AMD VS INTEl for video encoding

[MooMasster716]

Ok does anyone know if amd's are really better for video encoding on say flask mpeg ?? i got an intel but encode alot and am building a new system and want to know which is better?

[warlock110]

nope, i think intel is faster, my computer is an intel 933mhz and it encodes with cinema craft faster than some AMD that runs at 1.2 or 1.3 Ghz. and it really depends on the setting and other factor too, i dun think it matter that much though, a couple min is all it's going faster :)

[Supertrucker]

on the older chips, like p3s and thunderbirds, they encoded flask about the same, depending on the version you used. but the newer p4s tromp the xp athlons if i remember correctly, and dont think i say this out of loyalty for intel. im an amd fanboy. you would have to look for some benchmarks to confirm this but im almost posotive the p4s are a good deal better clock for clock

[Maxvla]

Intel. definately.

[pik4chu]

*edit* n/m dont want this thread to risk getting locked..

[dryars]

Ya Intel by far. If you check out some hardware sites (gasp.. toms.) they'll show that even a 2.6 or 2.8 can out perform an XP 3200.

[bigfoot]

well, for most things you can say that clock for clock the p4 looses, but since the p4 will beat an athlonXP clock for clock encoding DivX (SSE2) (thats what i use Flask for) DEFINITLY get a P4 system cuz it's way faster, and btw, this hurts to say this cuz i'm an amd fanboy!

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by bigfoot
well, for most things you can say that clock for clock the p4 looses, but since the p4 will beat an athlonXP clock for clock encoding DivX (SSE2) (thats what i use Flask for) DEFINITLY get a P4 system cuz it's way faster, and btw, this hurts to say this cuz i'm an amd fanboy!
comparing clock for clock with amd and intel is pointless.

but yes intel is the better choice.

[NookieN]

I've used both for video encoding and yes P4s are definitely faster, especially when you throw HT into the mix. But Athlon XPs can do an ok job if that's what you've got.

As an example, my P4 @3.3 w/ HT does about 28-33 fps converting animated sources to divx with bicubic resize, telecide, an some noise filtering. My Athlon 1800+ does about 12-13 fps on the same operation. Of course, both are much faster on cleaner, untelecined sources.

[TheGr8s1]

Yeah Intel is much faster for en-coding in my experiences as well.

[Steven4563]

Originally posted by NookieN

As an example, my P4 @3.3 w/ HT does about 28-33 fps converting animated sources to divx with bicubic resize, telecide, an some noise filtering. My Athlon 1800+ does about 12-13 fps on the same operation. Of course, both are much faster on cleaner, untelecined sources.

i dont even know how u can compare them seeing the p4 is twice as fast by clock speeds

but anyway yeah the p4 with HT is faster :)

[TWY]

I have used both AMD and Intel machines for this type of job and I found the Intel to encode faster. Things get speeded up those chips having HT. :D

[star882]

"Yeah Intel is much faster for en-coding in my experiences as well."
3000+ Britney > 3.0GHz Pentium 4
Not to mention that when you have multiple Britney CPUs, the memory bandwidth goes up(because each CPU has a built in 128 bit DDR controller, so you get 6.4GB/s(if you use DDR400) for each CPU).

[c627627]

Just wait till next month. Athlon64s are MADE for that stuff.

Video encoding is one of the major advances new AMD hammer CPU offers over Athlon XP.

http://www.pbase.com/image/17079307/original

Only really expensive future Intel CPUs will even be able to compete with it as far as video encoding is concerned.

[NookieN]

Originally posted by Steven4563

i dont even know how u can compare them seeing the p4 is twice as fast by clock speeds


How can I not? My P4 is encoding about 2.2x faster than my Athlon. My P4's clock is about 2.2x faster than the Athlon. So that tells me they're doing about the same amount of work per cycle. In this case then, the CPU with the higher clock rate definitely wins out.

[NookieN]

Originally posted by c627627
Just wait till next month. Athlon64s are MADE for that stuff.

Video encoding is one of the major advances new AMD hammer CPU offers over Athlon XP.

http://www.pbase.com/image/17079307/original



That link is just a roadmap, it doesn't say anything at all about the video encoding capabilities of the Athlon64.

Most of the video encoding benchmarks I've seen for the Opteron don't look all that impressive. I don't see how Athlon64 will be any better unless it runs a Ghz faster.

It seems AMD designed Athlon64/Opteron's to be better at working with large datasets in memory (i.e. databases, engineering simulations), not multimedia. The only major multimedia enchancement is SSE2, and by design those instructions favor chips with higher clock speeds.

[c627627]

Originally posted by Graphic67
The Athlon 64 is the next generation CPU from AMD (related to the Opteron) and will have at least two packages: 754 pins (probably for the mobile market) and 940/939 pins for desktops and workstations (Opterons for multi-processor rigs and servers).

These chips WILL NOT work in any board designed for an Athlon XP with a 462 pin socket (Socket A).

Some of the advantages of the Opteron/Athlon 64 are:

Northbridge and memory controller on the CPU die for very fast memory access.
Hyper Transport high speed serial communication between other cpus, agp, and southbridge. Expect an easy conversion of hyper transport signals to PCI Express.
64 bit processing, more registers, larger registers... All will be valuable performance enhancements when complemented by 64 bit operating systems and optimized compilers.
64 bit addressing. Access to ONE TERABYTE of ram and 256TB of virtual memory. Compare to the 4GB limit of 32 bit cpus.

