Stress Test MK II

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
<<Intel by far has superior research.>>

The only thing I see as superior is marketing, and honestly how much of that wonderful marketing is really bully strong arm tactics?


<<They just unfortunately have managers that keep castrating the plans of their engineers.>>

I agree with this somewhat, boils down to earnings pushing blue crystals in-order to appear too be more than you are. Many companies do this. I agree if intel management had sided with or really listened to the engineers rather than the marketing dept they would not be in the mess they are today. IMHO intel dropped the ball with the p4 using the then true MHZ myth to distance themselves from amd. From a marketing point it would seem a good plan, (when joe retard says I bought a new computer what’s the first thing joe idiot#2 asks? he asks how many mhz is it. From any engineers point of view they can clearly see this is smart short term but prolly fatal long term.


<<Basically Intel is extremely wastefull of their R&D effots, where AMD squeezes every last ounce out of what R&D they have without wasting a drop.>>

I agree with this too. It would be nice if all companies where this efficient.


<<If demand increased significantly, AMD would be screwed. It's one of the reasons why they can't win over Dell>>

Manufacturing capacity is an issue for amd. but really I'm personally sick and tired of the stupid reasons dell won't offer amd systems. what about Wal-Mart? should they only offer intel systems cause if they only offered amd then amd might not be able to supply all there demand? HP? IBM? No it's a marketing strong arm tactic intel uses with dell. BTW to this point in time dell has benefited from this (intel inside program) but that could change and don’t think dell don't know it. Fact is there is no good reason dell don't offer the consumer the choice of an amd system.



<<it's why Apple turned to Intel instead of AMD, and it's why most of their major OEM sales are budget procs instead of high end procs. They're just not good at quantity.>>


Well thats a valid opinion I guess, personally I don't agree with it. It might have something to do with IBM and the lenovo situation potential or I could rambel on about how the wintel setup is falling apart but those are just theories by me. Could be intel can see somewhat into the future and is concerned with M$ x86 64bit support and amds huge manufacturing capacity coming online in the near future. Ask yourself this why is not apple just making there OS x86 compatible? so it runs on either? Could it be that apples will be sold through dell or really just the OS. Then again the mac os just might be x86 compatible but for some obscure reason won't work on amd systems.


<<They're working on improving, but it's something that they should have taken the risk on years ago instead of waiting for so very long so that it wasn't much of a risk.>>

There is huge money at stake here huge. x86 cpu's is intels cash cow by far. why does not a company like Samsung take on intel? It's hard to battle intel many have tried and all have failed except amd. Give credit where credit is due. I personally believe amd has done pretty much all they can in order to survive and grow. an amazing accomplishment when seeing what they are up against.


As to thg and there oh so fragile reputation it has sunk to even less. I post here less and less and one of the main reasons is cause outside of thgc the world or internet at large make fun of thg. It would be somwhat embarassing to admitt you post here even though thgc forums is full of knowlegable posters. Sad shame but that is reality.

I'll also tell you this, the world is right and thg is wrong.

<A HREF="http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687810&tid=amd&sid=4687810&mid=1199939" target="_new"> world </A>

<A HREF="http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687810&tid=amd&sid=4687810&mid=1199944" target="_new"> world reply </A>

BTW I like your posts. I learn from many of them. I'm just amazed that we see the real world so differently.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
 
To be honest I was a getting a bit sucked in by the thg conclusion. I allmost forgot that intel infact did do worse on the multithreaded / 4 processes test (3 outta 4 went to amd).

< Is thg's conclusion. The rest is my own.

<Overall Performance

<Before we draw our conclusions about the overall <performance of the two systems, let's go over once more <how the stress test progressed during the 18 days.

<At first, we used two platforms from AMD and Intel, both <with an SLI configuration based on NVIDIA's nForce4 SLI <chipset. Later, we had to replace the motherboard in the <Intel system with one based on the Intel 955X chipset, <which also meant that SLI operation was no longer <possible. In order to make the test fair, we also removed <the SLI configuration from the AMD system. We were then <able to get results from both systems after 14 days of
<operation with four applications running simultaneously.

My thoughts: The intel system is highly difficult to get running. Meaning you will have to test it intensively with the motherboard, psu, ram and graphics card(s) setup to be sure if it works.

One of the target groups for a dual core processor setup would imo be rendering workstations. Now I know these would benefit from dual cpu's but wont they miss SLI alot? I mean with intel they might have to chose between double cpu but only half the graphics card performance they could be getting????

