Intel C2D E5200 (G33/G45) vs. AMD Athlon 4850e (780G)

[Livesms]

I'm going to built new silent PC.
Main task - Torrent (24/7), Internet surf(3-4 hour per day), MS Office Word/Excel (some times if haven't done in time :) ), Watching Video (1-2 hour). And sometimes video encoding - Xvid (xvid enc. batch) + AviSynth (Multithreaded MvDegrain2, Securebob). Video encoding will leave in background for all time (night/work time).
I do not play Games, so I will go for IGP - 780G or G33/G45 but I need DVI on board for my 22" wide monitor to be connect by DVI.
I need maximum possible silent and less heat in my budget .
In my local prices I found
Gigabyte GA-MA78G-DS3H 93$
AMD Athlon X2 4850e BOX 80$
173$Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2H 115$
Intel C2D E5200 BOX 104$
219$
My be it will be worth adding some extra money and go for
Gigabyte GA-EG45M-DS2H 135$
Intel C2D E7200 BOX 134$
269$
Gigabyte GA-MA78G-DS3H 93$
AMD X4 Phenom 9550 BOX 154$
247$
But in last to varinats I care about heat (G45 chipset or X4 9550 while encoding xvid + avisynth and CPU 100% Load).
I'm wont maximum possible silent in my budget while encoding video (time of encoding is not so critically - I will give extra 2-3 hours instead burned chipset and mosfets in MB).

What about E5200 vs 4850e (E7200 vs. X4 9550) in encoding of Xvid (+Avisynth)? What about heat and noise in whole system.
I would be grateful for the any advice.

PS I think It will be 2 * 2048 MB DDR800 Samsung/Hynix/Kingston in all variants

[DJ Bobo]

The E5200 is of course faster than the 4850e, but also more expensive. The 4850e plays in the league of the E2180 (both in terms of performance and price).
I personally own a 4850e, heat and noise are not even worth mentionning, even with the boxed fan ;)
I can't say anything about noise concerning the Pentium competition though (heat shouldn't be a problem either way).
The G33 is a bad IGP when it comes to HD video and is also only DX9 compliant, so you're definitely better off with the 780G. The 780G motherboard is also cheaper so...

As far as the X4 and the E7200 go, the X4 is definitely much much better (I think it's obvious since we're comparing a quad core to a dual core here!), at the cost of more heat and noise of course. You'd probably want to get a better cooler for the X4 if you want less heat and noise.
And you'll work much more comfortably with the X4 since you seem to multi-task a lot.

PS: Get DDR2-1066 memory while you're at it. The price difference to DDR2-800 is almost non-existent, and you can profit from the extra plus in performance when you use (or upgrade later to) a Phenom processor (the 4850e will work at 714MHz wether you put DDR2-800 or -1066)

[Livesms]

As far as the X4 and the E7200 go, the X4 is definitely much much better (I think it's obvious since we're comparing a quad core to a dual core here!), at the cost of more heat and noise of course. You'd probably want to get a better cooler for the X4 if you want less heat and noise.
And you'll work much more comfortably with the X4 since you seem to multi-task a lot.

Strange fact, but with DivX looks like E7200 is even faster then X4 9550
http://www.easycom.com.ua/data/main/image/?lang=ru&pack=15&article=87221351&top=cpu&index=4&result_compare1=284&result_compare2=25&result_compare3=280&result_compare4=281
http://www.fcenter.ru/img/article/CPU/AMD_Phenom_X3_8750/118344.png

[DJ Bobo]

@ livesms
Your numbers are weird, there is pratically no difference between the X2 and the X4, which means there is something wrong with the bench (May be they limited the bench to 2 cores to compare the per MHz performance).
If you know german, you can check computerbase.de, they've got a bench with DivX 6.7 which scales nicely according to the number of cores:
Athlon X2 @ 2,2GHz: 17min03
Phenom X4 @ 2,2GHz: 09min00
Where the Athlon X2 @ 3GHz would be done in 12min55

[Livesms]

@ livesms
Your numbers are weird, there is pratically no difference between the X2 and the X4, which means there is something wrong with the bench (May be they limited the bench to 2 cores to compare the per MHz performance).
If you know german, you can check computerbase.de, they've got a bench with DivX 6.7 which scales nicely according to the number of cores:
Athlon X2 @ 2,2GHz: 17min03
Phenom X4 @ 2,2GHz: 09min00
Where the Athlon X2 @ 3GHz would be done in 12min55
Yes. But DivX 6.7 Test (http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/2008/test_intel_core_2_duo_e8600_e0/11/#abschnitt_divx_67)
E7200 (M0) 2 cores - 08min 50sec
X4 9550 (B3) 4 cores - 09min 00sec
WMV Test (http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/2008/test_intel_core_2_duo_e8600_e0/12/#abschnitt_wmv)
E7200 (M0) 2 cores - 09min 47sec
X4 9550 (B3) 4 cores - 07min 05sec
Performancerating Multimedia (http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/2008/test_intel_core_2_duo_e8600_e0/22/#abschnitt_performancerating)
E7200 (M0) 2 cores - 66.9
X4 9550 (B3) 4 cores - 60.8
2 Cores from Intel beat AMD's 4 Cores in DivX. With Xvid look like the same results. Strange...
In my local price
http://pic.ipicture.ru/uploads/081011/uG3qCZit1l.png

Still hesitating - E7200(+G33) or X4 9550 (+780G)

[DJ Bobo]

Oh, I see, you're considering the SSE4 results. This is a bit unfair as a comparison (the algorithm is different for the SSE2 and SSE4 calculations, it's not just an SSE4 optimization), as you can see the X4 9750 and the Q6600 (both at 2,4GHz) have almost the same results under DivX.

