ppera2
6th January 2004, 16:52
I had by me brandnew Abit Intel 865 Dual Channel MB with HT (IC7), 2.4 GHz P4 on testing. It was good chance to make compare with my AMD system.
Motherboard is over 2 years old - Epox 8KHA+, VIA KT 266A based. It's probably best MB with that chipset. RAM is 'old slow' DDR 2100, but very good (Winbond), and works reliable even at 160 MHz with turbo (most agressive) settings (CL 2 etc...). CPU is XP 1700, slightly overclocked to 1740 MHz, it reports as XP 2100.
So, we have:
1: AMD XP 2100, 512 MB at 144 MHz with fastest settings, 2 years old MB
2: Intel P4 2400 HT, Dual channel 2x256 MB at 200 MHz, but slow timings (CL 3), new, and one of fastest - Abit MB
I made some encodings on both machine with same software and same settings - CCE 2.66, DivX 5.05 and Xvid 1, plus Lame ABR MP3 compression.
In all video encodings Intel was aprox. 15-20% faster. I consider that it's very bad for Intel. It should be more faster because of much bigger mem. bandwith (by Sandra it's over 4.3 GB/sec even with that poor RAM). DivX 5.05 should be even more faster because of good (made by Intel itself) SSE2 optimizations...
MP3 compression was real surprise - AMD was faster for some 30%.
Just to add that AMD system has 2 HD, for source and target, but it shouldn't have much speed benefit. MP3 encoding is made on single partition.
Motherboard is over 2 years old - Epox 8KHA+, VIA KT 266A based. It's probably best MB with that chipset. RAM is 'old slow' DDR 2100, but very good (Winbond), and works reliable even at 160 MHz with turbo (most agressive) settings (CL 2 etc...). CPU is XP 1700, slightly overclocked to 1740 MHz, it reports as XP 2100.
So, we have:
1: AMD XP 2100, 512 MB at 144 MHz with fastest settings, 2 years old MB
2: Intel P4 2400 HT, Dual channel 2x256 MB at 200 MHz, but slow timings (CL 3), new, and one of fastest - Abit MB
I made some encodings on both machine with same software and same settings - CCE 2.66, DivX 5.05 and Xvid 1, plus Lame ABR MP3 compression.
In all video encodings Intel was aprox. 15-20% faster. I consider that it's very bad for Intel. It should be more faster because of much bigger mem. bandwith (by Sandra it's over 4.3 GB/sec even with that poor RAM). DivX 5.05 should be even more faster because of good (made by Intel itself) SSE2 optimizations...
MP3 compression was real surprise - AMD was faster for some 30%.
Just to add that AMD system has 2 HD, for source and target, but it shouldn't have much speed benefit. MP3 encoding is made on single partition.