Amd seems to be rather forgiving as to the rest of your setup as it is not as demanding.

<When multiple applications are running, the clear <conclusion is that the Intel Pentium 840 Extreme Edition <is superior to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+. This result <attained by Intel's dual-core processor is particularly <attributable to hyperthreading (HT) - the division of the <two cores into four virtual CPU units. This was <underscored by the fact that when the HT function was <turned off, the tables turned and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 <4800+ surpassed its rival. Here, it is impossible to <speak in terms of percentages, precisely because of the <different load distributions.
<
<We got a different picture, however, when we ran single <applications on each system. Here, the AMD system <performed distinctly better (by just about 30% on <average) compared to the Intel system.
<
<Thus, when making a purchasing decision, the question to <ask is whether or not multiple applications will be <running simultaneously. If the answer is yes, then the <Intel Pentium 840 EE is your first choice. Otherwise, the <AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ will give you much better <performance for single applications.

I can't see any reason to make this conclusion. To sum up the info I've seen from other review sites and even on thg themselves:

1 demanding process: AMD will do better.
2 demanding processes: AMD will do better.
3 demanding processes: AMD will do better.
4 demanding processes: AMD will do better on the 3 of them and might lag behind on the fourth.

How does this make the pentium 4 superior when running multiple demanding processes? Even with the p4 "perfect" number of 4?

My conclusion would be: If you game -> run amd. If you run single demanding applications -> run amd. If you run multitask with demanding tasks -> run amd. If you are moronic enough to just startup demanding tasks left and right and dont care if they all run acceptable (farcry framerates in the hyperthreaded test) then by all means -> run intel.

<Stability: Intel With Intel, AMD With NVIDIA
<
<Stability is an important topic for professional-level <situations, and there were some surprises in this <respect: with the Intel system, three motherboards with <the nForce SLI chipset turned out to be problematic. <There were several crashes, and in one case the voltage <regulator even burned out.
<
<The only thing that could help stabilize the system was <to combine the Intel CPU with the Intel chipset, which <then of course rules out a SLI graphics configuration. <However, in exchange, the user does gain the benefit of <stability - our Intel system ran for 14 days without a <problem. The AMD system ran smoothly from the start, <which leads us to conclude that the nForce SLI basis is <stable with the AMD platform. The only downside was that <after long periods of operation, the AMD machine wouldn't <shut down via software.

So the intel processor seems to be totally incompatible with anything but intel chipsets?

Intel system also seems to be incompatible with sli solutions?

And why aren't the changes of cooler, psu and ram also mentioned here?

Actually having reread the conclusion a few times and with the thg conclusion / current credibility in mind. I'd like to see a few screenshots of the amd system having the shutdown problem. And a small investigation into whether this was (as a few others has mentioned) a software (windows) problem.

<In the end, we can conclude that the Intel Pentium 840 EE <should be used with a motherboard that has the Intel 955X <chipset. We do not recommend its use with a board with <NVIDIA's nForce4 SLI chipset.

<With the AMD platform you've only got one option, which <fortunately is stable: to combine the AMD platform with a <motherboard based on NVIDIA's nForce4 SLI chipset. The <results of our stress test show that the nForce4 SLI <chipset for the AMD platform has matured.

Again what thg is really saying is that with the intel processor you have one choice. -> An intel chipset.

AMD's recommended motherboards includes the following chipsets: nVidia nForce4, nVidia nForce4 SLI, ATI Radeon Xpress 200 and the VIA K8T800 Pro.

<Power Consumption And Costs:
<
<The table above gives you a clear picture of how each <system sizes up with regard to power consumption. This <should be especially interesting for the business sector, <where many systems are used, meaning that costs add up.
<
<With no load on the systems, you can already see the <difference between the Intel and the AMD platforms - the <Intel system uses 13% more power than AMD. This increases <to 30% when both systems are running under a full load. <The table also shows you what this all amounts to per <year for each system: there's a difference of $54 when <both systems are running round the clock under a full <load. Just think about how smaller companies might easily <install 100 systems, and what a difference the extra <$5,400 would make! Note that we're only talking about the <electricity costs here.

Now there are few companies that need 100 or more dual core processor computers. But If you correlate this info with the performance and stability of the processors then:

I'f you do not need enough dual core processors to make power consumption an issue -> run amd based on superior performance and stability.