As for the performance rating, you should consider the results with care. Not many applications use all 4 cores as of now, that's why you may find a dual core competing with a quad core. For your specific field of applications, you'll definitely benefit from the higher number of cores, and you also seem to multitask a lot, so ultimately 4 cores will win against 2, no doubt about that.

Again, the G33 is a mess when it comes to HD, I would definitely avoid anything with a G33 inside.

[Livesms]

Oh, I see, you're considering the SSE4 results. This is a bit unfair as a comparison (the algorithm is different for the SSE2 and SSE4 calculations, it's not just an SSE4 optimization), as you can see the X4 9750 and the Q6600 (both at 2,4GHz) have almost the same results under DivX.
And as you may know, XviD doesn't have SSE4 optimizations to begin with.

As for the performance rating, you should consider the results with care. Not many applications use all 4 cores as of now, that's why you may find a dual core competing with a quad core. For your specific field of applications, you'll definitely benefit from the higher number of cores, and you also seem to multitask a lot, so ultimately 4 cores will win against 2, no doubt about that.

Again, the G33 is a mess when it comes to HD, I would definitely avoid anything with a G33 inside.
So, you think it would be better go for 780G + X4 9550 instead E7200 (G35 or even G45)

[DJ Bobo]

Yeah, 4 cores will be much better for you, because of your intensive multitasking.
The G45 is on par with the 780G when it comes to HD, but then, you'll be paying a higher price for less performance.

[Livesms]

Yeah, 4 cores will be much better for you, because of your intensive multitasking.
The G45 is on par with the 780G when it comes to HD, but then, you'll be paying a higher price for less performance.
You mean 780G is better then G45 in all but HD decode?

[DJ Bobo]

As far as I know, they are pretty much equivalent when it comes to HD (with a slight advantage for the 780G though), but the 780G is pretty much faster on almost everything else (memory bandwidth, 3D, etc)

[Livesms]

As far as I know, they are pretty much equivalent when it comes to HD (with a slight advantage for the 780G though), but the 780G is pretty much faster on almost everything else (memory bandwidth, 3D, etc)
So in my case
Gigabyte GA-MA78G-DS3H 93$
AMD X4 Phenom 9550 BOX 154$
247$
will be much faster in my tasks then
Gigabyte GA-EG45M-DS2H 135$
Intel C2D E7200 BOX 134$
269$

And what about Intel's SSE4.1 - DivX optimized for SSE4.1 and for AMD's SSE4a is not

[foxyshadis]

I feel very strongly that this advice is misguided. "Multitasking" is a bad reason to get a quad over a dual; the chances of ever even noticing the difference at all between basic internet use and MS office will be nearly none. I used to have 24/7 downloads and encodes going on my main system, yet rarely noticed (aside from the fan having turned up) while web browsing, writing, or even gaming. It no longer matters what CPU you get, 90% of the performance "feel" of a system comes from memory capacity and hard disk speed. Getting a quad just means you'll be starving 4 cores waiting for the disk to read instead of 2, especially since Divx can't use all 4 cores yet.

However, it might be cheaper to go ahead and get one now, along with the parts to cool it, instead of changing them all out whenever you do upgrade. Your choice.

[Livesms]

However, it might be cheaper to go ahead and get one now, along with the parts to cool it, instead of changing them all out whenever you do upgrade. Your choice.
You mean I should go for X4 9550/9650 now instead of E7200 for the same price?

[DJ Bobo]

OK, it seems like that SSE4 thing got you confused. The SSE4 "optimization" is actually a marketing trick from Intel (and DivX). Full search doesn't improve image quality (at least I can't detect anything with my eyes), nor does it reduce the needed bitrate. So you actually don't need it (earlier DivX versions never did full search anyway).
The difference on my machine in speed is huge when full search is disabled: 67% faster (40% less time) than with SSE2 full search! with absolutely no noticeable quality loss.
If you look at the E7200 results, the SSE4 full search is only 24% faster than the SSE2 one (8min50 compared to 10min58, so 19% less time). Compared to the 40% time spare with full search disabled (without quality loss), this is just a joke ;)

So the X4 will be definitely much faster than the E7200.
And as you use x264, you'll definitely benefit from the extra cores.

[Dark Shikari]

OK, it seems like that SSE4 thing got you confused. The SSE4 "optimization" is actually a marketing trick from Intel (and DivX). Full search doesn't improve image quality (at least I can't detect anything with my eyes), nor does it reduce the needed bitrate. So you actually don't need it (earlier DivX versions never did full search anyway).
The difference on my machine in speed is huge when full search is disabled: 67% faster (40% less time) than with SSE2 full search! with absolutely no noticeable quality loss.
If you look at the E7200 results, the SSE4 full search is only 24% faster than the SSE2 one (8min50 compared to 10min58, so 19% less time). Compared to the 40% time spare with full search disabled (without quality loss), this is just a joke ;)And even funnier, x264's full search, despite not using SSE4, is 3-4 times faster than theirs :)