Video processing - which cpu? 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

M!tch VIP Member

intermittently erratic

130,170 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

11,767 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

just been asked by a friend who does a fair bit of video processing which cpu would be best. From my past knowledge its always seems to be Intel cpu's that are better for video, but would a single core cpu ie; a Pentium 4 650 LGA775 Prescott 3.4GHz be as good as a dual core Pentium 4 830 Dual Core "LGA775 Smithfield

they are similar price,im just unsure which to go for

or are AMD dual core cpu's as good (an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ Socket 939 ) is slightly more expensive


Thinking about it.



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 13 years ago

all AMD64's and 64 dual cores are better than the intels. intel got smashed in the gaming department, and basicly all the other departments. if your choosing to buy an intel, your either, in for serious OCing a college studnt that dosent know what hes doing a old person buy his/her first computer you dont know who AMD are the AMD wins it all the way, go for the dual cores, better in multithreading and all gaming. intel and AMD are neck and neck for video "playback". what intels are really good at is video "encrypting" and encoding, even audio, unless you a media person it does no good. the diffrence is so small.




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

1337cshackerall AMD64's and 64 dual cores are better than the intels. intel got smashed in the gaming department, and basicly all the other departments.[/quote] Wrong.

While the AMD dual-core will trounce the Intel in gaming, crunching numbers (i.e virus scanning) and mp3 encoding, the Intel beat it in video encoding and PhotoShop rendering.

Some benchmark results for you:

Maxon Cinebench 2003 (in seconds) (Lower times are better)Velocity Micro ProMagix dual-core (overclocked Intel Extreme Edition 840 w/ Intel 955X Express chipset) - 34.4 seconds.

2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor w/ Nvidia Nforce 4 Ultra SLI - 41.2 seconds[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DivXNetworks Dr.DivX 1.0.6 video-encoding test (in seconds) (Lower times are better)]Velocity Micro ProMagix dual-core (overclocked Intel Extreme Edition 840 w/ Intel 955X Express chipset) - 114 seconds.

2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor w/ Nvidia Nforce 4 Ultra SLI - 124 seconds.

[QUOTE=VirusScan and Dr.DivX multitasking test (in seconds) (Lower times are better)]Velocity Micro ProMagix dual-core (overclocked Intel Extreme Edition 840 w/ Intel 955X Express chipset) - 155 seconds

2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor w/ Nvidia Nforce 4 Ultra SLI - 182 seconds.

If you want to see the full Intel vs AMD dual-core benchmarks, here is the link.

Now, as you can see the Intel chip has a comfortable lead on the AMD when it comes to video processing/rendering. If that's all that your friend is going to be doing, then the Intel chip is the way to go - it will get the job done quicker, but if he wants to use it for gaming as well, then I would recommend the AMD chip - it isn't all that bad at video editing, at most it will take around a 40 seconds to 1 minute longer than an Intel doing the same job, but will show a spectacular performance increase in all other areas - especially gaming.

So if he's just doing video editing, go for the Intel. If he wants to do other CPU-intensive things such as gaming, go for the AMD.




M!tch VIP Member

intermittently erratic

130,170 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

11,767 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

thanks for that guys

another question this about motherboards, if i use a dual core cpu, is there a budget priced motherboard that anyone knows of. my friend doesn't play games (apart from solitaire maybe) graphics aren't a major concern and there is no need for overclocking. Onboard sound and SATA is fine. Most of the lower priced boards seem not to cater for dual cpu's (at least so far, im going crazy looking)


Thinking about it.



Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

Depends where you're to. If you go the Intel route, you'll want a 955X based chipset, as these are the only ones that support dual-core at present.

As for AMD, you'll want either a socket 939 (Athlon 64 X2) or a 940 (Opteron) motherboard.

AMD Chipset (Athlon 64 X2) Intel 955X Based




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

Rookie_42Wrong.

While the AMD dual-core will trounce the Intel in gaming, crunching numbers (i.e virus scanning) and mp3 encoding, the Intel beat it in video encoding and PhotoShop rendering.

Some benchmark results for you:

If you want to see the full Intel vs AMD dual-core benchmarks, here is the link.

