Need Top Expert Advice on processors ....

[nexus_06]

Hi guys this is my first post here, and I think I have a little problem on my hands that has me confused. (sorry but my English is not very good)

I´ve looked for days now on varios forums and reviews on this area, but I´m Still puzzled.

Ok the story is (often told) I was going to buy a new computer and I needed a new faster computer for 3 main uses

1) I am a young Architect and needed a faster pc for 3d designing and rendering on architectual programs like archicad and architectural desktop.

2) I like to encode svcd with dvd2svcd and needed a faster computer to make the cce work faster

3) backing up my DVD´s with a new dvdrw I am planning to buy.

So I went down to my pc shop to get a new Intel P4 2.6Ghz cpu with an ITEL motherboard with 512MB DDR and an optorite dvdrw.

But he told me not to spend so much money on the intel and that I should get an AMD Athlon xp 2800+ cpu with an ASUS A78X-X Mother board becaus It was a lot cheaper and equally fast, and some people even thought It was a better procesor than the P4.

I´ve never had and AMD processor before only Intels because of the problems that amd had with overheating and unstable processor.

So I don´t know what to do.
Should I get the P4 2.6ghz or the athlonxp 2800+ with the asus board.

- Which one is better for my purposes and why ??

- Which one is faster and stable and why ??

- Is this still true with the overheating, that really scares me because I usually never shutdown my pc (got cable modem).

please help me choose P4 2.6Ghz vs Athlonxp 2800

[wmansir]

You should check out the thread in the General forum called "building a dedicated encoding computer" or something like that, it is a recent thread. It covers the basics on AMD vs P4 for encoding.

I wouldn't worry about the AMD being unstable or running too hot. A couple of generations ago they ran very hot (Palomino), but were never really unstable. But the last couple of generations (Thoroughbred, Barton) have been much better with heat. Besides running hot (but stable) the bad rep that AMD got was because some idiots decided to see what would happen if you took the heatsinks of WHILE THEY WERE RUNNING. It was sensationalized, but meaningless. AMD also had problems with some bad chipsets a few years back, but they have been ironed out too.

At this point I would only worry about price and performance. Check out some reviews for the AMD XP 2800+, which will probably include the P4 2.6 for comparison. Be aware that there are few different kinds of P4 2.6s, depending on the front side bus speed (400, 533, 800). FSB really effects encoding speed so there is a big difference between them. So know which one you are looking at.

Here are a couple of good 2800+ reviews that include encoding (and Anand includes some 3dstudio benches) however notice they are either using the P4 2.6 400 and/or 533. So if your looking at the P4 2.6 800 you should find some reviews on that so you can see the diffences.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021001/xp_2800-16.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=1

[nexus_06]

thanks, I´ve been asking this question for a week now in diferent forums and I´ve really learnt a lot, seems to me generally everyone is recomending me to try out the amd seems it has a better performance in regards to the price it has.

I´ve learn´t a lot more from these forums than reading diferent articles in the web

thnaks.

[nFury8]

@nexus_06

There is one factor that persists in every PC enthusiast forums, discussions and hardware reviews: and that is the Price-Performance Ratio of a CPU. I'm sure you heard of it before since you already did some research. And the consensus is AMD's Athlon has always been the sweet deal, clock for clock against Intel's comparative offering. This is not some fanboy rant, I had 2 Intel Pentium rigs before I built my current AMD Athlon box. My point is that, at a certain period when making decisions on purchase options, the Price-Performance Ratio factor does have a major impact in coming to a conclusion. Getting the best bang for your buck. And just because it's cheap certainly doesn't mean it's lousy, in the case of the Athlons. And so:

- Which one is better for my purposes and why ??
Get hold of as much benchmarks as you can from hardware review sites for the 2 specific CPU's you're considering. Just remember that both CPU's have different design approach. The Athlon with a short pipeline and lower clock rating, but more 'efficient' in the sense that it gets more work done per clock cycle; and Intel's P4 with its very long pipeline but blazingly high clock ratings which would seem to offset the risks of branch mispredictions. And also there is the issue of software optimization, SSE, SSE2 etc. which gives the P4 a slight edge when using apps tuned to it.

- Which one is faster and stable and why ??
Again, refer to reviews and benchmarks. The stable issue shouldn't really be any serious concern by now. Both models you are considering are relatively stable.

- Is this still true with the overheating, that really scares me because I usually never shutdown my pc (got cable modem).
Unless you overclock like mad and with total disregard, overheating should not concern you if you have proper cooling. For the past year or so my PC has been on for days on end, mostly encoding video. And it never fried my 3 year-old Athlon.:)

Draw your own conclusion and do it with conviction. Don't get swallowed by some 'fanboy' hysterics from both sides. :)

[Solo]

There are always two camps when it comes to CPU's. Those who love Intel/hate AMD and those that love AMD/hate Intel. You'll also notice that they tend to stick with one or the other and NEVER cross the line.

In the early days Intel was more stable/compatible than the AMD's. BUT that is no longer true. I for one have had both the AMD Barton 2800+ and Pentium 4 2.4C recently and I can tell you that I had NO problems with the AMD setup whereas with the new 875 Intel setup I've had endless problems. The AMD Athlons and Bartons are excellent products. The fact that they can perform as well as a Pentium at a lower clock speed proves this. The new Athlon 64's even more so.

The Barton in particular does not get as hot as the Athlon as it has a bigger level 2 cache as it's area on the CPU is bigger allowing a better cooling area. The new Athlon 64's run even cooler than the Pentiums now. You cannot beat the AMD when it comes to price and performance. I strongly recommend it as well.

However the 2.6 Pentium 800 FSB does encode faster than the 2800+ AMD in the benchmarks that I have seen, but not by that much.

And also there is the issue of software optimization, SSE, SSE2 etc. which gives the P4 a slight edge when using apps tuned to it. The new Athlon 64 does support these extentions now as well - but I've also read that it has not been implimented very well though.

[BioZ]

If you are an architect needing good CAD performance, and want good encoding times, there is one cool option for you: Dual CPU's:

I'm not too sure, but most CAD and rendering programs can use 2 CPU's fairly well, and so can MPEGFlask (I think).

For a bit more than the price of a P4 2.6Ghz, you should be able to pick up an Athlon MP board and two Athlon MP 2200+'s. Some sources say that Athlon XP's work just as well. If that is the case, you can certainly get two XP 2500+.

If nothing else, the encoding speed (at least in Flask) should be faster than a P4 3Ghz by quite a long way.

[ppera2]

By me, motherboard is most important part of computer. It has big influence on speed, ond even more on stability. Actually, most of stability issues is because of MB or power supply, not CPU. Memory is also very problematic - it can produce very strange behavior with stability, so avoid non-brand chips - modul's brand is not so relevant.