| Author |
Message |
kony
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:59 am Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:53:37 GMT, "AnthonyR"
<nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Does that make sense? Gaming requires fast renders and frames per second of
3 d video, so if AMD does that better
wouldn't it just make sense it can also process in general faster, encoding
and encoding of video?
|
Yes that would make sense, but unfortunately most
professional codecs are optimized towards Intel CPUs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ken Maltby
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AnT5f.4421$AO5.4333@dukeread01...
| Quote: | Alceryes says...
Intel has always had AV encoding and decoding in it's
pocket. AMD excels in the gaming category.
Can you explain why that would be so? I'm facing the same
question as the OP, and like him I expect to do lots of
multimedia format conversions and similar things, but zero
gaming. Would I notice the difference between Intel and
AMD? Why? Is it an instruction set thing? What exactly?
|
I haven't the resources to setup two competitive systems, so
as to make such a comparison. It may not even be possible
to do so, as there are a number of factors that bear no one-for-
one relationship. A simple optimization in one direction may be
over balanced by the competing system's performance in another
area. That said; I would really take a close look at the software
that you want to use, especially encoders, to see if they are even
making a claim for a measurable performance gain, as a result of
an optimization. In most cases I suspect that any overall
processing efficiency or higher performance rating would swamp
the effect any optimizations. I believe you can still get more overall
performance for the money with the AMD processors.
The use of multi-threading or even multi-processing would have a
major impact, though. There are several encoders that can make
very effective use of such systems.
Luck;
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Harris
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:18 pm Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:06:12 GMT, Who Dat? <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
|
There's simply no straightforward answer to this. The Intel fanboys will
tell you that Intel processors are faster, and they'll be able to find
benchmarks to back that up. The AMD fanboys will do the same for AMD
processors. Generally speaking, it does seem that AMD has trumped Intel with
their fastest processors, and that Intel is scrambling to catch up (they
will, I'm sure), but there are still plenty of programs out there that do run
a lot more efficiently on an Intel processor. The result is that if you put
the fastest Intel CPU against the fastest AMD CPU, you'll find each processor
will beat the other with some software and some tasks.
| Quote: | from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
|
I'm planning on making an X2 my next CPU. If you want raw power, go for the
4800 - it's the fastest X2 on the market currently. However, it's also
currently a lot more expensive than the 4400, and only a little faster
(there's also a 4600, but it's an older model with a smaller cache, so you'd
probably be much better off with a slightly overclocked 4400 than a 4600). I
can't speak to the Pentium D models. I haven't looked at them as closely. I
have read a number of articles that have suggested that the Pentium D was
rushed to market and not imlemented nearly as well as the Athlon X2
(including one article that quoted an Intel design engineer saying exactly
that), making the X2 the better option in the dual-core arena.
However, if you want raw power, you might also want to consider the Athlon FX
line (or Intel's fastest P4EE). The X2 processors are quite a bit slower
than the fastest single-CPU solutions from AMD (& Intel). Just as with the
AMD vs. Intel issue, there is no clear answer in the single vs. dual core
question. The dual-core option will be better if most of what you're doing
is multithreaded _well_. The faster single-core option will outperform it on
any single-threaded applications or functions within an application.
Then again, you could always do what Maximum PC did with their latest "Dream
Machine" - they built a dual-processor system with two dual-core processors.
Four effective CPUs, all of which are very fast. :) I believe they used
dual-core Opteron chips (which are virtually identical to Athlon X2 chips)
because of a lack of dual-CPU motherboards for the Athlon line.
Erik Harris http://www.eHarrisHome.com
n$wsr$ader@$harrishom$.com - replace each dollar sign with an e
Chinese-Indonesian Martial Arts Club http://www.kungfu-silat.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Who Dat?
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:18:56 -0400, Erik Harris
<n$wsr$ader@$harrishom$.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:06:12 GMT, Who Dat? <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote:
Thanks for all the help and advice. I am at this time just looking for
the processor that you guys feel have the best raw processing power.
