- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Location
- Fontana, CA
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?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
AMD VS INTEl for video encoding
- Thread starter MooMasster716
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
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 
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Location
- Southern California
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
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2003
- Location
- Centennial, Colorado
*edit* n/m dont want this thread to risk getting locked..
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario Canada
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.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2001
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
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!
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.
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.
- Joined
- May 31, 2003
- Location
- Never Never Land
Yeah Intel is much faster for en-coding in my experiences as well.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2003
- Location
- Northants England
NookieN said:
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
star882
Disabled
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
"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).
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).
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
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.
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.
Steven4563 said:
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.
c627627 said:
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.
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.
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.
