P4 vs. Athlon 64

[phils725]

I currently have a P4 2.6 with hyper threading, and 1gig of ram. I am looking to get the Athlon 64 3200+ with probably the same amount of ram. My question is, will there really be a big performance difference in the processors? The Athlon is only rated at 2ghz. Isn't that actually going to decrease my performance? What other factors should I consider? I want a really kick-ass system, that will help with some basic video editing, and photoshop work, without having to wait forever to render or convert video. Please help!

 

[Icol]

Before you get flamed let me just clear things up. For every clock cycle the P4 will perform 6 operations, while an AMD will perform 9. Because of this the AMD's clock speed doesn't need to be as high to be as fast and yet still keep on par with the P4, when comparing the two look for the 3200+ or whatever number is there to compare against the clock speed of the P4. A 2 ghz AMD will run at the P4 equivilant 3.2 ghz. You said you want to convert video's and render. For this I have to recommened the P4 over the AMD.

 

[theMan]

yeah, that is one of the few things the p4 performs better at than the a64.

 

[ChineseGuy]

If money is not an issue, go with P4. But even if i had the money, I would still go with AMD, since they give you the most preformance for your money. But that's just my opinion, I am an AMD fan. Always has been, always will be.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Icol
For this I have to recommened the P4 over the AMD.

I agree, but if you had listed gaming as well the advantage would probably go to the A64.

Are you even a semi-serious gamer? If so you should know that that's where the A64's real strength lies.

 

[Markfw]

Or the Athlon64 X2. In encoding in most applications, it leaves Intel to waste...

 

[fatty4ksu]

Any non-dual-core AMD is horrible in video encoding.

 

[Crescent13]

AMD!!!!!

 

[Continuity27]

Of course, once dual core CPUs are the norm, P4s won't even have their current slight advantages in video encoding and such. AMD wins in everything later on.

Right now though, I'd still go with AMD in any scenario...

A slight advantage in video encoding speed for the P4 doesn't justify a higher price, slower overall performance, excessive heat and power demands that can hinder other components like closely populated memory sticks, video card, power supply, etc.

One thing I admire current P4s for is hyperthreading. After I switched from a P4 3.06 w/ HT to an AMD 4000+, I did notice that multitasking wasn't as great as with the P4. Dual core processors completely negate this issue as well...

Just posting this to remind people, that once you start recommending dual+ core systems in the near future, if at all, remember to revoke that general impression that P4s do encoding better.

 

[fatty4ksu]

It's not slight......it's a massive difference in video encoding.

My old 1.9 ghz willamette outperforms my 3000+ in tmpgenc

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Any non-dual-core AMD is horrible in video encoding.

Horrible? Come on, it's a slight difference at best. Does encoding something in divx that takes 1 hour really that much more painful than in 55 minutes.

 

[ssvegeta1010]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Any non-dual-core AMD is horrible in video encoding.

Wrong. They may be slower than an equivalent P4, but not by enough to be called horrible.

P4s massive lead in encoding has shrunk, it still exists, but it has shrunk.

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
It's not slight......it's a massive difference in video encoding.

My old 1.9 ghz willamette outperforms my 3000+ in tmpgenc

And my old AMD 1.4Ghz Thunderbird outperformed my friend's P4... there's really more to consider than the processor alone. Are you dealing with the same memory amounts, hard disk speeds, etc? When I look at some benchmarks people do keeping most of the components the same except processor (as close as possible anyways), the difference is always slight between AMD 64s and P4s.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Good points.

If you go with a socket 939 AMD single core system now, you'll be able to upgrade to a dual core system without changing motherboards.

AMD dual core is initially going to smoke intel solutions in (almost) everything.

THG hints that the next intel dual core may be based on the pentium m, which will be a different story as it seems to be able to outperform A64s clock for clock.

Edited

 

[DanDaMan315]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Or the Athlon64 X2. In encoding in most applications, it leaves Intel to waste...

I second this :thumbsup:. Although it will cost you a pretty penny....might be worth going for a Pentium D since you are into encoding.

 

[Markfw]

Here an Intel fanboy.... Hence the BS

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
It's not slight......it's a massive difference in video encoding.

My old 1.9 ghz willamette outperforms my 3000+ in tmpgenc

Forgot to add, what version of Tsunami MPG Encoder are you using? Could it be possible it's not supporting all the additions on the newest AMD 64 processors? I notice a great difference on TMPGENC 2.5 or 3.0 xpress between my 3.06 P4 and AMD 4000+ in favor of the AMD, had my P4 been up to date, obviously it would lead a bit, but not by much...

Some programs seem to naturally favor some processors too. What do you use TMPGEnc for? If you're looking to boost your performance with the AMD 64 3000+, maybe I can recommend you another encoding program that can do the same things or better.