Now, as you can see the Intel chip has a comfortable lead on the AMD when it comes to video processing/rendering. If that's all that your friend is going to be doing, then the Intel chip is the way to go - it will get the job done quicker, but if he wants to use it for gaming as well, then I would recommend the AMD chip - it isn't all that bad at video editing, at most it will take around a 40 seconds to 1 minute longer than an Intel doing the same job, but will show a spectacular performance increase in all other areas - especially gaming.

So if he's just doing video editing, go for the Intel. If he wants to do other CPU-intensive things such as gaming, go for the AMD.

Rookie they had to overclock that Intel to get those times.......... It be nice to see benchmarks of them NOT being overclocked and since they were overclocking the Intel why not the AMD? Also they used the Extream edtion not the basic D and also thats still sad that they had to overclock the thing to beat the AMD...

The AMD dualcore is faster than the Intel. Every benchmark iv seen where the cards were NOT overclock AMD really kick its ass. But if you don't want to spend $500 on a 4200+ AMD then go spend $300 on a Intel dualcore that would do your things fine unless you are doing heavy amounts of video edting. Also Rookie what were they using for the AMD 4600+ or the 4800+ because they are both clocked at 2.4ghz....




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

AgentlaidlawRookie they had to overclock that Intel to get those times.......... It be nice to see benchmarks of them NOT being overclocked and since they were overclocking the Intel why not the AMD? Also they used the Extream edtion not the basic D and also thats still sad that they had to overclock the thing to beat the AMD...

The AMD dualcore is faster than the Intel. Every benchmark iv seen where the cards were NOT overclock AMD really kick its ass. But if you don't want to spend $500 on a 4200+ AMD then go spend $300 on a Intel dualcore that would do your things fine unless you are doing heavy amounts of video edting. Also Rookie what were they using for the AMD 4600+ or the 4800+ because they are both clocked at 2.4ghz....

Yes, but some systems come with clocked CPUs as standard - Like that Alienware system a little while back.

Plus, Intel is cheaper. As to whether they used the 4800+ or 4600+, take a look at the source page for those benchmarks - they list the PC specifications at the bottom of the page.

My original recommendation stands:

Intel for video editing / other basic stuff AMD for gaming and programs that need more "oomph" to run.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

Rookie_42Yes, but some systems come with clocked CPUs as standard - Like that Alienware system a little while back.

Plus, Intel is cheaper. As to whether they used the 4800+ or 4600+, take a look at the source page for those benchmarks - they list the PC specifications at the bottom of the page.

My original recommendation stands:

Intel for video editing / other basic stuff AMD for gaming and programs that need more "oomph" to run.

Not that extream edtion they used. That thing cost around $800. If they used a 4600+ and had to overclock the Intel extream then right there gota show yeah AMD is a lot faster.

You are right about the Intel being cheaper. If you get the BASIC Intel D then your looking from $200-$400. But the AMD 3800+ Dual Core beats those one pretty bad.

Take a look at some benchmarks from Tom Hardware Guides. He put them to the test and stree test to see how they would preform under stress. AMD came out better with performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/

  • Data compression with WinRAR: AMD system has 29.5% better performance;
  • MP3 encoding of the CD: AMD system has 4.7% better performance;
  • DivX encoding of the DVD: AMD system has 28.2% better performance;
  • 3D game Farcry: AMD system has 21.4% better performance.



Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

Aaah, you found some better benchmarks. Damn you, I was looking for those...

And yeah, that AMD flattens the P4 in most, if not all (depending on which version you get, i.e the EE) areas. But still, that P4 would be a cheap solution to what he's going to use his PC for, and Intel have always been good with video editing, but if AMD have taken that crown, then it's one more nail in Intel's coffin.

AMD FTW.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

Rookie_42Aaah, you found some better benchmarks. Damn you, I was looking for those...

And yeah, that AMD flattens the P4 in most, if not all (depending on which version you get, i.e the EE) areas. But still, that P4 would be a cheap solution to what he's going to use his PC for, and Intel have always been good with video editing, but if AMD have taken that crown, then it's one more nail in Intel's coffin.

AMD FTW.

I do agree about Intel being cheaper if he gets the basic D. He can get the low end one for around $256 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116213

But if he wants power then go to AMD because it has be proven hehe AMD owns in dual core :)




  • 1
  • 2