There's simply no straightforward answer to this. The Intel fanboys will
tell you that Intel processors are faster, and they'll be able to find
benchmarks to back that up. The AMD fanboys will do the same for AMD
processors. Generally speaking, it does seem that AMD has trumped Intel with
their fastest processors, and that Intel is scrambling to catch up (they
will, I'm sure), but there are still plenty of programs out there that do run
a lot more efficiently on an Intel processor. The result is that if you put
the fastest Intel CPU against the fastest AMD CPU, you'll find each processor
will beat the other with some software and some tasks.
from video tapes. I am thinking dual core but not sure what should
that be? Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2... Also is there a specific
model of these processors you guys would reccomend?
I'm planning on making an X2 my next CPU. If you want raw power, go for the
4800 - it's the fastest X2 on the market currently. However, it's also
currently a lot more expensive than the 4400, and only a little faster
(there's also a 4600, but it's an older model with a smaller cache, so you'd
probably be much better off with a slightly overclocked 4400 than a 4600). I
can't speak to the Pentium D models. I haven't looked at them as closely. I
have read a number of articles that have suggested that the Pentium D was
rushed to market and not imlemented nearly as well as the Athlon X2
(including one article that quoted an Intel design engineer saying exactly
that), making the X2 the better option in the dual-core arena.
However, if you want raw power, you might also want to consider the Athlon FX
line (or Intel's fastest P4EE). The X2 processors are quite a bit slower
than the fastest single-CPU solutions from AMD (& Intel). Just as with the
AMD vs. Intel issue, there is no clear answer in the single vs. dual core
question. The dual-core option will be better if most of what you're doing
is multithreaded _well_. The faster single-core option will outperform it on
any single-threaded applications or functions within an application.
Then again, you could always do what Maximum PC did with their latest "Dream
Machine" - they built a dual-processor system with two dual-core processors.
Four effective CPUs, all of which are very fast. :) I believe they used
dual-core Opteron chips (which are virtually identical to Athlon X2 chips)
because of a lack of dual-CPU motherboards for the Athlon line.
|
Thanks Erik that has helped alot!!! I will take my time and try to
make the best decision I can make!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Hendricks
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boba & Ilinka
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:26 am Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
I would rather go with 2 HD in raid 0 for faster diling wit HD. Teoreticly
the access is twice as fast as with one drive.
Also consider 820 insted of 830 SPU
Boba Vancouver
"Maxwell" <maxheadspace@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZJWdnVDItfiSnfDenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
| Quote: | I use Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects, both of which do some
heavy-duty data crunching. I'm editing and burning every day. If I had to
build a new system from scratch, it would have:
1. high-end video board.
2. dual processors, 3 ghz or so (this is what I lack now)
3. minimum 2 gb RAM
4. greater than 200 G hard drive
If I had to cut back on this, I would retain the dual processors but drop
the clock speed of the CPUs. If I really had to cut deeper, I would then
drop the dual processors and increase the speed of the single CPU. I don't
know that I could go lower than that.
For the average home use and simpler software, what I would consider the
realistic minimum:
1. reasonable video board
2. 2.4 ghz Intel processor
3. 1 gb RAM
4. 80 G hard drive.
You can get by with less, but you may start having chronic problems. I
also suppose you can use the equivalent AMD processor. I tried AMD in
their early years and had a lot of problems. I know they have improved
dramatically, and are fully competitive with Intel, but I just got
comfortable with Intel over the years.
My 2 cents!
Max
"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...
I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
Thanks
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kony
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:02 am Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:26:29 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
<dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I would rather go with 2 HD in raid 0 for faster diling wit HD. Teoreticly
the access is twice as fast as with one drive.
Also consider 820 insted of 830 SPU
|
Often 2 drives /not/ in a RAID are even faster than 2 in a
RAID, using one for source and other for destination
file(s). If one can afford 2 different RAID arrays, that
"might" (depending on uses) be even faster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maxwell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
I use Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects, both of which do some heavy-duty
data crunching. I'm editing and burning every day. If I had to build a new
system from scratch, it would have:
1. high-end video board.
2. dual processors, 3 ghz or so (this is what I lack now)
3. minimum 2 gb RAM
4. greater than 200 G hard drive
If I had to cut back on this, I would retain the dual processors but drop
the clock speed of the CPUs. If I really had to cut deeper, I would then
drop the dual processors and increase the speed of the single CPU. I don't
know that I could go lower than that.
