dual core 32 bit vs. athlon 64bit? HELP at DVinfo.net

Dan Farzad · June 30th, 2005, 12:46 PM

guys i need a good reliable computer.
i have a choice to have a 64 bit athlon built for me with the specs i want
dual channel ddr ram and etc.
or go with dimension 9100 from Dell. it offers Dual core p. 4, 3.0ghz and with a raid 1 300gb Sata 1 drive i can have it for a bout $1350.
please help me choose:
my main concern is that with the new operating sys coming out and technology changing so rapidly i need a sys that will allow me to upgrade and wont be obsolete in a year or so....
thanx

Zack Birlew · June 30th, 2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Farzad

guys i need a good reliable computer.
i have a choice to have a 64 bit athlon built for me with the specs i want
dual channel ddr ram and etc.
or go with dimension 9100 from Dell. it offers Dual core p. 4, 3.0ghz and with a raid 1 300gb Sata 1 drive i can have it for a bout $1350.
please help me choose:
my main concern is that with the new operating sys coming out and technology changing so rapidly i need a sys that will allow me to upgrade and wont be obsolete in a year or so....
thanx

I think a dual core Athlon 64 X2 solution would be the best choice at this moment. They are performing much better than the Intel dual cores, plus they're 64-bit native. I'm currently on a single core and I don't experience slowdowns at all. =)

Brian Handler · June 30th, 2005, 02:30 PM

I continue to support my decision to buy a 64

Dan Farzad · June 30th, 2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Felis

I think a dual core Athlon 64 X2 solution would be the best choice at this moment. They are performing much better than the Intel dual cores, plus they're 64-bit native. I'm currently on a single core and I don't experience slowdowns at all. =)

I am not the biggest PC savy person and eventhough i am a very fast learner i have a bussiness to run and tons of other things to learn so i dont want to have to spend time to troubleshoot problems etc.
with that said i have the option to order a dell 9100 with dual core 3Ghz and 800 front bus or to have that amd 64 built for me with a 3500 chip.

or to keep my dell 8300 = 3 ghz HT 1 gig of ram and try to work with it and instead of giving this to my bros and buy a new one for me buy them a lower end dell to use for whatever.
with the new operating sys coming out from microsoft and all its a confusing time.

which one?...

Glenn Chan · June 30th, 2005, 05:23 PM

Dan, if your computer works fine for you right now I would stick with it.
A new computer will only be marginally faster and likely not worth the money.

I would wait a year or two and then upgrade, when computers get a lot faster.

2- Performance depends on the programs you run.
For DAW, servers, and games AMD is typically faster.
For video editing and encoding it goes back and forth.

3- What programs do you run on your computer?

Dan Farzad · June 30th, 2005, 06:50 PM

I want to do my after effect projects, some premier but i also am getting a FCP on G5 so that will be much less, and photoshop plus some photo editing softwares.

Kevin Shaw · June 30th, 2005, 11:32 PM

I'm pretty sure the Intel dual core processors are all 64-bit compatible, so that's not an issue. Plus it's still early to be thinking about using 64-bit Windows, since very little software or hardware is fully compatible yet. As far as I'm concerned Intel currently offers the best "bang for the buck" in terms of dual-core computing, as demonstrated by the cost of the Dell system you mentioned. And today's entry-level dual core computers offer better performance on a wide range of benchmarks than yesterday's high-end single core computers from either Intel or AMD, so keep that in mind when making your decision.

Steven Davis · July 18th, 2005, 08:37 AM

Well I'm currently facing this situation and have emailed Sony to ask them if Vegas 6 would really take advantage of the dual core. I'll post back if/when I get a response

Mirko Sohr · July 18th, 2005, 12:31 PM

i actually just looking around this forum to answer myself... but seems i cant
i didnt even dare to ask this question, bcause its been talked about many times

at the moment i am working on a P4 Northwood 2.2 + 1GB Ram (400MHz) - but i am concerning to upgrade my hardware in the next couple of weeks

i know my hardware is quite obsolete, but until now i didnt really need to upgrade, but now i like to edit some HDV (got a FX1) and the P4 now is almost lowest to just watch some m2t-files , i've tryed to edit some, but thats impossible

i am working mostely on adobe premiere in some cases i like to use the edius from canopus without any special video-acceleration-boards i also dont want to buy one - not yet

after looking around on the market here (i live in Taiwan) i found the price difference isn't that big between AMD <> Intel , i also know most of the software companies recommend Intel hardware, but some friends suggest me to go with AMD because of the 64Bit, Hypertransport and the integrated emory controller - but IMO - we'r the beta-testers for this new 64Bit OS and maybe not many software may run under 64Bit windows (i dont really know)

in my case i have to replace almost the whole system CPU / MB / Videocard so it doesnt make any different AMD or Intel
i am thinking about an P4 D 820 2.8G (3.0G isn't available yet :( ) or an Athlon 64 3200 - 3500 Single Core

is there anybody working with HDV (Premiere or Edius) on a AMD machine ?
i like to know about the performance and how big and useful is the Hyperthreading compare to CPU's without it and the difference of the cache ?
Intel 2x 1MB (Dual-Core) 1x 2MB Single Core / AMD 64 512kbit
i am just afraid to buy hardware in this speed-range and still get a sticky video-preview on HD-editig

alt least i have to say, i am a quite silent user in this forum, i like to read others experience more than asking my own questions - really nice forum

excuse my english, its really worse, but i still try my best :\

kindly regards
Mirko

Kevin Shaw · July 18th, 2005, 04:07 PM

Mirko: I have a 3.0 GHz Pentium D sitting at home just waiting for the motherboard to arrive to put it in, and I'm looking forward to editing HDV footage on the new system. By most accounts the Intel Pentium Ds are just about as fast as two single-core Xeon processors, which have proven to be effective for HDV work.

