Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540

Reply
Thread Tools

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540

 
 
NoNoBadDog!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005

"Mark Gillespie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Christian Hougardy got up from the bar and shouted: :
>> NNBXX <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> P4 540 is MUCH better
>>>
>>> "sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I need to change my computer.
>>>> I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
>>>> What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> sorry for my english.
>>>>
>>>> Sbas

>>
>> I like my AMD +3500
>>

>
> For the video editing, I would go for the Intel P4 540...


Once again, FUD rears it's ugly head. Intel is faster in encoding *ONE*
type of video (Mpeg-2), and that is using a proprietary codec that is not
available to the public.

Lets see...
AMD Has Hypertransport....Intel does not.
AMD has exclusive L1 data/L2 cache...Intel does not.
AMD has an integrated memory controller....Intel does not.
Intel ties its procs to either a 533 or 800MHz FSB...AMD does not need a FSB
(hypertransport).

Seriously, if you do any *real* research, there is no comparison between
Intel AMD. AMD clearly makes a better processor, and together with the
Hypertransport bus, will give you better performance across the board, all
the time.

Bobby




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jud Hendrix
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:29:00 +0100, "DKI" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>but i don't do alot and play games so i am not fussed for it does do the job
>well with the games.


Well, there you go, you can keep yourself busy in the mean time, and
because of the longer render-time, you have a chance of getting a new
high-score Rendering is for me a good time to go outside and ride
my bicycle for the necessary amount of exercise

jud
(does Maya 6.5 run on a 8086? the amount of exercise....)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DKI
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005
Well mostly use time to see friends or pop to the cinema (batman begins and
mr and mrs smith) don't do much cycling now, also sit in the garden and
catch the sun
"Jud Hendrix" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:29:00 +0100, "DKI" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>but i don't do alot and play games so i am not fussed for it does do the
>>job
>>well with the games.

>
> Well, there you go, you can keep yourself busy in the mean time, and
> because of the longer render-time, you have a chance of getting a new
> high-score Rendering is for me a good time to go outside and ride
> my bicycle for the necessary amount of exercise
>
> jud
> (does Maya 6.5 run on a 8086? the amount of exercise....)



 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Kratochvil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005
Do some research.
www.tomshardware has lots of good benchmarks

--
Keith


"sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
> I need to change my computer.
> I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
> What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
>
> Thanks
> sorry for my english.
>
> Sbas
>
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?SW50ZWxfRmFu?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005
Ok, no bones about it, I am a “fanboy” but I’ll try to be neutral here. Buy
what you are comfortable with. In the old days, VIA chipsets were required to
maximize performance from AMD processors but were unsupported by MS and
driver installation was finicky. I’m sure driver installation has become less
painful over the years. As far as heating, I remember seeing videos in the
old days of AMD processors (with heat sinks removed) that would catch fire
before thermal shutdown kicked in but I’m sure that isn’t a problem anymore
either.

Pound for pound, AMD processors generally benchmark faster than Intel. Long
ago, AMD realized that all things windows were compiled for the x86
architecture and, for the most part, still are. Thankfully, that is finally
changing. AMD kept pace with innovation but they also put a lot of effort
into optimizing the old x86 repertoire. Hyperthreading and dual core are nice
but they won’t truly shine unless your applications are multithreaded.
Doesn’t matter how many cores or CPU’s you have if only one process is
running.

All things considered and assuming you have all your drivers properly
loaded, you’re likely to get better performance per dollar with an AMD based
system. BUT, if your one of those lucky cats that has a rare application the
says “Built with Intel Optimizers”, or actually uses the Intel Single
Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) functions or any of the other “magic”
functions that nobody under an NDA with Intel can tell you about then hold on
to your seat because there IS a difference.


"sgroulx" wrote:

> Hi,
> I need to change my computer.
> I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
> What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
>
> Thanks
> sorry for my english.
>
> Sébas
>
>
>
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Stubbs [383037]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005
Oh man not this old chestnut arguement again!

