Prescott vs AMD64

[saaya]

lmao! what speed is your system running at kanavit?

<40fps vs >180fps

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by saaya
lmao! what speed is your system running at kanavit?

<40fps vs >180fps

The funny thing about that is, HD speed is probably still the bottleneck, as to write that much data to the HD as it is being encoded is just not possible in the real world.

That's why I want to see it done for REAL. This is just my hypothesis, I want to see how it turns out.

[wicktron]

Originally posted by Soulburner
Quad, that is amazing.

Now what you need to do is run an actual Divx encode, show us your results, and have someone else run the same file on a Northwood/Prescott to compare, just to have a 2nd proof and not just PCMark.

I'm up for that!

[saaya]

isnt pcmark2004 using a very low resolution in the ecoding test?

[Kanavit]

Originally posted by saaya
lmao! what speed is your system running at kanavit?

<40fps vs >180fps

I'm using a 2.4b 533fsb , DDR 266. I'm trying to upgrade to a prescott 2.8 no HT 533fsb version, and 1gb of PC2700 ram. my mobo(P4s533) don't take higher and is not dual channel.

[Peen]

Kanavit ur just wasting ur money, 2.8e 533 prescotts are going to get owned by the lower priced A64's like newcastles

[WerewolfX]

Wow looks like i'm gonna be getting myself a dual opteron for some serious DV encoding. Better SATA raid it too to help with that damn HDD bottleneck.

[Hallowed]

Originally posted by Peen
Kanavit ur just wasting ur money, 2.8e 533 prescotts are going to get owned by the lower priced A64's like newcastles

Even if the chip performed 90% worse, hed still take the Intel if it had 'frequency advantage'.

[nailbomb]

Quad,

Wow, that number is outstanding.

BUT...

I wanna see some real encodes, if you have the time

After seeing this and the other post about 64bit OS, I'm starting to lean HEAVILY towards AMD.

[Tedinde]

Yes real encodes so i can get this prescott crap out of my head!!!

[Peen]

I gotta question about S939. 939 will be both Athlon 64 and Athlon FX right? xcept the only difference between the 2 is the Athlon 64 will be based on the newcastle 512k cache and the FX will stay at 1mb? basically the 939 supports 2 styles of chips?

[Soulburner]

That is correct.

[Sovereignty]

940 will be opteron-only (high end), 939 will basically be the fx line because it'll all be dual channel w/ 1mb l2, and 754 will stay at 512k L2 with newcastle core and be lower end. Thats how I heard it anyway.

[JCviggen]

Originally posted by Sovereignty
940 will be opteron-only (high end), 939 will basically be the fx line because it'll all be dual channel w/ 1mb l2, and 754 will stay at 512k L2 with newcastle core and be lower end. Thats how I heard it anyway.

A64 and AFX will BOTH use S939 and will both use dual channel memory. The difference will be cache... A64 will have 512K, only FX will have 1 meg

[Peen]

and the FX will cost like 700 so ill have to get the plain janer I hope not though

[Burnsie]

Lets face it, considering only 5% of Computer sales are determined by Gaming/Overclocking Intel is not going to really lose out by AMD taking are larger place in that market. With the major sellers like Dell etc, almost every PC has and will continue to have a Pentium CPU. While every one baggs Intel in this forum, there out making ALOT more $$$$ than AMD. Like what Kanavit said, most consumers dont know the difference between a AMD and a P4. GHz sells.

[Peen]

Originally posted by Burnsie
Lets face it, considering only 5% of Computer sales are determined by Gaming/Overclocking Intel is not going to really lose out by AMD taking are larger place in that market. With the major sellers like Dell etc, almost every PC has and will continue to have a Pentium CPU. While every one baggs Intel in this forum, there out making ALOT more $$$$ than AMD. Like what Kanavit said, most consumers dont know the difference between a AMD and a P4. GHz sells.

This is true, but we do so ill get the fastest

[Burnsie]

Idont think Intel is too concerned about satisfying the overclockers market.

[Albigger]

Originally posted by Burnsie
Idont think Intel is too concerned about satisfying the overclockers market.

I don't think anyone would argue with you on that one (hence the lack of multiplier adjustments, etc...)

[JCviggen]

The actual sales in overclocking is probably extremely minimal.
However the enthusiast market has a pretty loud voice...when we like something, sooner or later some noobish computer user will pick something up like AMD good or bad etc... it does influence the general feeling of what is a good or bad CPU up to a point

[Vlad Draculea]

NDA, my other me made me sing an inverse nda, past this date i cant disclose here the things my other me did, it sucks, i am tied up.

[jarthel]

If my mom ask me what CPU to buy, I'll suggest Intel. Less hassle.

[Peen]

ummm....... less hassle? how so? u can get a xp2500 for lets say...90 bucks. Or u can get a Pentium4 1.8A for 120bucks? hmmm what would i choose........hmmmmmmm still dunno obviously the 2500 , its much much much much faster and cheaper, and i dont know of any AMD ive had that wasnt rock stable at stock speeds.

Edit: @newegg.

2.6celeron 91 bucks
2500 Barton 90 bucks.

Please dont tell me u would tell ur mom to build a celeron over the 2500. it may be true it would serve ur mom fine, but the barton is much more future proof and stable

[Burnsie]

Intel has the market wrapped around its finger. When someone asks about Intel they go... OH 3.2 Ghz wow... They ask about AMD... 3200+... whats that mean... Oh it runs at 2.2 Ghz... Gees, the Intels faster lets buy iT! OR Dell sell Intel... They must the best.

[Peen]

Yes this is partly true, but if someone asks whats 3200 mean and they say that means it runs at 2.2ghz..... u sure thats all they would say? i think not.