It certainly will... Your 2.53 chip is on a 533Mhz front side bus, using old memory technology and an old core (I'm not banging your system, just comparing to the AthlonX2). I assume Glenn's comment about the single Pentium being faster than the X2 was referencing the newer Prescott cores, anyhow - not your Northwood.

The comparison Glenn made about DVD Encoding is a very broad, general recommendation on a very specific piece of software that does one specific thing in an entire workflow. I wouldn't have layed out a comparison chart like that with single P4 at the top - but I'm sure he saw a benchmark somewhere that showed performance for MainConcept with the chips ending up in that order.

I think this is a common misconception about chipsets.. If the processor in a computer can be illustrated as its 'brain', then the chipset would be the 'heart' (possibly a better illustration exists, like the 'nervous system' or whatever - but I'm not a doctor, so I'll stick with it). The chipset IS the motherboard. The chipset (northbridge and southbridge combined) determine everything from what type of processor, socket, memory, graphics, and PCI bus are available - because the chipset is what lets all of those things communicate.

Steps in choosing a motherboard:

1) Choose a CPU chip/socket type

2) Choose a chipset based on what your needs are

3) Choose a motherboard manufacturer

4) Look at the range of boards that your chosen manufacturer offers for the chipset you chose, then choose the board that includes/excludes extras that you need/don't need (IE: do I need with Wireless chip? Do I need these extra 2 EIDE ports with RAID? What DO I need on the board?)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying the fastest single-core Pentium available would outperform the Pentium D, which would outperform AMD's dual core offerings.
*Actually I think I'm wrong there. Sometimes the Pentium D outperforms a single-core processor in Mainconcept MPEG2 enconding benchmarks... and sometimes not. And sometimes AMD's dual core processors will outperform a single-core Pentium.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...tium_d-13.html

Xbitlab's review of the AMD64 3800+ dual core

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...4-fx57_10.html

I guess that makes everything more confusing... (sorry)
I wasn't expecting that benchmark to have different results like that, although it likely has to do with the particular version and settings they are using with the Mainconcept encoder. Those hardware sites don't seem to have posted their testing methodology, which weakens their results.

I don't think I made a recommendation there... just merely point out which processors are fastest at that task (MPEG2 encoding) with a particular encoder. I don't see how it was "broad", but anyways I don't think it makes sense to argue over semantics.

2- Anyways, to put this discussion back on track...
I think Liam's question has kind of been addressed?

Are you saying this because the fastest Pentium-D's are only 3.2Ghz and the fastest Prescott P4's are 3.6Ghz? ... Otherwise I'm not sure why you would say that considering they are essentially the same chip - just two cores in one.

Yes. The fastest Pentium right now is clocked at 3.8ghz, and there's two or more versions of it. It may be that the 5xx series Pentiums perform faster than the 6xx series Pentiums. Example: The 570 is faster than the 670 in some cases (probably due to lower cache latency).

Anyways, this stuff is so confusing now and I could very well be wrong.

I guess it's just generally confusing to say that, though, because obviously if you have two Pentium chips with practically the same core technology, the one with the higher clock is going to be faster. I think it's misleading in that sense to say that a single Prescott P4 is 'faster' than a Pentium-D for that reason.

Following up... "a single Prescott P4 is 'faster' than a Pentium-D" - The misleading part is that a single Prescott is faster... at a single task. If what you are doing has multiple threads that are processor intensive, the dual core is faster.

A prime example is computer games. Most have a single thread that is processor intensive. When run on a dual core or multiple CPU machine, the games are slower than a faster Prescott. A Northwood is actually faster clock-for-clock at games. Prescott only really shines because it does encode faster. A Prescott can be clocked faster too. (Don't say it... yes, it is hotter, but that is within design spec, so pointless.)

But, run a NLE on a dual core, where a render is a single task, and you have multiple renders queued to be processed, the dual core will finish much more quickly.

This is partially why Hyperthreading works well. Hyperthreading allows the processor to handle the transition from task to task better by more efficient queue management (if a process is waiting for a disk read, another process is better served with CPU time while the other is waiting).