Intel or AMD? - Horses for courses, I have a 3.4 P4, a 3500+ Athlon64 and a
3200+ Athlon64 - which do I use day to day??? - The AMDs, why? because they
are snappier overall for the tasks that I perform. If I want to re-encode a
DVD I can use the Intel and save a very marginal amount of time (which
really isnt the issue) - the main issue with video encoding is that without
Hyperthreading the AMD struggles because you can't do a tremendous amount
else with the cpu at 100%. The X2's should fix that and seriously even the
scores (I hope).

Basically right now if you want to dedicate the processor to video crunching
then you have to choose a P4 with Hyperthreading (or Guniea Pig an X2 for us
all <bg>). If however Video crunching is only a small percentage of what you
want the processor for then you have some serious thinking to do.

Personally I am more than happy running my everyday tasks on the AMD and it
certainly kicks ass when it comes to games, if however I am in a desperate
hurry to crunch some video I use the Intel - mainly because it free's up the
AMD's for whatever the hell else I want to do lol.

Just my two cents and I don't expect much change!



 
Reply With Quote
 
Torrey Lauer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005
Actually, Mark, you're dead wrong. Call me whatever you want, but that
doesn't make you right.

--
Torrey Lauer
Modern Travel Services
moderntravel DOT net

Rainbow Sky Travel
rainbow sky travel DOT net
"Mark Gillespie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Torrey Lauer got up from the bar and shouted: :
>> If you would actually do research, you'd find that AMD is just better
>> overall now-a-days. AMD's architecure is better and you'll be more out
>> of hypertransport than anything you'd get out of Intel. Not to mention,
>> you'll save on electricity too since AMDs run cooler than Intels.
>>

>
> I think that's a AMD fanboy answer... Intel still rule the roost when it
> comes to video rendering encoding/decoding type tasks. For everything
> else thou, AMD is a better buy (bang for buck wise).



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?Qm9uZF8wMDc=?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005
Ok, in the beginning, Intel was in the lead in a big way. Things have changed
since then. AMD used Intel's designs to create their first processors.
However, from what I have heard, Intel is reverse engineering AMD's 64 bit
technology. The future of processing will go to AMD. You can either be ahead
of the game or stay behind. It is the way of the world.

"Intel_Fan" wrote:

> Ok, no bones about it, I am a “fanboy” but I’ll try to be neutral here. Buy
> what you are comfortable with. In the old days, VIA chipsets were required to
> maximize performance from AMD processors but were unsupported by MS and
> driver installation was finicky. I’m sure driver installation has become less
> painful over the years. As far as heating, I remember seeing videos in the
> old days of AMD processors (with heat sinks removed) that would catch fire
> before thermal shutdown kicked in but I’m sure that isn’t a problem anymore
> either.
>
> Pound for pound, AMD processors generally benchmark faster than Intel. Long
> ago, AMD realized that all things windows were compiled for the x86
> architecture and, for the most part, still are. Thankfully, that is finally
> changing. AMD kept pace with innovation but they also put a lot of effort
> into optimizing the old x86 repertoire. Hyperthreading and dual core are nice
> but they won’t truly shine unless your applications are multithreaded.
> Doesn’t matter how many cores or CPU’s you have if only one process is
> running.
>
> All things considered and assuming you have all your drivers properly
> loaded, you’re likely to get better performance per dollar with an AMD based
> system. BUT, if your one of those lucky cats that has a rare application the
> says “Built with Intel Optimizers”, or actually uses the Intel Single
> Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) functions or any of the other “magic”
> functions that nobody under an NDA with Intel can tell you about then hold on
> to your seat because there IS a difference.
>
>
> "sgroulx" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I need to change my computer.
> > I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
> > What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
> >
> > Thanks
> > sorry for my english.
> >
> > Sébas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?RnJpdHo=?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2005
Do you guys realize he'll probably never check back in to read your
responses?
--
Fritz
Computer type person


