Which CPU is good for DVD-Ripping?

[yosemite]

hi,

i'd like to know which CPU can be used for DVD-ripping , encoding, all the stuff...

AMD or Pentium

Duron, TB, Celeron...

O.K. I KNOW that how faster the CPU is the whole procedure doesnt need so much time, but thats not important...

Is a Duron also good for ripping, encoding ...?

[Doom9]

well... all of them can be used but the faster the better. If you're going to get a new cpu anyways you can get a lot of speed increase for only a relatively small surplus.

[LotionBoy]

all the CPUs you mentioned are fine for ripping and encoding. Go with the fastest processor you can afford. Keep in mind that the faster Athlon and the fastest P4 are approximately equal in terms of performance, even though the megahertz are different. Let's not turn this into an Intel vs. AMD thread, please!!
check out the following websites.

www.anandtech.com
www.tomshardware.com
www.aceshardware.com

they all have cpu comparisons.

LotionBoy

[ppera2]

If you remove that sp.. picture, I will say you best possible advice :D .

[cyrax83]

Always GET AMD.
Intel chips are shit, there expensive and they are slow

don't get a Duron.

[LotionBoy]

actually, you're just wrong. This is the kinda thing I was trying to avoid in this post.

1. Intel chips are not shit. Intel has been around for a long time and they make high quality chips. The Pentium pro core is one of the most amazing core designs ever (look at how the P3 is still chugging along, outperforming the Athlon and the P4 at equal clock speeds!). The P4 core looks kinda bad at the moment, but remember the initial benchmarks of the pentium pro against the pentium. the pro looked kinda bad too, but today that core is the top performing core (which is not to say that it is the fastest, but if you set all the cores at the same MHZ, the new P!!! is the fastest). Intel built the P4 with lots of headroom and made some tradeoffs to get it to market quickly, which may not have been the best idea. but it's not shit.

2. Intel chips are expensive. Much too expensive for their performance. I agree completely.

3. They aren't slow. the P4-2000 is as fast as the Athlon in MPEG4 encoding, and that's what we're talking about here and the Northwood core (out pretty soon now) is going to be faster. so in a month, the fastest Divx encoding box is going to the the P4-2.2ghz. That != slow.

4. There is nothing wrong with the Duron if you're on a budget. They are great little chips and encode fine. Not as fast as an Athlon, but pretty nice for their cost. Basically, you're going to almost the same encoding time clock for clock with a Duron and an Athlon and the Duron is cheaper.

5. If you want the highest possible performance, wait and pick up one of the new Northwood P4s, but it is going to cost you a huge premium. If you want performance that is nearly the same, but at half the cost, get an Athlon. If you want to be like me, go crazy and grab a dual-athlon. :-) They're the most fun.

LotionBoy

[Wh00pS]

i agree with every thing that you say.
there is only one downside to the thunderbird chips which is heat :(
heat means lots of cooling which therefore tends to mean noise.

[ppera2]

I like that heat in this cold days :D .

Happy New Year !

[Druce]

I have several puters, ranging from Intel Pentium 3 500mhz to an AMD XP 1800+, I have had problems in the past with AMD, I believe the Pentiums are a more stable platform, but I also dislike the way Intel does buisness and overprices their chips... I have had the 1800+ chip for about 4 months now, have ripped serveral tv show episodes and a few movies (hey i am new to this), My friend Xzquala rips on his laptop which is a P-3 700mhz, it usually takes him about 7 hours to do one hour long episode, it takes me about 3-4 hours... Definately it has to do with speed of the processor and your system, but as for now I would reccomend an AMD processor, they are alot more stable than they were a few years back, and they are definately speeding by intel at a blinding speed...

[Kedirekin]

I always like these AMD vs Intel discussions. You get all sorts of comments, ranging from the level-headed to the foaming zealots.

My 2¢ worth - I prefer Intel simply because they handle overheating better. I value stability and reliability over performance and price.

[yangus]

just to jump into defense for AMD, in one of tom's hardware guide article,http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011105/xp1900-06.html (here) , it clearly showed that the xp totally whipped p4's butt by a large margin! although i have to be fair and point out that they were using divx 4.02. in another test, http://www4.tomshardware.com/video/01q4/011207/divx411-07.html (here), where they used divx4.11, intel had a slight advantage, which is caused by the fact that this version of divx was optimized for intel platform. however notice that intel only beat amd by the slightest margine, so in concluse xp is the better platform since it's cheap and it can whip intel's butt anyday.

[Druce]

I do agree that the intel chips tend to run cooler than the AMD, but i have to say, I have an 1800+ XP and its heat sink is room temp (or a little cooler) right where the h/s and chip touch... I did however have a heat problem the first 24 or so hours i was using the chip (which is very odd)

[MaTTeR]

I run both and would have to go woth AMD for price and performance. You just can't beat the deal man. Check out www.pricewatch.com

IMO the stabilty issues people speak of is either old old news or simply a crappy mobo that the AMD was running on. Don't go with a cheap mobo, stick with a name brand like Tyan, Soyo or ASUS and you WILL see stability.

[Emp3r0r]

I agree, if setup with a good power supply(!) and motherboard, an AMD is a much better bargain. But when money is no issue go Intel.