AMD vs. Intel Dual Processors

Locked
User avatar
Castor Troy
Ryan Molina, A.C.E
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 8:45 pm
Status: Retired from AMVs
Location: California
Contact:
Org Profile

AMD vs. Intel Dual Processors

Post by Castor Troy » Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:18 pm

After 4 years of using a crappy AMD Athlon XP 1.5ghz for editing, I am finally going to upgrade my computer at the end of the month.

I have my sights set on a...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 1GHz FSB 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 Dual Core Processor - $347.00

or

Intel Pentium D 820 Smithfield 800MHz FSB 2 x 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Dual Core, EM64T Processor - $246.99

I've already factored in the added mobo/ram/etc and obviously the intel will be the more affordable but I'm still willing to go for the AMD and pay more if it will be better in the long run. One reason being is I heard the Intel dual core gets really damn hot so I have to add in Arctic Silver and possibly a new fan (even with these added, it still brings everything a tad lower than the AMD).

For anyone who's used either an intel or amd dual core before, which one would be suited the best for editing? I don't do alot of gaming so that's out of the question.

Thanks. :)
"You're ignoring everything, except what you want to hear.." - jbone

User avatar
Bauzi
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:48 pm
Status: Under High Voltage
Location: Austria (uhm the other country without kangaroos^^)
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by Bauzi » Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:54 pm

Take the AMD! It will work (because of the Power) longer. So we mean, that it won´t get so fast old and slow...

Oh man that would be our two 3.4GHZ PCs in one... :?
*Envy* :oops:
You can find me on YT under "Bauzi514". Subscribe to never miss my AMV releases. :amv:

User avatar
Scintilla
(for EXTREME)
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 8:47 pm
Status: Quo
Location: New Jersey
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by Scintilla » Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:37 pm

Yeah, I've read that the Smithfield is no more that two Prescotts slapped together, and we all know how hot the Prescott gets.

(They upgraded the comps in the Windows lab in our CS building this summer, with the result that the lab is now constantly 5-10 degrees warmer than the rest of the building... I checked one of the computer's system info, and it claimed to be running on a 3.0GHz P4, so I bet they're all Prescotts.)

I know AMD's chips have the Cool'n'Quiet feature that you can use to save on your energy costs (and of course keep it cooler); I don't know if Intel's have a comparable feature.

Though the 3800+ is the bottom of the X2 line, it still beats all the affordable Pentium Ds in terms of performance last I checked (hence the Pentium's significantly lower price). So I'd say the AthlonX2 will probably be not-out-of-date longer than the Pentium D will.
ImageImage
:pizza: :pizza: Image :pizza: :pizza:

User avatar
Keeper of Hellfire
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:13 am
Location: Germany
Org Profile

Post by Keeper of Hellfire » Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:22 am

The AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ can compete with the Intel Pentium D830 and is mostly better, so it's always better than a D820. In multimedia applications it depends if the application can take advantage of the dual core technology. If the application can't, the Intel is slightly better because of the better MMX technology. But if the application supports dual core CPU (I think Premiere does), the better dual core technology of AMD overcompensates the MMX-weakness and the Athlon is better. In addition the Athlon stays cooler, which is better for stability. So go for the AMD.

User avatar
Castor Troy
Ryan Molina, A.C.E
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 8:45 pm
Status: Retired from AMVs
Location: California
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by Castor Troy » Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:09 pm

AMD: 3
Intel: 0

:lol:

I definitely don't wanna worry about keeping the Intel cool and AMDs already have a built in cooler :shock:

AMD FTW! :)

Thanks everyone!
"You're ignoring everything, except what you want to hear.." - jbone

User avatar
The14thGOD
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: Everywhere
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by The14thGOD » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:04 am

sorry i don't mean to be a newb or anything. but the operating speed on the amd one says 2.0, is that both togeather, or each one runs at that? and how does dual core work? (if there's a site you know if i can read that rather than you explaining all of it to me)

thx in advance
http://the14thgod.com
A man is only blind to the world, if he does not understand it.

User avatar
Kai Stromler
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 9:35 am
Location: back in the USSA
Org Profile

Post by Kai Stromler » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:51 am

The14thGOD wrote: the operating speed on the amd one says 2.0, is that both togeather, or each one runs at that?
Since there's only one chip involved (see below), the clock rate of the device on the silicon is 2.0GHz. So the answer to your question is yes. :? Processor speeds are never strictly additive in any case, even in traditional SMP setups.
The14thGOD wrote:and how does dual core work?
Dual core is basically the same as SMP (simultaneous multiple processing), except the multiple processors are located on the same physical piece of silicon. It's also referred to as multiple-chip-on-die, which is both longer and less accurate, but probably easier for people to understand.

Since the dawn of the personal computing era, the "processor" and "processor chip" have been interchangeable ideas, even though one is just an implanted IC design and the other is a finished device with a nice cover and several hundred pins on the bottom. Dual core is a fundamental change to this; as the name implies, there are now two or more microprocessor cores sitting on the piece of silicon built into the chip.

This does not make the dual-core chip twice as powerful as a chip that only includes one microprocessor core. But it does make it more powerful than conventional SMP setups, for the same reason that a setup using a processor with more cache and less RAM will outperform a setup using an identically clocked processor with less cache and more RAM. Data that is on silicon, on the chip, is much faster to access than data that needs to be sent from one SMP chip to another over some kind of interconnect. There are a whole host of processor and compiler design questions and headaches that arise from dual-core (shared cache -- a good or bad idea? discuss); some of them are the same as problems in SMP and some are new, but things are definitely happening much faster.

As far as actual internal operations, I'm not on quite as solid footing. DW may show up and explain as much of AMD's design internals as he's allowed to on a public forum, or trythil may come in and correct/expand what I've written. I'm not an expert on processor design, I just maintain the machines that make these things.

hth,

--K
Shin Hatsubai is a Premiere-free studio. Insomni-Ack is habitually worthless.
CHOPWORK - abominations of maceration
skywide, armspread : forward, upward
Coelem - Tenebral Presence single now freely available

User avatar
the Black Monarch
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 1:29 am
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV
Org Profile

Post by the Black Monarch » Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:16 am

Tom's Hardware did a shitload of benchmarks when dual-cores first came out. While AMD pwn3d Intel in most benchmarks, video and audio compression were clearly still Intel's domain, especially with DivX. Hyper-Threading apparently provides much more of a boost to dual-core models than it did to single-core chips.

If you really want to be smart, though, try to see if you can find a Tyan Tiger MPX somewhere and slap a pair of 2.0 ghz mobile Bartons in there. It won't be quite as fast as a 2.0 ghz Athlon 64 X2, but it's insanely cheaper (and not as hot).
Ask me about my secret stash of videos that can't be found anywhere anymore.

Locked

Return to “Hardware Discussion”