I'f you need lots of dual core processors thus making power consumption an issue -> run amd.


Conclusion: AMD Wins In Terms Of Performance Per Watt

<You can't go wrong with a stress test that runs 18 days. <At the very least, it allows you to draw clear <conclusions about stability, performance, system use in <practice and power consumption. Because we continually <measured power consumption, performance per watt, or <efficiency, is a new aspect that we were able to <evaluate. Here in particular, the AMD system with the <Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (dual core) is the better choice <compared to its energy-gobbling rival from Intel. AMD <uses up to 30% less energy than its competitor, which is <supported by our extensive investigations.

Agreed ???? Atleast on the power usage aspekt.

<When looking at absolute computing power, or performance, <different views are needed. When running multiple <applications simultaneously on a system, the Intel system <with the Pentium 840 EE surpasses the competition from <AMD. This result can be assigned to hyperthreading. To <prove our point, when we deactivated this function, which <turns the Pentium 840 EE into a Pentium D 840, the Athlon <64 X2 4800+ was faster. The Pentium 840 EE has no chance <when running a single application on Windows XP - the <Athlon 64 X2 4800+ has up to 30% better performance. <Here, even hyperthreading doesn't help.
<
<So, what to buy when you need a top system for a nice <sum? For business use, the Intel system should be the <better choice, especially in view of its availability as <well as the already existing service from Intel partners <and system vendors. However, the Intel system is also an <energy gobbler, as our table shows - it consumes up to <30% more power compared to the AMD system.
<
<For enthusiasts, the decision should be easy: for <individual performance-hungry applications, the Athlon 64 <X2 system offers the best performance and is the model of <stability as well. The latter was not true for the Intel <system. Only motherboards with the Intel chipset ran <smoothly without a problem - those based on the nForce4 <SLI chipset caused some difficulties.

Regarding multiple applications:

Again nowhere in the entire test do I see the numbers support the conclusion that the intel processor is faster overall.

Regarding single application.

Agreed the amd sets the bar here.

Now thg recommends the intel processor for business use, again how can they do than if amd is the model for stability and intel is not?

Isn't stability just about THE most important factor for allmost all business use?

So offcourse if buy choosing an intel system you WILL need service from both intel and system vendors ????

So in the end why not chose amd for business use also and be done with it?

As for myself I am a bit Oh My God at this. For a long time I had planned my next system to be an intel just to get reaqquanted but now? No way.

I see this whole test and thg as one big intel marketing ploy.

Now I know not that no review can be totally unbiased but this is the clearest case of facts twisting and wording I have ever seen on an hardware review site.

And it goes further than that. If this is how corrupting doing business with intel is then I won't be one of them doing business with intel.

Regarding thg well It was a good site, then it was a funny site now its just a sad sad site.

Hell atm I prefer pcstats.com (which actually is quite a good newbie site) to this.

PS: sorry for the long post and that the < didn't work as planned hope you'll be able to read it anyway.
 
hehe sorry I got tired just writing the damn thing then to insert codes.

😛 and i'd rather blame others for poor reading skills than writing skills *snicker*
 
WTF????? after a few days of forgetting to come to THG and they throw out this????????? man these guys must be part of intel or else intel purchused THG......... someone care to look up THG's company regristation?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 06/25/05 11:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
Actually NT78stonewobble there are more chipsets. There are a few NF4 and NF3, a few SiS chipsets, a few VIA, ATI, and I think there is a few ULi and AMD's own chipset. I bet there are over 20 chipsets between 6 companies and THG says there is likely only 1-2 chipsets from Intel to pick from.

Well they are taking about NF4 SLI boards hitting the sub $100 market, but I doubt you will see an Intel 955 board for under $200 for a while.

You know I actually respected Intel before. Even though I was dumb a bought a K6-2 instead of a Celeron (the Celeron was too much for my VERY limitted budget at the time) I knew Intel had the good stuff. When the Athlon surfaced I say Intel start sweating for the first time. I got a Duron 600 and overclocked the snott out of it. Intel was not able to counter until the P4 Northwood core. At that point Intel took the lead and held it at a time AMD needed the sales the most (the post y2K computer build-up and the big Dot Com crash). AMD fell way behind and delays on AMD's 130nm proccess was killing them. By the time they got that fixed Intel was too far ahead. They had lost significant market share and had record loses for something like 2 years strait. Then the Athlon64 came out. It was a slow launch over a long period and did not really matture until the socket 939 and 90nm. AMD has taken the performance crown with a chip that draws about 1/4-1/2 the power draw. Intel is scrambling now to produce something to take on AMD and they have been at least one step behind.

Now AMD is hitting them on all fronts and in the server market Intel is suffering the most. AMD has a dual core CPU over a year ahead of Intel with power draw better than Intel's single cores. They also scale much better into the 4+ socket servers. AMD has already captured 27% of the 4-way market and their dual cores will hit the 2-way servers pretty hard. Their 4-8 way servers sales will also continue to grow, but the 2-way is the largest part of the server market.

Intel struggle in the blade market do to power restrictions and AMD has some VERY powerfull 4-way dual cored (8 cores total) 1U rack servers. Intel cant come close to matching that sort of rack "density". This is basically 4+ times the performance of any XEON based 1U rack server.

Well you would think Intel wound circle the wagons and get something out the door to compete, but that does not seem to be the case. AMD should hold this lead through all of next year. Beyond that it looks like Intel has a chance, but is still relying on AMD having a lot of trouble transitioning to 65nm and 45nm beyond that. If AMD pulls it off, they might be ahead of Intel for a long time. The only thing that looks promising is in 2007 they will have a 4 cored P-M with 4MB shared L2 cache running on an advanced Itanium2 bus. If they push stuff like this to the desktop they have a chance to catch back up. They would have to get the P-M to 64 bit and have the performance with multiple core up there while keeping the power draw down.

AMD is actually planning on going to DDR2 next year and rumors say quad cores too (maybe just for Opterons). Even at 90nm it is possible, but much more feasable at 65nm. There is also rumors of integrated graphics and possibly sound and I/O functions on core. This would be a BIG boost for AMD. They could creat some mighty budget systems, servers, and laptops with a chip like this and the heat and power draw along with board size would be greatly reduced. Even the P-M would really start to sweat. It is just a rumor though, but you know all the chip companies like VIA, SiS, and Uli are really struggling now and AMD could snatch one up for a good price.
 
Todd I just took the recommende mobo's from amd's site.

Good post you had there...

We can allways speculate about the future but I can't say that im not hoping for intel to get whooped a bit...

Not because I exclusively love amd processors because as you said northwood was a good processor from intel and I would have liked to get one.

I just simply don't like the fact that people that dont know any better think they get the better product by getting intel.

Now granted it happens with all computer hardware but whom do we go to so we can make an informed decision on what to buy? The review sites... And then comes this conclusion out of thg.

Basically you can't trust anyone... It's sad...
 
Once again Tommy did it. :)

I always knew that he was an Intel whore.

Anyways, (I hope he see this one) for some of you that still thinks that the P4 840EE is a great multitasker, here's something that will change your mind:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4_840/ (go to TruSpace and Multitasking link or read the whole thing)

The guys at lost circuits made a very interesting test running two multithreaded apps and as you can see, the X2 and the Opteron 252 whipes intel.

Anyhow, we all know that Tommy hand-picked the test for the Intel system for it not to look so bad against the AMD rig. Let's not forget that he had Intel assistants in his lab at Munich :) (is it coincidence??)) :)

Finally speaking, I had fun with you guys on this topic. Thanks for everyone that made an objective critic to this farce that Tommy made. Ohh, and let's not forget "Porky" for all his great input and "astounding technological knowledge" of microprocessors. :)

That's all I wanted to say.




My Beloved Rig:

ATHLON 64 FX 55
2X1024 CORSAIR XMX XPERT MODULES
MSI K8N DIAMOND (SLI)
2 MSI 6800 ULTRA (SLI MODE)
OCZ POWERSTREAM 600W PSU
 
So the only chipset is the nForce huh.

Guess I'm not typing this on an A8V VIA chipset with a X2 4400 then.

Can't honestly say in all my years I have never seen such a misleading, LIEING, biased for what passes as a 'conclusion'. Will accept it if you change it to a DELUSION though.

THG - Your biased, you don't know what your talking about, most of all YOU SUCK.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Weescotty on 06/25/05 03:55 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
No he was saying the only chipset for Intel was Intel's own chiposet, but AMD has many good chipsets... he just thinks the NF4 SLI is the best.