"Bond_007" wrote:

> Ok, in the beginning, Intel was in the lead in a big way. Things have changed
> since then. AMD used Intel's designs to create their first processors.
> However, from what I have heard, Intel is reverse engineering AMD's 64 bit
> technology. The future of processing will go to AMD. You can either be ahead
> of the game or stay behind. It is the way of the world.
>
> "Intel_Fan" wrote:
>
> > Ok, no bones about it, I am a “fanboy” but I’ll try to be neutral here. Buy
> > what you are comfortable with. In the old days, VIA chipsets were required to
> > maximize performance from AMD processors but were unsupported by MS and
> > driver installation was finicky. I’m sure driver installation has become less
> > painful over the years. As far as heating, I remember seeing videos in the
> > old days of AMD processors (with heat sinks removed) that would catch fire
> > before thermal shutdown kicked in but I’m sure that isn’t a problem anymore
> > either.
> >
> > Pound for pound, AMD processors generally benchmark faster than Intel. Long
> > ago, AMD realized that all things windows were compiled for the x86
> > architecture and, for the most part, still are. Thankfully, that is finally
> > changing. AMD kept pace with innovation but they also put a lot of effort
> > into optimizing the old x86 repertoire. Hyperthreading and dual core are nice
> > but they won’t truly shine unless your applications are multithreaded.
> > Doesn’t matter how many cores or CPU’s you have if only one process is
> > running.
> >
> > All things considered and assuming you have all your drivers properly
> > loaded, you’re likely to get better performance per dollar with an AMD based
> > system. BUT, if your one of those lucky cats that has a rare application the
> > says “Built with Intel Optimizers”, or actually uses the Intel Single
> > Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) functions or any of the other “magic”
> > functions that nobody under an NDA with Intel can tell you about then hold on
> > to your seat because there IS a difference.
> >
> >
> > "sgroulx" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I need to change my computer.
> > > I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
> > > What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > sorry for my english.
> > >
> > > Sébas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

 
Reply With Quote
 
ChrisC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2005
Yup, ask a question and all you get is opinions....
ChrisC
"Andy Stubbs [383037]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Oh man not this old chestnut arguement again!
>
> Intel or AMD? - Horses for courses, I have a 3.4 P4, a 3500+ Athlon64 and
> a 3200+ Athlon64 - which do I use day to day??? - The AMDs, why? because
> they are snappier overall for the tasks that I perform. If I want to
> re-encode a DVD I can use the Intel and save a very marginal amount of
> time (which really isnt the issue) - the main issue with video encoding is
> that without Hyperthreading the AMD struggles because you can't do a
> tremendous amount else with the cpu at 100%. The X2's should fix that and
> seriously even the scores (I hope).
>
> Basically right now if you want to dedicate the processor to video
> crunching then you have to choose a P4 with Hyperthreading (or Guniea Pig
> an X2 for us all <bg>). If however Video crunching is only a small
> percentage of what you want the processor for then you have some serious
> thinking to do.
>
> Personally I am more than happy running my everyday tasks on the AMD and
> it certainly kicks ass when it comes to games, if however I am in a
> desperate hurry to crunch some video I use the Intel - mainly because it
> free's up the AMD's for whatever the hell else I want to do lol.
>
> Just my two cents and I don't expect much change!
>
>
>



 
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
AMD Phenom II X2 550 and AMD Athlon II X2 250 Processors Review Ian Front Page News 0 06-02-2009 08:40 AM
Athlon/Athlon XP/Duron??? Jerry Computer Support 5 03-13-2006 03:28 AM
with a athlon venice core can you mix 32 and 64 bit drivers ? VIA athlon 64 - 64 bit win pro Swan Windows 64bit 2 07-25-2005 12:53 PM
HEXUS.review - AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 Silverstrand Front Page News 2 06-29-2005 09:43 AM
AMD Sempron vs AMD Athlon Dalgibbard Computer Support 2 09-16-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments