Ok, so here's the big question, and I'd love to know if anyone can give some informed advice (no speculation, please):

My primary uses -
- Video editing
- sound editing, 5.1 mixing
- graphics design
- music synthesis (Gigasampler, etc.)
- DVD encoding (MPEG2, etc.)

AMD64, or P4 3.0 GHz HT?

I currently have P4 1.9 GHz non-HT and am fed up with the bad performance on multimedia applications.

What do you think?

http://anandtech.com and tomshardware.com have benchmarks on these processors (and one or both of these sites have benchmarks for the upcoming Pentium! The P4EE or something).

Usually video editing and DVD encoding require the most power, the other tasks are easily handled by even a wimpy computer. For graphics design it might be different depending on how large your files are, but you mostly need RAM for Photoshop. For video editing, it seems that the Pentium is best for most NLEs. Vegas doesn't handle dual processors well, so you want the fastest processor you can get (it used to be the Pentium, but maybe the Athlon is faster?). Premiere Pro is optimized for Pentium processors. Recommended Avid setups all use Pentiums.

For DVD encoding, Pentium processors are much much faster than AMD processors. It seems that it is still the case. see http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1856&p=5 and scroll to the bottom. 64-bit computing has no advantages right now. If you are going to upgrade in 2 years then you should be able to see how 64-bit computing turns out and whether or not it has improvements you need.

Thanks. The "content creation" benchmarks are surprising. Intel still has a clear lead there.

Yep go P4. I based my decision on building a Pentium rig from seeing an overwealming advantage in almost all benchmarks vs the Athlon, including the 64. I've LONG been an Athlon man....as I'll still keep it for a secondary back-up computer and store all my graphical projects on it.

Any idea when the EE will be coming out? I'm guessing there'll be a large price drom in P4 3.0's and 3.2's, which is what I'm shooting for.

Interestingly, I usually only upgrade in 2x clock speed increments or more. I don't understand why in over two years Intel has still not doubled clock speed. Moore's law (no relation to me I'm afraid) seems to be slipping.

Yes.
Pentium 4 - 2.8G (3.0/3.2G way to expensive and not worth the diference).
Asus P4C800-E Motherboard.
2x256Mb RAM minimum, in double data rate configuration.
2 WD Raptor 10Krpm SATA HDDs in a RAID 0 configuration (for OS and intensive disk access tasks as DVD files building)
Quality (Antec, Enermax, etc) Power Supply.

You won't regret it.

Best regards,
Arnaldo Paixão

In general, Intel Pentium processors are much faster than AMDs when it comes to CPU intensive processes, such as video editing and 2d/3d animation.

Also, I believe Intel is going to lower the prices of the 3.0 and 3.2 GHz P4 processors this month... I am looking for the news link now.

Oh please post that link if you can find it. I have been waiting to buy a 3.2 GHz until the prices drop.

It's also my understanding that the AMD won't perform at its best since Windows is still a 32 bit system. I use only AMDs in my machines except for my editing machine, which is a P4 2.8C. It is considerably faster then the equivalent AMD IMHO.

I suspect the 64 bit AMD would do better in a 64 bit OS.

'Course, you could always move to a MAC G5 :-)

"'Course, you could always move to a MAC G5 :-)"

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that even a dual 2.0 GHz machine will outperform a hyperthreading 3.2 GHz machine. I have never gotten any good data to compare either - anyone have a good link for G5 vs. P4 HT comparisons?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274637,00.asp has some benchmarks, as does other sites like the battlefront forum at arstechnica.com.

The G5 pretty much runs neck to neck with a dual Xeon. Compared to the top of the line Pentium, the G5 should around the same speed (faster at Photoshop). The Pcmag benchmarks on the G4 versus dual Xeons are a bit erroneous because they use rarely-used filters. For Photoshop, both are probably too fast for you to care if there's a difference.

Performance really depends on the software though. The G5 should be fast enough for you that you don't really need to care.

I want to know about comparisons between Dual G5 and a single hyperhtreading P4 3.2.

Ok I'm going to assume the software choices you make, since it's hard to say which is faster unless you do.

Video editing:
Final Cut Pro on the Mac. The G5 does at least 4 layers of DV in real-time. Apple was demoing the G5 doing 6 streams of uncompressed (using special software and an XSERV RAID). Final Cut Pro 5 will probably optimize for the G5 processor and increase that.

On the PC: Avid Xpress Pro does 5. (software only I believe on a dual xeon)
Premiere does a lot with a real-time card. Without one I believe it doesn't do much.
Vegas - no idea about how many streams of real-time it does
Edition - Divide CPU by 600mhz to get the number of streams. (software only) A decent 3d video card will add even more streams.

I'm sure there's an Avid benchmark comparing the G5 to a pentium somewhere, but I would be using Final Cut Pro.

After Effects: There are benchmarks around. I forget the results.

Sound editing:
All platforms are probably too fast to care about. It depends on the work you do.

Graphics design:
If working with small files (i.e. <10MB) then all platforms are likely too fast to care about.
The dual2.0mhz G5 is faster than dual Xeons on the most used filters. On less used filters the Xeons are faster. Overall the G5 has a slight edge. Dual Xeons are faster than the best Pentium.
see the Battlefront forum at arstechnica.com, they have some good benchmarks.

Music synthesis- no idea

DVD encoding- hard to compare across platforms. On the PC side, stay away from AMD as they are slower at this than a Pentium/dual Xeons.

The G5 should be fast at doing this- it's much better than the dual1.42 G4.

The G5 is not exactly the best bang for the buck in terms of speed. However, some non-performance issues may change your mind (Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro 2, etc.).

"The G5 is not exactly the best bang for the buck in terms of speed. However, some non-performance issues may change your mind (Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro 2, etc.)."

That seems to be the eternal conclusion for Macs, since they first appeared. I think I'm gonna stick with Intel for now. Maybe if I get a laptop I'll get a G4 or G5 if they ever make them.

Thanks for the info!

"For DVD encoding, Pentium processors are much much faster than AMD processors. It seems that it is still the case."

That may have been the case for Athlons, but it's a new ballgame with the AMD64/Opterons.

Don't believe every benchmark you read. There are benchmarks, and there are benchmarks. XbitLabs, http:/www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx51_12.html and PCWorld , http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,5,00.asp both have benchmark tests which put the AMD on top in common video editing tasks like Premiere, Photoshop, and Procoder.

The truth is that for games, the AMD64 is generally on top, and the for common video applications, the AMD64 and 3.2 P4 are pretty close.

Does the AMD64 have hyperthreading like the Intel? I think that's a key benefit- I can't stand doing a long task on the PC and not being able to do anything else.

"Does the AMD64 have hyperthreading like the Intel? "

No, it doesn't.

Best regards,
Arnaldo

So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs?

On single processor computers yes.

Go to Tom's Hardware site and you'll find a lot of info on this subject.

If you want/can spend some more cash, there is one fine system you can assemble --> ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard, (875 chipset supporting 2 Xeon processors)

Best regards,
Arnaldo

I've been checking all the hardware guides. I haven't found any yet that specifically benchmark the P4 in multi-tasking environments versus other chips.

With Intel's recent price slash though I'm definitely going with the P4, probably the 3.2. The Extreme Edition sounds great but I don't know that it'll be so necessary to justify its cost.

On some tasks (involving both virtual processors) hyperthreading decreases performance but generally hyperthreading increases performance. Programs can be rewritten to take advantage of hyperthreading. Some programs are also written with optimizations for Pentium processors- Premiere Pro is supposed to be by Adobe's claims.

Yeah, that's basically multithreading, which all programs should do anyway, IMO. It's a great way to program, though a little tricky sometimes.

