
>than the fastest single-CPU solutions from AMD (& Intel). Just as with the
>AMD vs. Intel issue, there is no clear answer in the single vs. dual core
>question. The dual-core option will be better if most of what you're doing
>is multithreaded _well_. The faster single-core option will outperform it on
>any single-threaded applications or functions within an application.
>
>
>Then again, you could always do what Maximum PC did with their latest "Dream
>Machine" - they built a dual-processor system with two dual-core processors.
>Four effective CPUs, all of which are very fast. :) I believe they used
>dual-core Opteron chips (which are virtually identical to Athlon X2 chips)
>because of a lack of dual-CPU motherboards for the Athlon line.
Thanks Erik that has helped alot!!! I will take my time and try to
make the best decision I can make!!!
************************************************** ********
Sincerely,
Gary Hendricks, Build-Your-Own-Computers.com
The best PC hardware tutorials and how-to guides: http://www.build-your-own-computers.com/tutorials
************************************************** ********
I would rather go with 2 HD in raid 0 for faster diling wit HD. Teoreticly
the access is twice as fast as with one drive.
Also consider 820 insted of 830 SPU
Boba Vancouver
"Maxwell" <maxheadspace@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZJWdnVDItfiSnfDenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>I use Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects, both of which do some
>heavy-duty data crunching. I'm editing and burning every day. If I had to
>build a new system from scratch, it would have:
>
> 1. high-end video board.
> 2. dual processors, 3 ghz or so (this is what I lack now)
> 3. minimum 2 gb RAM
> 4. greater than 200 G hard drive
>
> If I had to cut back on this, I would retain the dual processors but drop
> the clock speed of the CPUs. If I really had to cut deeper, I would then
> drop the dual processors and increase the speed of the single CPU. I don't
> know that I could go lower than that.
>
> For the average home use and simpler software, what I would consider the
> realistic minimum:
>
> 1. reasonable video board
> 2. 2.4 ghz Intel processor
> 3. 1 gb RAM
> 4. 80 G hard drive.
>
> You can get by with less, but you may start having chronic problems. I
> also suppose you can use the equivalent AMD processor. I tried AMD in
> their early years and had a lot of problems. I know they have improved
> dramatically, and are fully competitive with Intel, but I just got
> comfortable with Intel over the years.
>
> My 2 cents!
> Max
>
> "Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
> news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...
>>I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
>> processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
>> As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
>> Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
>> on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:26:29 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
<dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I would rather go with 2 HD in raid 0 for faster diling wit HD. Teoreticly
>the access is twice as fast as with one drive.
>
>Also consider 820 insted of 830 SPU
Often 2 drives /not/ in a RAID are even faster than 2 in a
RAID, using one for source and other for destination
file(s). If one can afford 2 different RAID arrays, that
"might" (depending on uses) be even faster.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:hceqm15h92t7ekav0an9i6fbj3b3799slf@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:26:29 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
> <dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I would rather go with 2 HD in raid 0 for faster diling wit HD. Teoreticly
>>the access is twice as fast as with one drive.
>>
>>Also consider 820 insted of 830 SPU
>
> Often 2 drives /not/ in a RAID are even faster than 2 in a
> RAID, using one for source and other for destination
> file(s). If one can afford 2 different RAID arrays, that
> "might" (depending on uses) be even faster.
>
>
Koni, are you positively sure about what you are talking?! If it work on
PIII on 300MH you are right. But P4 at 3 GH and 2 mega ram, I am not 100%
sure.
Boba Vancouver BC
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6f7tm1pi0hsjv6a1gq4ashr6vomblj7pha@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:54:04 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
> <dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>As far as I understood, in raid 0, files are saved in 2 drives at the same
>>time ("half" file on one and "half" on other one.)
>>
>>http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:e...l+raid+0&hl=en
>>
>>Boba Vancouver BC
>
> Yes they are split and striped onto both, but the same array
> would be reading and writing. That entails a performance
> penalty.
