AMD Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4 2.8 GHz

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In deciding on a budget-priced computer that can handle video editing, which
would be a better choice: the new AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or a Pentium 4 2.8
GHz? Both machines are being offered for about the same price at my local
Best Buy. Pentium boasts HyperThreading, but AMD has something similar
called HyperTransport. Which is better for multimedia applications?

--
Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Michael Ray Brown" <michaelraybrownNoSpam@adelphiaNoSpam.net> wrote in
message news:06KdnR6gCMyeihLdRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
> In deciding on a budget-priced computer that can handle video editing,
which
> would be a better choice: the new AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or a Pentium 4 2.8
> GHz? Both machines are being offered for about the same price at my local
> Best Buy. Pentium boasts HyperThreading, but AMD has something similar
> called HyperTransport. Which is better for multimedia applications?
>


Hyperthreading and hypertransport are not the same kind of thing.

What apps will you be using?

--
Derek
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Michael Ray Brown" <michaelraybrownNoSpam@adelphiaNoSpam.net> wrote in
message news:06KdnR6gCMyeihLdRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
> In deciding on a budget-priced computer that can handle video editing,
which
> would be a better choice: the new AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or a Pentium 4 2.8
> GHz? Both machines are being offered for about the same price at my local
> Best Buy. Pentium boasts HyperThreading, but AMD has something similar
> called HyperTransport. Which is better for multimedia applications?
>


This review has the Athlon 3200+ and P4 2.8 - both C and E.

--
Derek
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> Best Buy. Pentium boasts HyperThreading, but AMD has something similar
> called HyperTransport. Which is better for multimedia applications?

The only similiarity is in the names: HyperThreading is internal processor
architechture, where single CPU core looks like multiple cores to the rest
of the system *1) and HyperTransport is technology how the processor is
connected to various peripherals in the motherboard. For multimedia
application they are pretty similiar, +-10% here and there..

*1) over-simplification, ofcourse! The reason why this is done is to put the
transistors in the CPU to better use, with only single thread being run not
all parts of the processor will be used at all times so some of the
transistors will sit idle with thumb up their ass.. now that more than
single thread is being executed, the idea is that the work is shared more
evenly for all parts of the processor. Benchmarks and profiling does show a
slight performance increase, for what it's worth, overall for running a
single CPU intensive application having the Athlon 3200+ might be a 'better'
choise.. not that the difference will be dramatic by any way you look at it.
=)

Athlon64 is a 64 bit processor, this might make a small difference to you ..
I don't know.. on Linux you can pretty much start "enjoying" 64 bit
computing out of the box, on Microsoft side you can download the free beta
of 64 bit Windows from Microsoft, but errrm... don't expect much 64 bit
software initially. That is something the Athlon64 can do and the Pentium4
can't.. Athlon64 on 64 bit mode has double the number of both ALU and SSE(2)
registers. This has so far shown to give it ~1/5 performance increase over
32 bit mode software. Mostly on Linux compiled with gcc tho. It remains to
be seen how things turn out in the Bill Gates side of the coin.

Buying either one wouldn't be a bad choise, IMHO.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

joe smith <rapu@ra73727uashduashfh.org> wrote:

> The only similiarity is in the names: HyperThreading is internal processor
> architechture, where single CPU core looks like multiple cores to the rest
> of the system *1) and HyperTransport is technology how the processor is
> connected to various peripherals in the motherboard. For multimedia
> application they are pretty similiar, +-10% here and there.

Thanks for explaining the difference. It appears that with the P4 you must
have a 3.2 GHz processor to truly take advantage of HyperThreading. A
system with that chip costs about $500 more than a system with the Athlon 64
chip. Is there any advantage to spending 50% more to get the Pentium?

