Ironically, flying in the face of conventional wisdom, the Athlon 64 makes a better processor for adobe premier-however, I dont know of any benchmarks that have been performed on the Pentium D or X2.
Well for DivX encoding the P4 is tops but most people consider xVid to offer superior quality and encoding with this is much closer. xVid is slower to encode but many say it's comparable with 1pass to DivX with 2 passes which certainly evens things out. Most of the time MP3 encoding is also very important as it's done in tendem with video encoding, this tends to depend on the program used but IIRC it's very close between A64 vs P4. The P4 gets a nice boost from HT (HyperThread) for encoding, it's obviously not as good as true dual-core but comes cheap and doesn't involve serious single-thread compromises like Intel's dual-core or the price tag of AMD's dual-core. May I take it we can discount dual-CPU mobos such as the expensive Opteron and Xeon? As for Adobe Premier I think you'll find it's generally faster on A64 IIRC. Considering price I'd give the advantage to AMD with the super o/c'able and inexpensive Venice A64_3000+ & 3200+ which often way exceed 64_3800+ speed (2.8ghz vs 2.4ghz). Check through reviews for benchies, I know the TR benchmark with Adobe Premier amongst others. Athlon64_4000+ & Athlon64-FX55: START = http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/athlon64-fx55/index.x?pg=1 PREMIER = http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/athlon64-fx55/index.x?pg=9 P4 570'J' 3.8ghz: START = http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/pentium4-570j/index.x?pg=1 PREMIER = http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/pentium4-570j/index.x?pg=9 Pentium-M on the desktop via DFI 855GME-MGF: START = http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/index.x?pg=1 PREMIER = http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/index.x?pg=11 ATHLON64 X2 (DUAL-CORE): START = http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410 PREMIER = http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=5
Well if you've been following the live stress tests on THG you would have seen that the Pentuim D's out preform the AMDX2's easily in video encoding here also because the Pentium D has HT its has (2real cores split with HT= 4 cores ) That gives loads of room to multitask too
THG does not equal scientific fact.... i would take their reviews/benches with a pinch of salt as its widely known that they are intel fanboys down there....well make that a bucket of salt actually...
Yup its only the EE's, I dont realy know why Intel didn't put HT on normal Pentium D's seems abit strange frank...
Also if you look there, you'll notice first that the Intel system has required 4 reboots so far, and the AMD system none. Also, you'll notice that the AMD system has performed over twice as well in the WinRAR compression test. Now, having said that, the Intel system is ahead of the AMD system a fair bit in the MP3 encoding test, and has absolutely wiped the floor with the AMD system in the DivX test. But then again, in AMD's home court of gaming, the AMD system outperforms the Intel by a fairly decent amount in the Far Cry test. So without trying to include any fanboy remarks, both systems have their advantages. Interestingly, the AMD system seriously outperforms the Intel in the WinRAR compression test, a CPU-centered test. And the AMD system performs much better than the Intel system in the Far Cry test (big surprise there...). However, the Intel system outperforms the AMD system in the MP3 encoding test, and completely obliterates it in the DivX compression test. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Intel system required restarting 4 times, whereas the AMD system did it all in one go. Really it just comes down to what you plan to do with this system, what programs you'll be using (and if they support HyperThreading), and probably more than anything else: personal preference
- thats the amount of reboots they have actually posted on the website, but there was a discussion on another forums (xtreme iirc) of how they had to swap out a psu that blew or maybe even change the mobo? - very true about the fanboy remarks...
It's the differentiation between P4D and P4D-EE - 2 physical or 4 logical, so they can charge waaaay more for the P4DEEs even though there's less than 5% difference in a clock for clock situation under normal circumstances. Hyperthreading is negated by the use of a second core, and having 4 logical cores on a system that has ever so barely moved from soley single threaded applications doesnt seem worth it at all. If anything Intel should (in preferential order) a) add more FSB b) add more clock c) add more L2 cache d) add more L3 cache.
I know what you mean £740 who would pay that much but still the P4D's do look nice i might a 3Ghz one frank...
Intel's Dual Core stress test benchmarks are also rediculous in and of themselves-they ran four extremely intensive applications simultaneously, obviously giving Intel many advantages due to its other two logical CPUs. In other tests where only one application is being run, you'll see that AMD absolutely wipes the floor with Intel. Now, lets think for a second. What user would actually run DivX video encoding, WinRAR, FarCry, and Rip CDs all at the same time? Odds are you'll be running two applications, and not four. In addition, when Toms shut of hyperthreading, AMD took the lead in EVERYTHING. You wont be able to find an 840 EE for anything less than $999. Their 820s and 830s are comperably much slower CPUs without hyperthreading if you go multi-application happy, but otherwise offer similar levels of performance. Unless you plan on running two high intensity applications at the same time, like burning DVDs and running Doom 3, or Encoding video and ripping a CD, there will be no benefit to your getting dual core. Finally, Anandtech has proven that single core AMD solutions beat single core Intel's most comperable CPUs, IE 3800+ beats the 3.8 Ghz Pentium 4. If your primary purpose is Adobe Premier, AMD is the way to go. Period.
Checking benchmarks at 'more impartial' websites shows that dual-core P4-D_EE with HT (so 4 logical) is rarely of any benefit in the real world and having the cache divided between 2 cores has some detrimental effect on over all perf. For a single-core HT is worth the ocassional minor perf off-set but with true dual-core there's simply no need for HT ... yet. Until more programs become multi-threaded there's really no point in HT with dual-core CPUs. Good example HERE!
