Question to the Experts about Processors

PC Hardware
Dicussion of PC hardware and peripherals

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

Question to the Experts about Processors Goto page 1, 2 Next

PC Hardware Forum Index -> Hardware

Author

Message

Who Dat?
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject: Question to the Experts about Processors

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

RS
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

Who Dat? wrote:

Quote:

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.

ElJerid
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...

Quote:

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.

Ken Maltby
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...

Quote:

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

John@Smith.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:52 am Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:51:48 GMT, Who Dat? <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote:

Quote:

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.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-3800.html
-----------------------------

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD M2 2006

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.

The Wizard of Oz
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:49 am Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:51:48 +0000, Who Dat? wrote:

Quote:

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.

Who Dat?
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:06 am Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:26:15 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Quote:

"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

Alceryes
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:10 am Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...

Quote:

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

Who Dat?
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:28 am Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:10:54 GMT, "Alceryes"
<replytopost@thankyou.com> wrote:

Quote:

This I didn't know... So I guess it must be Intel then.

Quote:

AMD excels in the gaming category.

This I have heard of.

Quote:

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.

Paul
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:49 am Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

In article <75ddl1hnq3ocfcdq7dbupd0dpci096af8p@4ax.com>, Who Dat? <Who
Dat@ncat.com> wrote:

Quote:

Look for some benchmarks. There are plenty more besides these.

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articleid=686

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=9

Paul

Ken Maltby
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:25 am Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:75ddl1hnq3ocfcdq7dbupd0dpci096af8p@4ax.com...

Quote:

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

erik
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:jfldl1dudd5mbtdguh3g45n6ihtqjc7r0o@4ax.com...

Quote:

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.

RS
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

Ken Maltby wrote:

Quote:

"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 Wizard of Oz
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:16 pm Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:44:09 -0500, RS wrote:

Quote:

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.

Later
Mike

AnthonyR
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject: Re: Question to the Experts about Processors

"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:jfldl1dudd5mbtdguh3g45n6ihtqjc7r0o@4ax.com...

Quote:

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.

AnthonyR.

	PC Hardware Forum Index -> Hardware	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Electronics VoIP DSP
New Topics php BB