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:29:49 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
<dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Koni, are you positively sure about what you are talking?! If it work on
>PIII on 300MH you are right. But P4 at 3 GH and 2 mega ram, I am not 100%
>sure.
>
The gain from any particular drive combination depends on
the specific task. Video editing is not so specific as to
be able to presume much, since there are inhernatly some
rather large variables like # of files, and file sizes with
uncompressed vs various levels of compression.
RAID0 is generally faster than a lone drive, but once you
start reading and writing from the same volume
simultaneously, your throughput is halved... or however it
breaks down in the particular job, not really exactly half
but both reads and writes contending for the same volume.
If you had a disproportionately large (one or the other,
read or write) and the other, other was very small, the lone
raid volume may again do fairly well. This is of course
ignoring that some software raids also have a bit more CPU
overhead, which in some jobs is the primary bottleneck.
On the other hand with separate volumes, whether those
volumes are single or separate raid arrays, the entire
throughput potential of each can be dedicated to the read,
or write, but not needing to do both.
Sometimes it doesn't even matter much either way, take for
example an MPEG2 video capture, or a DVD rip, and converting
it to MPEG4. CPU overhead is by far the largest bottleneck
and even one older drive would be sufficient.
Raid 0 consists of 2 hard drives which are 'mirrored'. This means that the
*same* information is written to both drives at the same drive. If one
breaks, the other can carry on until the broken one is replaced. Then the
mirror is 'rebuilt'.
Raid 0 will generally be slower than a stand alone drive. However there are
many variables here. If each drive is on its own controller, speeds will
approach that of a dedicated drive, but will never be faster than a single
drive of similar type.
Raid 5 consists of a minimum of 3 drives. In this configuration, 2 drives
will be 'striped'. Part of a file will be written to one drive, part to the
other. The third drive is used for error correction. If one drive failes,
the other two drives are able to recreate the data.
Raid 5 can be faster than either Raid 0 or standalone. Again, it depends on
the controllers and how it is setup. Dedicated controller for each drive is
fastest. Software controlled Raid is slowest.
No clear cut answer. Raid is more about data redundency than speed, though
Raid 5 is sometimes used for speed as well.
Harvey
"Boba & Ilinka" <dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NnDbf.429647$1i.242964@pd7tw2no...
> Koni, are you positively sure about what you are talking?! If it work on
> PIII on 300MH you are right. But P4 at 3 GH and 2 mega ram, I am not 100%
> sure.
>
>
> Boba Vancouver BC
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:6f7tm1pi0hsjv6a1gq4ashr6vomblj7pha@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:54:04 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
>> <dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As far as I understood, in raid 0, files are saved in 2 drives at the
>>>same
>>>time ("half" file on one and "half" on other one.)
>>>
>>>http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:e...l+raid+0&hl=en
>>>
>>>Boba Vancouver BC
>>
>> Yes they are split and striped onto both, but the same array
>> would be reading and writing. That entails a performance
>> penalty.
>
>
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 07:10:11 -0500, "Harvey" <here@there.com>
wrote:
>No this is not exactly correct.
>
>Raid 0 consists of 2 hard drives which are 'mirrored'. This means that the
>*same* information is written to both drives at the same drive. If one
>breaks, the other can carry on until the broken one is replaced. Then the
>mirror is 'rebuilt'.
you are thinking of RAID1, not 0.
>
>Raid 0 will generally be slower than a stand alone drive.
RAID1 will be faster at reads, by a little, and similar or
sometimes slower writes. This is ignoring the
implementation, that if it's on the PCI bus that is yet
another variable and potential latency if not outright
bottleneck.
>However there are
>many variables here. If each drive is on its own controller, speeds will
>approach that of a dedicated drive, but will never be faster than a single
>drive of similar type.
It can be faster at reads, benchmarks do reveal this.
Question to the Experts about Processors 
Linear Mode