But yes BullShitter I have read that article and it is a good one. The P-EE performs pretty bad is a lot of the tests and the few that favor dual cores really heavy usually favour the X2 even more. I like the LightWave 8 tests as it shows that the performance drastically drops with HT enabled... Huh. I still think the biggest thing in that article is the power draw. The P-EE 840 draw 147w, the Venice overclocked to almost 2.8Ghz drew only 40w and the X2 4800+ was 86w. I still wish he had a P4 3.8Ghz in that list.
 
>Anyways, (I hope he see this one) for some of you that still
>thinks that the P4 840EE is a great multitasker, here's
>something that will change your mind:

Actually, if THG would have half a grain worth of brain, they would realize the X2 beat the 840EE *even* on their 4 thread test. The X2 had a higher overall throughput on all apps combined, as well as delivering higher performance for the most important app: the foreground game.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 
Wow the Inq pointed me to another article. This one is in French so grab your translators:

<A HREF="http://www.x86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=125" target="_new">http://www.x86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=125</A>

They put a temp probe on the mosfets on an Asus P5WD2 board and ran it with a several Intel CPUs including the P-EE 840. Well this board is a bit odd. Some of the mosfets have a heatsink and some don't. The ones with a heatsink measured 55'C. The ones without measured 97.5'C. They also measured the power draw on the CPU on the 12v connector for CPU and found the consumption to be 175w. Now they say the power surcuitry looses about 20% and that is why the mosfets get so hot (20% of 175w 35w to spread between what 8 tiny mosfets. That is about 4.5w each. Those things are tiny. The thing is ASUS cound not actively cool all the mosfets do the the CPU heatsink being so large.

Of course they go on to compare them against a dual XEON system which is faster and cheaper. Since the slower dual cores are competing against an older 3.2Ghz XEON, they can actually be purchased cheaper. AMD does not really have this problem for two reasons... their dual cores are closer to the max speed of their single cores and if you spend the money on a dual Opteron board you can still use dual cores in that. Intel has no 2-way dual core systems.

They also point out an intersting thing. If you make a core 1/4 the size it will produce 1/4 the performance. If you take 4 of these smaller cores and put them tegether into a quad core chip, you will be back to the same power consumption, but at twice the performance. So if you are running multiple applications or an apllication that is well threaded for SMP, a Quad core with smaller CPUs would be twice as fast without consuming any more power.

They also talk about Special Purpose HW Engines. They can be a thousand times more powerfull than a general purpose, use a much smaller surface area and only 2w compared to the average 75w now. They talk about instead of using a quad core, use a tri core and dump in 16 SPE cores instead of the 4th core. It would use lass power actually, the same die space, and boost performance for specific applications 1000 fold. Think of things like a Physics engine like AGIA is going to use. Think of HD-DVD decoding. Think of encoding, Think of engines just for specific SSE instructions. The list can go on. At 45nm this could still be a relatively small core. AMD has already talked about coproccessors on their quad core chips and also talking about a hardware way of splitting non-SMP applications. That would be a great use for an SPE too.
 
Man and here is another good power comparision:

<A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=384519&P=3" target="_new">http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=384519&P=3</A>

One thing I would like to point out they tested both Intel coolers on the dual cored P-EE 840 and found only a few degrees Celcius differance btween them.

But back to the article. At the bottom of this page is some total system power draw readings with the P4 630, P4-EE 3.73, P-D 820 and 840, and a P-EE 840. They also threw in an Athlon64 3500+ (Venice core) and an Athlon64 X2 4800+. The Athlon64 X2 4800+ only 2w more at full load then the P-D 820 at idle. It used even 54w less than the P4-630 at full load. The sad thing was it also used 142w less than the P-EE 840. Now you have to figure the PS had about a 70% efficiency, but still this is just a crasy amount. Supprizingly the X2 only used 34w more than the Venice core and the Venice core was actually clocked 200Mhz slower. Another thing is they used 2 instances of SuperPi for 20m to load the systems. It is not a multi-threaded application, so the HT on the P-EE likely was not loaded 100%. They might have been able to squeaze another 10w out of the P-EE. 😀

They even do many multi-tasking applications. Beleave it or not the P-EE and X2 were neck and neck on a lot. The Venice did VERY poorly on this test:

<A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=384519&P=6" target="_new">http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=384519&P=6</A>

They even slapped on a water cooling set-up and overclocked all the dual cored P4 CPUs to the max stable and the best was 3.84Ghz. They did get 3.78Ghz on air with an X-120 heatsink and a 98CFM fan. To bad they did not overclock the X2.Even with stock cooling people are getting 2.7Ghz or better. Maybe they could hit 2.9Ghz or more with water. 😀
 