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs? -->>>

YES and NO:

Yes hyperthreading makes the p4 more efficent than it was. This is do to the way the chip is designed and how many clock cycles it wastes, they needed a way for the chip to keep busy while it was wating on I/O from the Ram. The reason AMD hasn't done HT is that thier chip is so much more efficiant it doesn't need it (the reason why a 2.0ghz chip keeps up with the 3.2 HT P4), by the time its needed amd will have thier multi core chip on the market (2 cpus one chip)

> So is the P4 going to by definition be much faster than the AMD64 for running multiple programs?

Hyperthreading typically adds -5 to +10% additional speed to the P4. Yes, in some cases, hyperthreading can make the P4 run some programs slower. Benchmark tests take hyperthreading into account.

The benchmarks say that for most tests, AMD64's without hyperthreading are faster than P4's with hyperthreading.

Of course, when Win XP 64 bits is available, you can upgrade the operating system with an AMD64, you're out of luck with a P4.

There will be advantages to a 64 bit XP even if you don't have a 64 bit version of an application program. Currently, XP and 2K can only use 4 gigs of memory, 2 gigs are reserved for the operating system, and application programs use the other 2 gigs. In 64 bit XP, each application can run in it's own 4 gig virtual space so if you have enough memory, you can run multiple copies of memory hog programs without using your hard drive for swapfiles.

Longhorn will have some 64 bit flavors, but it is still some years away.

The 2 GB application limitation is a serious hindrance for desktop rendering and compositing work.

What about all those benchmarks from Toms Hardware and other sources showing the P4 WAY ahead of the Athlon 64 and even ahead of the Athlon 64 FX for "media creation" - photoshop, MPEG encoding, MP3, etc.

Precisely my point...

Best regards,
Arnaldo

Well yeah, but no one seems to agree on this. :)

Hi Peter.

Another way to see the issue of preforming multiple tasks in paralel is using more than one computer. In many situations, with the price of a top of the line dual processor machine riged with lots of ram and bla bla bla, you can assemble 2 good or 1 very good and 1 so so machines.

Weddings is my trade and using multiple computers, allows me not to slowdown my workflow:

One is capturing, another is processing the files for a DVD and I'm editing on the third one (for example).

Just some thoughts...

Take care,
Arnaldo

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : What about all those benchmarks from Toms Hardware and other sources showing the P4 WAY ahead of the Athlon 64 and even ahead of the Athlon 64 FX for "media creation" - photoshop, MPEG encoding, MP3, etc. -->>>

go read some other sites like anandtech.com toms tends to be biased tords whoever is paying his bills. p4 does beat the a64 in SOME tests but not by much, overall worst case p4 and a64 are so close it doesn't matter. best case a64 is faster.

Now if it was me buying today I would either wait if I had something to get me by for another 8-12mo (which I am my 2100 athlon will be fine for the short term) or buy a p4 2.53 rig. Then upgrade a year or so from now when win 64 is out and its clear weather a64 is the way to go or not, and also proubly getting in the sub 200 range for the chip.

Even at anandtech.com, the P4 3.2 non-EE comes ahead of the Athlon 64 and 64FX for most content creation benchmarks, which is what I'm primarily interested in and what I imagine most people here will be interested in.

Plus, is there any guarantee Intel's future 64-bit chips will be compatible with the Athlon 64? Must Intel adopt AMD's 64-bit architecture? If not, how do we know that in two years the Athlon 64 won't be all but useless?

There are benchmarks, and then there are benchmarks.

Xbit Labs http:/www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx51_12.html and PC World http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,5,00.asp

both have benchmark tests which put the AMD64 on top in common video editing tasks like Premiere, Photoshop, and Procoder. For games, the AMD64 is the clear winner. For video editing, right now it looks pretty even.

But the fact is, every review I've seen gives the nod to AMD over the current 3.2 P4, and the EE P4 is still a paper launch for maybe another month or so. And by the time it does launch, AMD will be shipping faster models.