I am sure I left off some very important aspects, but this will do for a start.

In answer to your last question: Should [you] get one? That depends on how much you like being on the leading/bleeding edge of computing and what you use your computer for. If you want a high capacity web server, powerful 3D rendering system, or very fast video editing machine, then you will probably want one. If you are a gamer or general computer enthusiast, then you will probably still want one, but you will do fine to wait for a year.

[NookieN]

That's just a quote from another post on this forum. There's no data in that thread showing that it will be especially good at video editing. I can find plenty of articles about Intel processors that contain the words "fast video editing machine"... which means nothing objectively.

I'm not saying Athlon64 won't be good at video editing and encoding. I'm saying no one really knows yet. I think it's misleading to tell people otherwise.

[c627627]

NookieN, I agree that not enough info was provided to argue the case of Athlon64 & video editing...yet.

I'll see if I can find Graphic67...

[JoT]

Originally posted by star882
"Yeah Intel is much faster for en-coding in my experiences as well."
3000+ Britney > 3.0GHz Pentium 4
Not to mention that when you have multiple Britney CPUs, the memory bandwidth goes up(because each CPU has a built in 128 bit DDR controller, so you get 6.4GB/s(if you use DDR400) for each CPU).

You're the only person I've ever seen who talks about this "Britney" AMD processor, and you've not given any sort of real proof that such a thing exists. Britney's a really crappy singer, BTW ;)

[Graphic67]

Originally posted by c627627
I'll see if I can find Graphic67...

I'm sorry to say that I can add little to this debate at the moment since most of the boards, IT interests and available operating systems for the Opteron are geared towards the server market, very little attention has been paid to workstation/desktop tasks.

Some of the few results that I could find which might have any relevance are:

From TecChannel shows a 2.8GHz Xeon being roughly equal to the 1.8GHz 244 Opteron with the same rated memory in Lightwave 3D rendering.

From various sites, the 1.8GHz 244 Opteron falls slightly behind a 3.2GHz P4 in rendering, Cinebench and SPECViewperf benchmarks. I expect the 2.0GHz 246 Opteron to be in parity with the 3.2GHz P4.

Results from some reviews (comparing single cpu systems) show the 1.8GHz Opteron being equal to and in some cases superior to the P4 in memory bandwidth tests.

The thread from where my quote was taken was a request by another user as to what the Athlon64 is and if he/she should get one. I attempted to answer that question as best I could.

[climbski]

Right now INTEL is the best for Video encoding and just about everything else. Get an ASUS P4C800 and a 2.4C chip and OC that baby to 3.3ghz

[c627627]

I'm genuinely interested. Total and complete out of pocket cost please so I can compare it accordingly?

[dippy_skoodlez]

A PIII, at same speed as a t-bird will do about the same.. but a P4 willy will get trounced.. otherwise, P4.

[MooMasster716]

Well just wanted to make sure cuz i heard somewhere that the amd's shorter pipeline did the job faster but guess not thanks

[bigfoot]

it used to before intel got a 1Ghz pluss lead on them!

[Stedeman]

A lot of the encoding issues are more about the software encoders not taking advantage of the CPU chips special instructional codes on both AMD and Intel. So it will also depend on the software one intends to use as well as the CPU

[Gautam]

From Anandtech:
There will still be some situations, such as video encoding, where the Pentium 4's architecture will continue to dominate. Remember that at the core, the Opteron is still very much a K7; no amount of cache or low latency memory accesses will change applications that simply run faster on Intel's NetBurst architecture.
I think that that pretty much says it all. In numerous other areas, the Opteron/Clawhammer has much potential of being very competitive, but it looks like its going to be a while until AMD can dethrone Intels' video encoding capabilities.

[c627627]

It seems that all opinions about AMD hammer being better for video editing were wrong.

Thanks to NookieN and Gautam for setting people like me straight.
Spending too much time in the AMD section clearly has its down sides... :o

[MetalStorm]

Unless the program is optimised for SSE2 then the athlon will be faster, the pentiums are only good when what you are running has that enabled... (as far as I know anyway)

[Graphic67]

The Opteron and Athlon 64 are SSE2 processors.

[MooMasster716]

Isnt the new p5 gonna have all the optimasatios that amd has including some new ones to? I remember hearing that somewhere.

[OC Detective]

I guess there are benchmarks and then there are benchmarks!
According to this comparison, the XP3000 and the Intel 3.0 (800FSB) are similar? Though HT was off....
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110923,00.asp

[PalominoBURN]

I like intel, however I don't see the arguement. My AMD SPANKS a 3.2GHZ INTEL when you compare RAW DHRYSTONES/WHETSTONES. Now for video encoding perhaps, but to say INTEL is better for everything is a bit of risky statement considering I know mine outperforms an intel in just about EVERY catagory I have benchmarked, with the EXCEPTION of video encoding.

[c627627]

I prefer AMD but your info was oh so useful for a guy that named his thread "amd vs. intel for VIDEO ENCODING" (!!)

(he-he)