--
Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Michael Ray Brown" <michaelraybrownNoSpam@adelphiaNoSpam.net> wrote in
message news:06KdnR6gCMyeihLdRVn-sQ@adelphia.com...
> In deciding on a budget-priced computer that can handle video editing,
which
> would be a better choice: the new AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or a Pentium 4 2.8
> GHz? Both machines are being offered for about the same price at my local
> Best Buy. Pentium boasts HyperThreading, but AMD has something similar
> called HyperTransport. Which is better for multimedia applications?
>


This review has the Athlon 3200+ and the P4 - both C and E:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956

--
Derek
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Derek Baker <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> This review has the Athlon 3200+ and the P4 - both C and E:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956

Thanks for pointing me to the article. It's interesting, although quite
technical. I'm looking to get the most bang for my buck, and for the money
it seems AMD beats Intel. However, buying the Athlon 64 when there are few
if any apps to take advantage of it causes me to wonder if I should get a
32-bit CPU.

--
Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Michael Ray Brown" <michaelraybrownNoSpam@adelphiaNoSpam.net> wrote in
message news:2MydnQmMhKgMWBLdRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
> Derek Baker <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > This review has the Athlon 3200+ and the P4 - both C and E:
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956
>
> Thanks for pointing me to the article. It's interesting, although quite
> technical. I'm looking to get the most bang for my buck, and for the
money
> it seems AMD beats Intel. However, buying the Athlon 64 when there are
few
> if any apps to take advantage of it causes me to wonder if I should get a
> 32-bit CPU.
>


Why worry about 64bit performance, if it runs 32bit apps well?

--
Derek
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> Thanks for explaining the difference. It appears that with the P4 you
must
> have a 3.2 GHz processor to truly take advantage of HyperThreading. A
> system with that chip costs about $500 more than a system with the Athlon
64
> chip. Is there any advantage to spending 50% more to get the Pentium?

Not that I know of, I have both Athlon64 (running a 64 bit Linux) and
Pentium4 (Northwood running Windows XP). Both are very smooth systems, hands
down best Linux and Windows systems I've ever had but it's embarassing to
state the obvious.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> it seems AMD beats Intel. However, buying the Athlon 64 when there are
few
> if any apps to take advantage of it causes me to wonder if I should get a
> 32-bit CPU.

It runs 32 bit software very well being one of the, if not the fastest, IA32
compatible processors ever see the light of day. Like I said the differences
will be relatively small, sometimes in P4's favour sometimes Athlon64's
favour. Both are great systems I wouldn't have hard to recommending either.
If money is objection then I suppose Athlon64 gives more "bang for the
buck", so to speak.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Michael Ray Brown wrote:
> Derek Baker <me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>This review has the Athlon 3200+ and the P4 - both C and E:
>>
>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956
>
>
> Thanks for pointing me to the article. It's interesting, although quite
> technical. I'm looking to get the most bang for my buck, and for the money
> it seems AMD beats Intel. However, buying the Athlon 64 when there are few
> if any apps to take advantage of it causes me to wonder if I should get a
> 32-bit CPU.


AMD-64 3200+ Vs P4 2.8C or even a 3.2C...? no contest :) Athlon64 is
king for gaming and graphics, although media encoding is Intel's strong
suit.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=athlon64&page=6
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

The statement "It appears that with the P4 you must
have a 3.2 GHz processor to truly take advantage of HyperThreading."
is incorrect. The advantages of HyperThreading apply regardless of CPU
speed.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:17:28 -0700, "Michael Ray Brown"
<michaelraybrownNoSpam@adelphiaNoSpam.net> wrote:

>joe smith <rapu@ra73727uashduashfh.org> wrote:
>
>> The only similiarity is in the names: HyperThreading is internal processor
>> architechture, where single CPU core looks like multiple cores to the rest
>> of the system *1) and HyperTransport is technology how the processor is
>> connected to various peripherals in the motherboard. For multimedia
>> application they are pretty similiar, +-10% here and there.
>
>Thanks for explaining the difference. It appears that with the P4 you must
>have a 3.2 GHz processor to truly take advantage of HyperThreading. A
>system with that chip costs about $500 more than a system with the Athlon 64
>chip. Is there any advantage to spending 50% more to get the Pentium?