The HT test was flawed from the start, i.e. the divx application was not running as intended.
It was set to run on idle cyles only (lowest priority).
Only the AMD it worked as designed. On the Intel with HT it took cylces away from the other apps.
Even by THGs figures, the intel did not win it was draw.
This was probably the worst test I've ever seen and the lamest conclusions I have ever seen, and these guys are supposed to be professionals.
They obviously have no idea what you require in a business scenario. The majority of users in business don't even require dual core. Those that do, require predictability and stability, performance is almost secondary. With HT you cannot predict performance of any of your apps. The one test that might have made the Intel chip shine (although I doubt it), is to run 4 applications with equal priority.

As far as I can tell HT is only good for multi-tasking where the actual performance of the applications is not critical, i.e. it will stop things griding to a halt, when a heavy task kicks in, but overall performance will be down.
To put it another way, sometimes you take a longer route in a car rather than a shorter (and potentially quicker route), just because traffic flows on that route and you can actually driver, rather than being stuck in a queue.

These were not server CPUs, so any server type comparisons cannot be made. Although looking at heat this will be critical, I know that most companies server rooms are already running at pretty much full capacity when it comes to heat extraction, as alot of companies are replacing aging UNIX servers/mainframes with x86 boxes (that draw alot more power and give off a lot more heat), replacing aircon units actually means downtime for the entire server room or totally new investment in real estate for new server rooms--->True cost to business
Anandtech did a great review recently comparing opteron and Xeons with HT and it showed that HT cost performance in database applications.
 
Maybe he can buy it back, and for cheap, because after the stress test the credibility of the site plunged. So it would be a good time to buy.

<font color=green>If you work on a thing long enough to improve it, It will break</font color=green>
 
How many people actually use DivX with Xmpeg? You know I used to use it, but Xmpeg was so buggy I had to switch to other applications. I think the most popular right now is Gordon Knott, which uses VutualDub.. which is much better and actually still being updated. Heck, Divx 6.0 is out and it actually has its own encoder (if you pay for it).

The dumb thing is with the drastic drop in the price of DVD recorders and blank DVD disks, it is not worth messing with Dix and Xmpeg any more. DVD Decript (if you are lucky enough to have a copy) and DVD Shrink is a great combo of applications for making... "back-up" copies of DVDs. about 80% of the movies will fit on a single layer DVD after removing all the junk (menues, subtitles, extra languages, extra, and preveiws). It only takes about a minute to convert it then. If you have a very long movie and set it for the absolute best settings it will likely take about an hour or so to convert. Not only is it much easier and faster to do, but it looks better, sounds better, and will play on any DVD player.

Basically Divx is only used for downloaders do to the smaller download times.

I I know this from personal experience as I have about 800 movies in my collection and the last 100 are DVDs. I will never use DivX again... Well likely that is. Maybe their HD-DVD conversion will make a HD-DVD fit on a standard single layer DVD, but until then DivX sucks! 😀
 
know this from personal experience as I have about 800 movies in my collection and the last 100 are DVDs
Click to expand...

Um, what's your upload speed? :wink:

______________
<font color=blue>Boshdy as owt</font color=blue>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Ned_Flanders on 06/28/05 02:56 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
Their all on CDs. I actually found a DVD player from Philips for $60 on sale that plays all my DivX movies, which is pretty cool. I've had my DVD burner now for 6 months and I'm almost through my second 50 pack of DVDs. I can't download these, but I can barrow and rent. Like I said it is much easier now. I think I managaed to convert about a dozen movies to DivX... it was a real pain and they did not turn out all that good. DVD Shrink is just great! 😀

I use a cable modem. The download speed is 3Mb, which runs about 300-350KB/sec sustained. The upload speeds used to run about 15, but I think when they doubled my download speed, they doubled my upload speed. I like it.

Gee, this thread is tapering off. I thought we were going for the record. We are only about 250 posts away! 😛<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Todd_a on 06/28/05 07:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
I was not happy when basically the only one out for over a year was a Kiss player and it cost something like $300. This Philips DVP642 just rocks and for only $60 it was a steal. It has optical outputs that runs flawlessly in my 600w surround sound system. The image quality is great. It also plays any type of disk. I just wish it could play WMV-HD as I have a few IMAX movies that run this. Of course you really need a good computer monitor to see how nice it looks, but still it would have been nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom