AMD v P4 etc

T

timmy

Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
OK, I have asked for assistance in purchases before and been advised to build my own PC or get a local shop to do it. Well the local shop is wasting my time and I dont really have the confidence to put one together myself.

So, wuss that I am, I am looking at buying off the shelf. I have seen a nice couple of HPs in a shop. Thing is, whats best for video editing and general memory hungry work, AMD 64 or P4 dual core. And why is the bus speed of a P4 lower than an AMD (2000 mhz against 800mhz has been quoted). Is dual core all that good and do AMD machines loo slower on paper but actually work at twice the speed of P4 or something.

To improve things I can change a graphics card if I want to and other stuff, but I want to have a good basic system to begin with so any help would be good.:thumb:
 
I've seen benchmarks, and been told on this site, that P4's are better for video encoding and multi-tasking. Hyperthreading's meant to help a fair bit with this. They do run a lot hotter than AMD's however, so watch out for this.

I was going to buy off the shelf as well, didn't know anything about computers, but ended up - successfully - building my own.

Think about it again, you get EVERYTHING the way you want it, mouse, keyboard, case, and the insides as well. And you'll know all your pieces of equipment are quality. And it's a lot of fun, as long as you take your time there's not a huge amount that can go wrong. Also means you can future-proof it...

Rufus
 
Hmm... Well, when you specifically ask for video editing, it makes sense to get a Pentium 4. However, this is basically a scenario of getting a P4 because it's best at video editing, or geting an Athlon 64 because it's better. at. everything. else.

How much video editing do you do?? We're still only talking a few seconds difference here in most cases. AMD make far better gaming CPU's - which is a much cooler attribute in my opinion, and as far as multitasking is concerned, nothing beats an X2. People have reported being able to run intensive hard drive tasks and play Half Life 2 at the same time - without any performance hit. Surely, if you do THAT much video editing, you'll be better off with the ability to forget about it and leave it in the background whilst you do other things - even if it does do it a bit slower.

Still, I wouldn't buy an HP pc. It's not difficult to build a PC for yourself, you'll be able to hand select the best components, and it feels great once you know how.

EDIT: If you post what you need and what you're budget is, the pcreview community is usually all to happy to help, to an almost nerdy extent! So you wouldn't even have worry about buying the wrong bits...
 
Last edited:
Thanks tomsega. Personally I think I would prefer an Athlon for the reasons you said and beause I have read before that they are better at multitasking anyway. I had Athlon XP in my last PC, but it ran very noisily with the fan on all the time. Was that normal as I have read about 'silent Athlon power' in some adverts.

Although I want to centre it around video editing, I dont want to do that at the expense of anything else. I just want to know that when I am messing about with video and rendering etc that the whole thing is not going to slow up badly and then produce crap video, missed frames etc. Like you, I also like games and wouldnt want to play anything at less than highest quality frame rates and resolution, otherwise whats the point.

Interesting to see the amount of people that have built their own PC with little or no knowledge, perhaps I should do it. Only thing is, what comeback do you have if it all goes a bit wrong, who do you blame. If I know manufacturers, they will all blame eachother or me and I could do without another struggle for a refund/repair. (I had a Mesh PC for 18 months of pure crap).

The spec of your PC, did you get told what to buy or decide these for yourself and does it work as well as you hoped.
 
Rufusw What system do you have and did you build it yourself. What comeback do you have against the various componant manufacturers if it all goes wrong.
 
timmy said:
Thanks tomsega. Personally I think I would prefer an Athlon for the reasons you said and beause I have read before that they are better at multitasking anyway. I had Athlon XP in my last PC, but it ran very noisily with the fan on all the time....
Click to expand...

The AthlonXP (at least the Barton core ones), marked the turning point between AMD and Intel really. Up until then, AMD were always chasing Intel's tail - but when they released the XP, they released a reasonably well cooled processor that mostly equaled the Pentium rival for about half the price. So gamers, enthusiasts, and overclockers started to love them. After the Athlon 64 was released, Intel seriously had to start chasing AMD.

Usually you'll get 1-3 years warrenty with any of your components. If you buy them OEM (without packaging), sometimes you won't get a manufacturers warrenty, but other than that it's just a case of sending a component back instead of sending back the entire PC.
 
Do you know how the processor speed ratings for Intel/AMD work. I was told that the speed of the AMD is say 3800 and that equals about 2.2 real speed. The Intel is as says though, ie 3800 is 3800. But then I think the AMD works twice as fast, so it is in fact faster than the Intel.
icon5.gif
Anyone know.

Also, what is the difference between the various Intel processor numbers like 519, 820, 630, 516. And why is there such a big difference in bus speed between say an AMD at 1600Mhz and an intel at 800Mhz.