My brother just finished putting together my Pentium D 830 system today and reported that so far it looks like a "honkin'" system. It can do things we haven't effectively been able to do on any single-processor computer, like capture directly from HDV source to the Canopus HQ format (which happens to be a particularly difficult task). Based on various reports I've heard from other people, I expect the Pentium D at 3.0 GHz to perform about the same as two 2.8 GHz Xeons, which is pretty impressive for a single processor which only cost about $330. I may find I'll want something better next year, but this sounds like it's going to suit me just fine for now.

Well this is my wish list
 

http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/...ntel+Dual+Core

Add in Vegas 6 Suite, Matrox 128pci-e and I think it'll do pretty good.

Please feel free to comment.

This will be my first Intel Machine ever, I blame AMD for the X2 being so freaking pricey.

Steven:

1- You should post a new thread unless your issue is kind of related to the topic of this one?

2- It may be cheaper to get a Dell Inspiron ?9100? and throw in your own upgrades (RAM, video card [although dell is reasonably priced here], hard drive, optical drive, etc.). There's various ways to get deals on a Dell (wait for the right combination of free shipping and good upgrades, call them up and see which rep gives you the best discount, coupons, deals not advertised on the website, etc.).

In your newegg.com wish list, I think you're missing some things like an optical drive. Also... with the money you are spending on some of the parts (case + sufficient power supply I believe can be bought for under $200), that machine will definitely be more expensive than the route above. The Dell is not necessarily a better machine (bloatware, possibly India-based tech support, proprietary parts).

3- There may be a better alternative to the Matrox card, although that depends on your needs.

I thought it would be clear that a single-core 5xx Pentium would be faster than a Pentium D at that particular task (mpeg2 encoding), implying that dual cores would otherwise be faster in most other video tasks. I think I miscommunicated there.

I thought you needed PC4200... You've got PC3200. The Pentium D I'm getting a friend to buy is PC4200 DDR2 533MHz.

[QUOTE=Glenn Chan]Steven:

2- It may be cheaper to get a Dell Inspiron ?9100? and throw in your own upgrades (RAM, video card [although dell is reasonably priced here], hard drive, optical drive, etc.).

In your newegg.com wish list, I think you're missing some things like an optical drive.

3- There may be a better alternative to the Matrox card, although that depends on your needs.


Hey Glenn,


I'm still working on pricing. My goal really is to get a dedicated video machine, possibly do my graphic work on it as well, probably my web stuff too, geeez, I just need another machine. (more than one)

Seriously though, I've been pricing for months. I stepped back from choosing the X2 chip, it's just too expensive. After reading, I'm going with my first ever Intel chip.

And BTW, for now I'm going to pull my dvd burner out of my current machine and put it in the new one, that'll get me by for now. I did a Dell pricing and it came out to be a couple of hundered dollars cheaper. I've spec researched most everything on my list, I'm still thinking.

About the Matrox card, I was going to go with the 128 bit paraphlia card, but I'm not planning on using my computer monitor for preview, I need to pick up a post monitor instead. I've just always heard that Matrox is solid good for video and doesn't come with all that crap that Nvidia and ATI put in their cards. i.e. bloat software, bloat hardware.

I'll probably order it all within the week.

As always, thanks for the help Glenn

If you are watching you pocketbook, the Parhelia is not the answer. It's comparatively expensive, and unless you are going to be taking advantage of the triple monitors, or getting the APVe with the HD WYSIWYG output, it's just not worth it. And you mentioned Vegas, and I don't think Matrox has the plugin for Vegas. They aren't listing it at least on their site.

What type of graphics work? What other software? I'm sure there's a better video solution.

Are these two Hyper Threading cores?

The Pentium D has hyperthreading turned off (for heat reasons I believe).

There's an extreme edition that does have hyperthreading I believe.

2- Nvidia/ATI should be fine for the video card, lots of people here are running them.

For video editing, usually the cheapest card with dual monitor support will do. Check whether the card does DVI+VGA or DVI+DVI or VGA+VGA output. Which you want depends on your monitor. DVI can usually but not always drive a VGA output with a DVI-VGA adapter.