Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Pentium 4 vs. M???

Reply
Thread Tools

Pentium 4 vs. M???

 
 
C.J.Patten
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
I bought a Northwood, Pentium 4 HT based laptop computer last year. (big,
fast, hot fother mucker)

I do video editing on the road and it was generally accepted this was the
absolute fastest machine available.

I'm doing some reading on the Pentium M and it seems the architecture is
very efficient - so much so it rivals the P4-HT for throughput.

Any comments on this?

I use Adobe Premiere Pro for video and it DOES support HyperThreading and
multi-processors.

I'd like the added battery life of a Pentium M but if it's a compromise on
performance, no chance - I'll just work from power outlet to power outlet.

Thanks,
Chris


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Amtjip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
On 28 feb 2005 "C.J.Patten" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
news:(E-Mail Removed) in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

> I bought a Northwood, Pentium 4 HT based laptop computer last year.
> (big, fast, hot fother mucker)
>
> I do video editing on the road and it was generally accepted this was
> the absolute fastest machine available.
>
> I'm doing some reading on the Pentium M and it seems the architecture
> is very efficient - so much so it rivals the P4-HT for throughput.
>
> Any comments on this?
>
> I use Adobe Premiere Pro for video and it DOES support HyperThreading
> and multi-processors.
>
> I'd like the added battery life of a Pentium M but if it's a
> compromise on performance, no chance - I'll just work from power
> outlet to power outlet.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
>


Maybe it's just marketing bullsh*t, but if you multiply the clockspeed of
an M by 1.5 it *should* be comparable to an P4. Of course one has to take
into consideration that:
a. it was intel's own marketing material
b. there were no study to back it up, only something resembling a graph
c. I might have been drunk or half asleep...

btw. you use premiere for serious video editing? I admire you. usually
when I have to work with premiere, I'll be banging my head on the wall
within the first ten minutes, crying: "WHY CAN'T I AFFORD A NICE MAC AND
FINAL CUT?"

--
R. Amtjip ;-P
Just mail away, I'm trying out gmail's spam killer by having a REAL
address in my header *gosh*
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2005
Robert Amtjip wrote:

> btw. you use premiere for serious video editing? I admire you. usually
> when I have to work with premiere, I'll be banging my head on the wall
> within the first ten minutes, crying: "WHY CAN'T I AFFORD A NICE MAC AND
> FINAL CUT?"
>

Both of which you'd trash in a minute after using Vegas 5.0 for a while.
 
Reply With Quote
 
C.J.Patten
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2005
I tolerate Premiere as I've been using it since version 1.0, c.1993.
I've done about a dozen DVD/video productions - educational and training,
corporate and product promotional videos - with it to date, all on XP
workstations.

I DID look at a Powerbook when I was choosing laptops.

Would have cost me over $1500 more than the WinXP machine, didn't have the
screen resolution. (my laptop is 1680x1050 17" WSXGA+ the Mac was 1440 x
900)

Premiere has stated requirements of a minimum 1280x1024 so I didn't want to
compromise on the vertical res. Glad I didn't...there are a helluva lot of
palettes.

FYI: I've owned 17 Macs in as many years. No stranger to the platform. With
XP, I just couldn't justify the added expense and proprietary nature of the
hardware. (that, and I may be soured on Apple after my last couple of Macs
were duds.)

*********

Back to the processor...

I'm running a Northwood at 3.2GHz (800mhz FSB) in my notebook.
My last machine was a Dell Dimension 8300 workstation with a 2.4GHz P4HT.

I can't tell the difference in speed between the two. Looks like the P4
benefits less from a MHz jump than other CPU's might which fits with what
I've read.

C.



"Rgr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Robert Amtjip wrote:
>
> > btw. you use premiere for serious video editing? I admire you. usually
>> when I have to work with premiere, I'll be banging my head on the wall
>> within the first ten minutes, crying: "WHY CAN'T I AFFORD A NICE MAC AND
>> FINAL CUT?"
>>

> Both of which you'd trash in a minute after using Vegas 5.0 for a while.



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2005
C.J.Patten wrote:

> I tolerate Premiere as I've been using it since version 1.0, c.1993.
> I've done about a dozen DVD/video productions - educational and training,
> corporate and product promotional videos - with it to date, all on XP
> workstations.
>
> I DID look at a Powerbook when I was choosing laptops.
>
> Would have cost me over $1500 more than the WinXP machine, didn't have the
> screen resolution. (my laptop is 1680x1050 17" WSXGA+ the Mac was 1440 x
> 900)
>
> Premiere has stated requirements of a minimum 1280x1024 so I didn't want to
> compromise on the vertical res. Glad I didn't...there are a helluva lot of
> palettes.
>
> FYI: I've owned 17 Macs in as many years. No stranger to the platform. With
> XP, I just couldn't justify the added expense and proprietary nature of the
> hardware. (that, and I may be soured on Apple after my last couple of Macs
> were duds.)
>
> *********
>
> Back to the processor...
>
> I'm running a Northwood at 3.2GHz (800mhz FSB) in my notebook.
> My last machine was a Dell Dimension 8300 workstation with a 2.4GHz P4HT.
>
> I can't tell the difference in speed between the two. Looks like the P4
> benefits less from a MHz jump than other CPU's might which fits with what
> I've read.
>
> C.