For the average home use and simpler software, what I would consider the
realistic minimum:
1. reasonable video board
2. 2.4 ghz Intel processor
3. 1 gb RAM
4. 80 G hard drive.
You can get by with less, but you may start having chronic problems. I also
suppose you can use the equivalent AMD processor. I tried AMD in their
early years and had a lot of problems. I know they have improved
dramatically, and are fully competitive with Intel, but I just got
comfortable with Intel over the years.
My 2 cents!
Max
"Who Dat?" <Who Dat@ncat.com> wrote in message
news:igqcl1dmu80u0s54ofagqmropattikt4fg@4ax.com...
| Quote: | I am trying to build a machine that will be the best for video
processing and editing and anything related to dvd creation.
As far as pure processing power do you guys suggest an AMD or Intel?
Also should they be dual processors? I would appreciate your opinion
on any specs you think would be best for raw power and speed.
Thanks |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kony
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:54:04 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
<dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes they are split and striped onto both, but the same array
would be reading and writing. That entails a performance
penalty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boba & Ilinka
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
As far as I understood, in raid 0, files are saved in 2 drives at the same
time ("half" file on one and "half" on other one.)
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:e5TCMPnb9tUJ:www.acnc.com/raid.html+raid+0&hl=en
Boba Vancouver BC
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:hceqm15h92t7ekav0an9i6fbj3b3799slf@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:26:29 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
I would rather go with 2 HD in raid 0 for faster diling wit HD. Teoreticly
the access is twice as fast as with one drive.
Also consider 820 insted of 830 SPU
Often 2 drives /not/ in a RAID are even faster than 2 in a
RAID, using one for source and other for destination
file(s). If one can afford 2 different RAID arrays, that
"might" (depending on uses) be even faster.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boba & Ilinka
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
Koni, are you positively sure about what you are talking?! If it work on
PIII on 300MH you are right. But P4 at 3 GH and 2 mega ram, I am not 100%
sure.
Boba Vancouver BC
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6f7tm1pi0hsjv6a1gq4ashr6vomblj7pha@4ax.com...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kony
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:29:49 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
<dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Koni, are you positively sure about what you are talking?! If it work on
PIII on 300MH you are right. But P4 at 3 GH and 2 mega ram, I am not 100%
sure.
|
The gain from any particular drive combination depends on
the specific task. Video editing is not so specific as to
be able to presume much, since there are inhernatly some
rather large variables like # of files, and file sizes with
uncompressed vs various levels of compression.
RAID0 is generally faster than a lone drive, but once you
start reading and writing from the same volume
simultaneously, your throughput is halved... or however it
breaks down in the particular job, not really exactly half
but both reads and writes contending for the same volume.
If you had a disproportionately large (one or the other,
read or write) and the other, other was very small, the lone
raid volume may again do fairly well. This is of course
ignoring that some software raids also have a bit more CPU
overhead, which in some jobs is the primary bottleneck.
On the other hand with separate volumes, whether those
volumes are single or separate raid arrays, the entire
throughput potential of each can be dedicated to the read,
or write, but not needing to do both.
Sometimes it doesn't even matter much either way, take for
example an MPEG2 video capture, or a DVD rip, and converting
it to MPEG4. CPU overhead is by far the largest bottleneck
and even one older drive would be sufficient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
No this is not exactly correct.
Raid 0 consists of 2 hard drives which are 'mirrored'. This means that the
*same* information is written to both drives at the same drive. If one
breaks, the other can carry on until the broken one is replaced. Then the
mirror is 'rebuilt'.
Raid 0 will generally be slower than a stand alone drive. However there are
many variables here. If each drive is on its own controller, speeds will
approach that of a dedicated drive, but will never be faster than a single
drive of similar type.
Raid 5 consists of a minimum of 3 drives. In this configuration, 2 drives
will be 'striped'. Part of a file will be written to one drive, part to the
other. The third drive is used for error correction. If one drive failes,
the other two drives are able to recreate the data.