Van Lam · July 18th, 2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Davis

Well I'm currently facing this situation and have emailed Sony to ask them if Vegas 6 would really take advantage of the dual core. I'll post back if/when I get a response

Yes, Vegas 6 takes advantage of multiple processors.

June 30th, 2005, 12:46 PM	#1
Dan Farzad Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 107	dual core 32 bit vs. athlon 64bit? HELP guys i need a good reliable computer. i have a choice to have a 64 bit athlon built for me with the specs i want dual channel ddr ram and etc. or go with dimension 9100 from Dell. it offers Dual core p. 4, 3.0ghz and with a raid 1 300gb Sata 1 drive i can have it for a bout $1350. please help me choose: my main concern is that with the new operating sys coming out and technology changing so rapidly i need a sys that will allow me to upgrade and wont be obsolete in a year or so.... thanx

June 30th, 2005, 02:30 PM	#3
Brian Handler Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muncie Indiana Posts: 118	I continue to support my decision to buy a 64 __________________ Email me for projects in Ohio or Indiana. Lighting > Everything.

July 18th, 2005, 08:37 AM	#8
Steven Davis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 3,065	Well I'm currently facing this situation and have emailed Sony to ask them if Vegas 6 would really take advantage of the dual core. I'll post back if/when I get a response __________________ What happens if I push the 'Red' button?

July 18th, 2005, 12:31 PM	#9
Mirko Sohr New Boot Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Kaohsiung / Taiwan / R.O.C. Posts: 15	i got same question... i actually just looking around this forum to answer myself... but seems i cant i didnt even dare to ask this question, bcause its been talked about many times at the moment i am working on a P4 Northwood 2.2 + 1GB Ram (400MHz) - but i am concerning to upgrade my hardware in the next couple of weeks i know my hardware is quite obsolete, but until now i didnt really need to upgrade, but now i like to edit some HDV (got a FX1) and the P4 now is almost lowest to just watch some m2t-files , i've tryed to edit some, but thats impossible i am working mostely on adobe premiere in some cases i like to use the edius from canopus without any special video-acceleration-boards i also dont want to buy one - not yet after looking around on the market here (i live in Taiwan) i found the price difference isn't that big between AMD <> Intel , i also know most of the software companies recommend Intel hardware, but some friends suggest me to go with AMD because of the 64Bit, Hypertransport and the integrated emory controller - but IMO - we'r the beta-testers for this new 64Bit OS and maybe not many software may run under 64Bit windows (i dont really know) in my case i have to replace almost the whole system CPU / MB / Videocard so it doesnt make any different AMD or Intel i am thinking about an P4 D 820 2.8G (3.0G isn't available yet :( ) or an Athlon 64 3200 - 3500 Single Core is there anybody working with HDV (Premiere or Edius) on a AMD machine ? i like to know about the performance and how big and useful is the Hyperthreading compare to CPU's without it and the difference of the cache ? Intel 2x 1MB (Dual-Core) 1x 2MB Single Core / AMD 64 512kbit i am just afraid to buy hardware in this speed-range and still get a sticky video-preview on HD-editig alt least i have to say, i am a quite silent user in this forum, i like to read others experience more than asking my own questions - really nice forum excuse my english, its really worse, but i still try my best :\ kindly regards Mirko

June 30th, 2005, 05:23 PM	#5
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	Dan, if your computer works fine for you right now I would stick with it. A new computer will only be marginally faster and likely not worth the money. I would wait a year or two and then upgrade, when computers get a lot faster. 2- Performance depends on the programs you run. For DAW, servers, and games AMD is typically faster. For video editing and encoding it goes back and forth. 3- What programs do you run on your computer?

June 30th, 2005, 06:50 PM	#6
Dan Farzad Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 107	I want to do my after effect projects, some premier but i also am getting a FCP on G5 so that will be much less, and photoshop plus some photo editing softwares.

June 30th, 2005, 11:32 PM	#7
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	I'm pretty sure the Intel dual core processors are all 64-bit compatible, so that's not an issue. Plus it's still early to be thinking about using 64-bit Windows, since very little software or hardware is fully compatible yet. As far as I'm concerned Intel currently offers the best "bang for the buck" in terms of dual-core computing, as demonstrated by the cost of the Dell system you mentioned. And today's entry-level dual core computers offer better performance on a wide range of benchmarks than yesterday's high-end single core computers from either Intel or AMD, so keep that in mind when making your decision.

July 18th, 2005, 04:07 PM	#10
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Mirko: I have a 3.0 GHz Pentium D sitting at home just waiting for the motherboard to arrive to put it in, and I'm looking forward to editing HDV footage on the new system. By most accounts the Intel Pentium Ds are just about as fast as two single-core Xeon processors, which have proven to be effective for HDV work.