I've been using PCs for a long time and owned a few Macs, hated every
damn one of them. And I do a lot of video production that's shown on
cable TV and in theaters. Shoot it, capture it, edit it and output to
tape or DVD. I started using Premiere a long time ago and could never
grow fond of it. Started using Vegas about 2 years ago, not looked back.

As for the processor, I'd be glad to advise but I never use Intel's
chips for my own machines, can't afford them and can't figure out any
reason why I should. Have you considered a socket 939 AMD 64 bit
processor? More bang for the buck.

As for the perceived lack of jump in performance compared to processor
speed, I've seen what you're seeing too. I built one machine that's an
AMD 64 bit 3200MHz. Just for giggles overclocked it to 3500MHz and
didn't especially like the results. Back at 3200, it's a very nice
performing machine, especially during long bouts of rendering a project.
 
Reply With Quote
 
C.J.Patten
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2005
Hey Roger!

Love to hear more about the work you do - I still consider myself new to the
business. Traditional media was my mainstay for years. I learned video a
decade ago but haven't put it to use until the last couple of years.

If you'd like to drop a line, email me a reply, deleting the obvious from
the address!

Cheers,
Chris


"Rgr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> C.J.Patten wrote:
>
>> I tolerate Premiere as I've been using it since version 1.0, c.1993.
>> I've done about a dozen DVD/video productions - educational and training,
>> corporate and product promotional videos - with it to date, all on XP
>> workstations.
>>
>> I DID look at a Powerbook when I was choosing laptops.
>>
>> Would have cost me over $1500 more than the WinXP machine, didn't have
>> the screen resolution. (my laptop is 1680x1050 17" WSXGA+ the Mac was
>> 1440 x 900)
>>
>> Premiere has stated requirements of a minimum 1280x1024 so I didn't want
>> to compromise on the vertical res. Glad I didn't...there are a helluva
>> lot of palettes.
>>
>> FYI: I've owned 17 Macs in as many years. No stranger to the platform.
>> With XP, I just couldn't justify the added expense and proprietary nature
>> of the hardware. (that, and I may be soured on Apple after my last couple
>> of Macs were duds.)
>>
>> *********
>>
>> Back to the processor...
>>
>> I'm running a Northwood at 3.2GHz (800mhz FSB) in my notebook.
>> My last machine was a Dell Dimension 8300 workstation with a 2.4GHz P4HT.
>>
>> I can't tell the difference in speed between the two. Looks like the P4
>> benefits less from a MHz jump than other CPU's might which fits with what
>> I've read.
>>
>> C.

>
> I've been using PCs for a long time and owned a few Macs, hated every damn
> one of them. And I do a lot of video production that's shown on cable TV
> and in theaters. Shoot it, capture it, edit it and output to tape or DVD.
> I started using Premiere a long time ago and could never grow fond of it.
> Started using Vegas about 2 years ago, not looked back.
>
> As for the processor, I'd be glad to advise but I never use Intel's chips
> for my own machines, can't afford them and can't figure out any reason why
> I should. Have you considered a socket 939 AMD 64 bit processor? More bang
> for the buck.
>
> As for the perceived lack of jump in performance compared to processor
> speed, I've seen what you're seeing too. I built one machine that's an AMD
> 64 bit 3200MHz. Just for giggles overclocked it to 3500MHz and didn't
> especially like the results. Back at 3200, it's a very nice performing
> machine, especially during long bouts of rendering a project.



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
C.J.Patten wrote:
> Hey Roger!
>
> Love to hear more about the work you do - I still consider myself new to the
> business. Traditional media was my mainstay for years. I learned video a
> decade ago but haven't put it to use until the last couple of years.
>
> If you'd like to drop a line, email me a reply, deleting the obvious from
> the address!


You might want to check out news:rec.video.desktop or
news:rec.video.production

I could regale you for hours with the many adventures of my video work,
but even I would be bored to tears.
 
Reply With Quote
 
C.J.Patten
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
Thanks! I'll check those groups out.
FYI: www.capitalairsports.com was my old company - sold but still shows some
of the DVD's we produced.

C.


"Rgr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> C.J.Patten wrote:
>> Hey Roger!
>>
>> Love to hear more about the work you do - I still consider myself new to
>> the business. Traditional media was my mainstay for years. I learned
>> video a decade ago but haven't put it to use until the last couple of
>> years.
>>
>> If you'd like to drop a line, email me a reply, deleting the obvious from
>> the address!

>
> You might want to check out news:rec.video.desktop or
> news:rec.video.production
>
> I could regale you for hours with the many adventures of my video work,
> but even I would be bored to tears.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentium III motherboard into Pentium II case? ff Computer Information 6 10-16-2005 09:09 AM
Pentium-M vs Pentium 4 Nova NZ Computing 1 05-30-2005 03:06 AM
Re: ASPNET Performance Problem : Pentium 3 is better than Pentium 4 Alvin Bruney [MVP] ASP .Net 1 04-14-2004 06:40 AM
Re: ASPNET Performance Problem : Pentium 3 is better than Pentium 4 Scott Allen ASP .Net 1 04-14-2004 06:35 AM
Re: ASPNET Performance Problem : Pentium 3 is better than Pentium 4 arkam ASP .Net 0 04-13-2004 12:55 PM



Advertisments