 

[fatty4ksu]

I use tmpgenc.

 

[imported_rod]

For Video Encoding, a P4 will beat an equivalent AMD64, as long as the other components (RAM, HDD etc...) are the same. If your main use of a computer is audio/video/photo editing, then go with the P4. With your setup, you could probably just upgrade the CPU to 3.2GHz/3.4GHz for a performance boost. And despite what ppl here will say, P4's will still play games, they just dont do it quite as fast as an equivalent AMD.

Anyway, if what you want to do is Video Editing, go with a P4. A P4 3.2GHz will out perform an AMD64 3200+, and probably a 3500+.

RoD

 

[Chode Messiah]

AMDAMDAMD---AMDAMD--------- AMDAMD-----AMDAMDAMDAMD
AMD-----AMD---AMDAMD--------AMD AMD-----AMD------------AMD
AMD---- AMD---AMD---AMD-----AMD----AMD--- AMD------------AMD
AMDAMDAMD---AMD----AMD---AMD-----AMD-- AMD-------------AMD
AMDAMDAMD---AMD-----AMD--AMD------AMD-AMD--------------AMD
AMD------AMD---AMD-----AMD--AMD------AMD-AMD-------------AMD
AMD------AMD---AMD------AMDAMD-------AMD-AMD-------------AMD
AMD------AMD---AMD-------AMDAMD------AMD-AMDAMDAMDAMD
:shocked: AMD pwns Intel !!!! (note: I have both brands and AMD is better)

 

[BFG10K]

I upgraded from a 2.666 GHz P4 to a A64 3200+ quite a while ago and the performance gain was quite large.

 

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: ChineseGuy
If money is not an issue, go with P4. But even if i had the money, I would still go with AMD, since they give you the most preformance for your money. But that's just my opinion, I am an AMD fan. Always has been, always will be.

My god, you sound just like me. Are you my brother? Cool.

 

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: Chode Messiah
AMDAMDAMD---AMDAMD--------- AMDAMD-----AMDAMDAMDAMD
AMD-----AMD---AMDAMD--------AMD AMD-----AMD------------AMD
AMD---- AMD---AMD---AMD-----AMD----AMD--- AMD------------AMD
AMDAMDAMD---AMD----AMD---AMD-----AMD-- AMD-------------AMD
AMDAMDAMD---AMD-----AMD--AMD------AMD-AMD--------------AMD
AMD------AMD---AMD-----AMD--AMD------AMD-AMD-------------AMD
AMD------AMD---AMD------AMDAMD-------AMD-AMD-------------AMD
AMD------AMD---AMD-------AMDAMD------AMD-AMDAMDAMDAMD
:shocked: AMD pwns Intel !!!! (note: I have both brands and AMD is better)

Very nice! I love AMD. AMD stands for American Meditation Destroyer
Intel stands for...
Huh? WTF does intel stand for? WTF?

 

[Zebo]

Are you feeling slow? What motherboard do you have and cooling and case?


I hate to recommend someone waste money for no reason.. you could overclcok that processor and see gains upwards of 30%, other than the P3 it's the best processor intel ever made...hate to toss it when it has hidden potential.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: phils725
I currently have a P4 2.6 with hyper threading, and 1gig of ram. I am looking to get the Athlon 64 3200+ with probably the same amount of ram. My question is, will there really be a big performance difference in the processors?

The Athlon 64 3200+ (there are several flavors) processors are faster in almost every way than the Pentium 4 2.6C (which is the hyperthreading model you mentioned). Even with video editing, where Intel excells, the 3200+s still out-muscle your P4 2.6C: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-18.html

However, even though the 3200+ is certainly faster than the 2.6C, don't expect a huge performance difference. Your video editing will only be slightly faster, and perhaps slower, at times. Multitasking and application loading will also improve, but not to any extreme degree.

The Athlon is only rated at 2ghz. Isn't that actually going to decrease my performance?

No. Clock speed has ceased to be the defining factor for CPUs. Neither AMD nor Intel identify their processors by clock speed any longer.

What other factors should I consider? I want a really kick-ass system, that will help with some basic video editing, and photoshop work, without having to wait forever to render or convert video. Please help!

As said before, one of the strengths of the Pentium 4 is audio and video editing. But the fact is that Intel's processors are still more expensive than AMD's, for the same performance. That means you can get a faster AMD CPU for any given amount of money

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following: the Athlon 64 3200+ (s754/2.2GHz/512KB) is about the same price ($150, cf. pricewatch.com) as a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (s478/800MHz/1MB). Like your P4 2.6C, the 2.8 GHz Pentium, too, fails to match the performance of the 3200+. Just click on that benchmark link I gave you to see for yourself.