> Plus, is there any guarantee Intel's future 64-bit chips will be compatible with the Athlon 64? Must Intel adopt AMD's 64-bit architecture?

Intel has 2 problems with 64 bits, AMD and Intel! If Intel makes a 32/64 bit chip like the AMD64, prospective Itanium buyers are going to wonder why they are paying thousands extra for 64 bit capability and almost no software.

Microsoft has already spent a couple of years and many millions developing an AMD64 compatible version Windows. There are hundreds of sofware packages that have been reprogrammed for the AMD64 by major software companies. AMD64 boards and chips are available now. Intel doesn't have 64 bit motherboards or chips right now. Most industry insiders think Microsoft can't possibly want to support 2 similar consumer 64 bit versions and AMD is in the drivers seat.

>If not, how do we know that in two years the Athlon 64 won't be all but useless?
The AMD64 will be able to run all of today's 32 bit software and all the 64 bit software that comes out in the next 2 years. The P4 will only be able to run today's 32 bit software. What do you think is going to be more useless in 2 years???

Well, these benchmarks are only testing the 64FX, which is $300 more than the P4 3.2, so that's out of the question. Also even then the benchmarks show the P4 ahead most of the time. Your XBitLabs article, for example, shows the P4 ahead almost all the time! Only in a couple of instances, like Premier, was the Athlon slightly ahead.

Here's what I'm worried about, ok? We spent many many years with 32-bit Intel chips and no 32-bit software to run them. Of course Intel was making them anyway and we had no choice. But now there is a choice, and since the Athlon doesn't hyperthread, meaning I'd have to get two PCs to really do stuff I want to do simultaneously, I'm probably going to buy Intel. Then I'll give it a couple of years for the 64-bit standard to settle down. But I"ve gotten screwed too often as an "early adopter" to go into this now head first.

> Only in a couple of instances, like Premier, was the Athlon slightly ahead.

Like I said, there are benchmarks, and there are benchmarks. You can have 10 benchmarks that measure essentially the same thing or give 90% emphasis to only 1 aspect where a CPU excels, and 10% to another aspect where it does poorly. A comment was made that the P4 was the superior performer for video editing. Premiere is probably the most popular "power" video editing program.

>But now there is a choice, and since the Athlon doesn't hyperthread, meaning I'd have to get two PCs to really do stuff I want to do simultaneously, I'm probably going to buy Intel.

If hyperthreading is your deciding reason for choosing a computer, you should probably do some more reseach on hyperthreading. Hyperthreading does NOT let you process 2 instructions simultaneously because there is still only 1 CPU. Rather simplistically, hyperthreading speeds up the switching between different processing threads, but they are still processed sequentially and only 1 thread is executed at the same time. If you want to run 2 programs with essentially no slowdown in either program, you want to get a dual processor computer, dual Xeons, dual Opterons, dual G5's, etc.

I understand exactly what hyperthreading does, and it is my primary reason for wanting the P4. I was going to go with dual CPU, but it's way too expensive, and when I'm running multiple apps, like video encoding while checking e-mail, the HT chip is clearly going to do a much better job of task switching than the A64.

In my current desktop, my computer slows down quite a bit when I'm printing. If I get a P4 with hyperthreading, will that improve the speed of opening web pages, working on excel files, etc., while I'm also printing?

Hyperthreading does NOT let you process 2 instructions simultaneously because there is still only 1 CPU.

Well actually that's kind of what hyperthreading does. Sometimes you can't process 2 instructions at once, leading to a speed reduction. See this article: http://arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hyperthreading/hyperthreading-1.html

What you really need to know is this: On average, hyperthreading improves performance when there are 2 threads running.

And on average, in Windows, chances are multiple threads will be running. In fact it's virtually guaranteed, even if your individual software application is not multi-threaded.