Raid 5 can be faster than either Raid 0 or standalone. Again, it depends on
the controllers and how it is setup. Dedicated controller for each drive is
fastest. Software controlled Raid is slowest.
No clear cut answer. Raid is more about data redundency than speed, though
Raid 5 is sometimes used for speed as well.
Harvey
"Boba & Ilinka" <dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NnDbf.429647$1i.242964@pd7tw2no...
| Quote: | Koni, are you positively sure about what you are talking?! If it work on
PIII on 300MH you are right. But P4 at 3 GH and 2 mega ram, I am not 100%
sure.
Boba Vancouver BC
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:6f7tm1pi0hsjv6a1gq4ashr6vomblj7pha@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:54:04 GMT, "Boba & Ilinka"
dojcin2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
As far as I understood, in raid 0, files are saved in 2 drives at the
same
time ("half" file on one and "half" on other one.)
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:e5TCMPnb9tUJ:www.acnc.com/raid.html+raid+0&hl=en
Boba Vancouver BC
Yes they are split and striped onto both, but the same array
would be reading and writing. That entails a performance
penalty.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kony
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 07:10:11 -0500, "Harvey" <here@there.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | No this is not exactly correct.
Raid 0 consists of 2 hard drives which are 'mirrored'. This means that the
*same* information is written to both drives at the same drive. If one
breaks, the other can carry on until the broken one is replaced. Then the
mirror is 'rebuilt'.
|
you are thinking of RAID1, not 0.
| Quote: |
Raid 0 will generally be slower than a stand alone drive.
|
RAID1 will be faster at reads, by a little, and similar or
sometimes slower writes. This is ignoring the
implementation, that if it's on the PCI bus that is yet
another variable and potential latency if not outright
bottleneck.
| Quote: | However there are
many variables here. If each drive is on its own controller, speeds will
approach that of a dedicated drive, but will never be faster than a single
drive of similar type.
|
It can be faster at reads, benchmarks do reveal this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Vermillion
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject:
Re: Question to the Experts about Processors |
|
|
In article <CqHbf.33404$NJ.7344@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Harvey <here@there.com> wrote:
| Quote: | No this is not exactly correct.
Raid 0 consists of 2 hard drives which are 'mirrored'.
|
No. RAID 1 is a 'mirrored' configuration - where both disks have the
same data for safety. The lost of 1 drive just means you have lost
your safety net.
RAID 0 is 'stripped' where the data is split between the drives so
the loss of one drive means the loss of all data.
| Quote: | This means that the *same* information is written to both drives
at the same drive. If one breaks, the other can carry on until
the broken one is replaced. Then the mirror is 'rebuilt'.
|
That is RAID 1. In RAID 0 you lose your data.
| Quote: | Raid 0 will generally be slower than a stand alone drive. However
there are many variables here. If each drive is on its own
controller, speeds will approach that of a dedicated drive, but
will never be faster than a single drive of similar type.
Raid 5 consists of a minimum of 3 drives. In this configuration,
2 drives will be 'striped'. Part of a file will be written to
one drive, part to the other. The third drive is used for error
correction. If one drive failes, the other two drives are able to
recreate the data.
|
Actually in a proper RAID 5 the parity bits are rotated through the
drive array.
| Quote: | Raid 5 can be faster than either Raid 0 or standalone. Again,
it depends on the controllers and how it is setup. Dedicated
controller for each drive is fastest. Software controlled Raid is
slowest.
|
In most cases RAID 5 is the slowest when it comes to writing - you
have a 50% more write overhead when you use three drives. And
a 3-drive RAID 5 is the lowest configuration while you can have
many more drives than three.
| Quote: | No clear cut answer. Raid is more about data redundency than
speed, though Raid 5 is sometimes used for speed as well.
|
RAID 0 is speed with NO safety net at all.
RAID 1 is fastest.
RAID 5 means you can add many drives so your array can exceed the
size of any standard disk drives.
I used to run RAID in old Unix servers - most of the time it was
to get more data capacity. 200MB drives were only $400 each -
while a 600MB drive started at more than what the 3 smaller drives
cost.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in