Now you see why I am not too happy about building my own.
icon11.gif
 
Because people generally assume that the gigahertz of a processor are a bit like miles per hour in a car, this was giving Intel an unfair advantage, so AMD decided to give their processors a name similar to the equivelent Intel speed. So, an AthlonXP 3200+ actually runs at 2.2. However, in some cases, like with the Athlon64 3700+, it actually runs at 2.2 like lower models, but has more cache and stuff so is faster. (the cache is like the processors own built in RAM for storing it's calculations.)

I don't know anything about Intel processor numbers I'm afraid, I don't go near that company!
 
the intel numbers i believe is the socket number i.e amf skrt 939 it means how many pins are on the chip ( i think) and if you buy a 9939 chip you need a 939 mother board to go with it
 
AMD and intel are not comparable, they are completely different

AMD's are more efficient at using the clock cycles so dont need such a high clock speed intels on the other hand arent as efficient at using the clock cycles so need more of them

the Bus speed for AMD's is not 2000Mhz, what you are refering to is the hypertransport link which runs at 1000Mhz in each direction to give 2000Mhz ( more info here http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=206)
 
another thing is that p4's (especially the more powerful of the prescotts) run hot compared to AMD with a stock cooler, as well as the fact that a p4 will eat up a lot more power than an athlon.
 
chelseafc2005 said:
the intel numbers i believe is the socket number i.e amf skrt 939 it means how many pins are on the chip ( i think) and if you buy a 9939 chip you need a 939 mother board to go with it
Click to expand...

thats when refering to the socket type but intel have numbers for different CPU's you have the following

Celeron use 3**
P4 use 6**
Pentium - M use 7**
Pentium Dual cores use 9**

the higher the No in each series the faster it runs
 
OK its Athlon Dual then. I sort of had it right about the clock speeds of Athlon v Pentium, so I will look for Athlon Dual processor with high bus speed. As long as it isnt with a noisy fan, I think I would prefer Athlon anyway.

Basically, bigger numbers (memory, cache, bus speed etc) = better performance then.
 
Me 2001, I dont know, all I was going on was the ratings in a magazine. AMD Athlon 64 3200+ with 1600Mhz and Pentium D 820 at 800 Mhz. I will have a look at the link.
 
timmy said:
Me 2001, I dont know, all I was going on was the ratings in a magazine. AMD Athlon 64 3200+ with 1600Mhz and Pentium D 820 at 800 Mhz. I will have a look at the link.
Click to expand...
Buy a High performance car ... me, I wan't that Bentley I'd seen the other day, sheesh it does look pretty, but not in gold. ;)

Get AMD ... they do not have noisy fans ... you won't be sorry. :thumb:
 
AMD only use one speed for the bus on the new CPU's, its the clock speed that is different, also do you mean a dual core CPU ? they are the Athlon64 X2 models

with the CPU you want as much cache and highest clock speed as you can afford
 
Me 2001, Sorry to dump this on you. I am supposing that a dual core processor is better if not faster as it can accomplish more things at once. Also quickly reading that link, is HT and X2 the same. It seems that hyper threading is the passing of information between 2 processors, so if a PC is HT or X2 or just simply described as dual processor, then it will be all very similar per given manufacturer and generally a good thing. And am I right, the bus speed is the amount at which information is transferred, not neccessarily the speed at which it is transferred. If so, my search is for a dual processor AMD or Pentium at the highest numbers I can afford, but what does 2 x 1 Mb cache mean compared to 1 Mb. It seems obvious perhaps but I dont understand why some PCs with a high processor speed, etc only have 1Mb and other less highly specced PCs have 2 Mb.:confused:
 
timmy said:
muckshifter said:
Buy a High performance car ... me, I wan't that Bentley I'd seen the other day, sheesh it does look pretty, but not in gold. ;)
Click to expand...
muckshifter said:
Not sure what you mean, but I take your advice on the Athlon.
Click to expand...

I ain't sure what he means either mate, lol, I think he's on another planet sometimes :D

Never mind all the facts and figures, a dual core Athlon will verily kick some almighty butt, as our colonial cousins across the Atlantic are wont to say, for the tasks you want to carry out.

All the figures really don't mean squat, AMD, in my opinion, when it comes to top end CPU's, have the edge. Just. And they're cheaper.
Click to expand...
 
timmy said:
muckshifter said:
Buy a High performance car ... me, I wan't that Bentley I'd seen the other day, sheesh it does look pretty, but not in gold. ;)
Click to expand...
muckshifter said:
Not sure what you mean, but I take your advice on the Athlon.
Click to expand...
I'm being my usual sarcastic self ... ;)

Never mind all the facts and figures, a dual core Athlon will verily kick some almighty butt, as our colonial cousins across the Atlantic are wont to say, for the tasks you want to carry out.

All the figures really don't mean squat, AMD, in my opinion, when it comes to top end CPU's, have the edge. Just. And they're cheaper.
Click to expand...
Just what I said ...

GET an AMD ... :D
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top