AMD vs. INTEL in premiere / encore

[fsstrike]

I am a heavy gamer, and I am getting a new system within 2/3 months. Though, I will also be doing heavy Video Editing on Adobe Premiere, Encore etc... How much better are INTELS at that type of stuff over AMD? I don't want to sacrafice FPS for work, but I also dont want to sacrifice work for FPS. Are the Intels THAT much better, how would a 3500+ @ 2.4Ghz 939 stand up againt an Intel 3.4C @ 3.8?

 

[SickBeast]

Yes, the Intels are THAT much better when it comes to encoding. I would estimate what the computer will be spending more clock cycles doing: encoding or gaming. Then I would decide what to get based on that.

EDIT: I'm not sure of the stock clockspeed of the 3500+ so I can't really comment on your proposition. If both chips were at stock speeds (a more fair comparison) it would be very close overall. The Intel would be 20% faster in encoding (estimate) whereas the AMD would be 15% faster in gaming (estimate).

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

not to let my amd fanboyism get too overpowering,however, most people use xvid these days to encode. Xvid is more optimized for AMD cores,and in my experience with a few P4 and AMDs, the AMD computers always encoded faster than 3ghz P4s that should have easily beaten them. this is just my experience at least with encoding DVDs.

overall video editing though is a different story, i'm sure the P4s huge FSB does wonders for on the fly rendering.

 

[Cogman]

from what Ive read Intel encodes faster (Yes All my systems are AMD..) Amd is better for games. But it is to the point where the FPS killer is the GPU and not the CPU.

 

[Mik3y]

i'm gonna be doing some heavy video editing this summer, and the only compter i can do it on is my super powerful POS laptop. my friends and i are going to make a 2hr or so movie later on for fun and my laptop will be used for mobility and etc. it's gonna sux. i really want a new comp. btw, how will a duel barton work against a p4 at encoding and video editing?

 

[caz67]

Go Intel for your encoding needs.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
i'm gonna be doing some heavy video editing this summer, and the only compter i can do it on is my super powerful POS laptop. my friends and i are going to make a 2hr or so movie later on for fun and my laptop will be used for mobility and etc. it's gonna sux. i really want a new comp. btw, how will a duel barton work against a p4 at encoding and video editing?

Dueling Bartons... hehe... they'll cancel eachother out


Seriously though... if you use an encoding application that's able to multi-thread the dual bartons will most likely be faster, cause I don't think Pentium 4's are 100% faster when encoding video... or are they? I doubt it... but I don't feel like looking for benchmarks to find out for sure.

Few more things to consider...

Will an Athlon-64 give you THAT much better performance in games that you're willing to sacrifice a little encoding speed whenver you're encoding video?

How much can you afford? Maybe 30 minutes longer encoding, and 75 frames per second rather than 85 frames per second isn't a bad trade off if you can spend $160 on a CPU/mobo combo versus $250.

It's pretty well known that AMD (especially Athlon-64) processors "feel" quicker doing simple Windows tasks and office type work. If your computer is used 20% for gaming, 20% for encoding, and 60% doing simple Windows tasks and office work... is it worth it to you to spend more to have a Pentium 4 that's faster at 20% of the stuff you do on it, or faster at 80% of the stuff you do on it? And is it worth spending more money on an Athlon-64 that can search a 1000 page Word document for a word and replace it with another word in 30 seconds rather than 35 seconds that a Barton could do it in at half the cost?

*EDIT* Also consider an upgrade path. Socket 478 is on it's way out... socket A is pretty much obsolete, other than that there's rumors that socket A will continue as a value line. However, socket 754 is going to be around for a while. Might be worth it to pick up a good socket 754 motherboard, buy a processor that's decent at encoding, gaming, and Windows tasks and leave the possibility open for a future CPU only upgrade that'll just increase the performance even more.

 

[DrMindbender]

If AMD is faster for rendering say transitions and effects than Intel, and if someone was doing projects on their own and not making mass copies, wouldn't that save the most time? I've done a little DV editing here and there and rendering is a biatch.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Cogman
from what Ive read Intel encodes faster (Yes All my systems are AMD..) Amd is better for games. But it is to the point where the FPS killer is the GPU and not the CPU.

AMD is not better for Quake engine based games though

hehe

 

[Xenon14]

All I can say is my 2500+ is maaad slow. A 1 minute video encoded in windos media format at double pass takes 4 minutes to encode. The Athlon 64's are much faster than XP's and approach Intel's speeds, however, you need all the speed you can get when you're dealing with encoding videos. As someone said earlier, is it worth it for you to spend extra $100+ for 10 more FPS.... the longer your videos are or the more videos you make, the more you should consider an Intel solution over an A64.

 

[Vette73]

I would USUALLY say go intel, but the 1mb l2 cache 939 athlons seem to hold up very well on average.


Check out anantechs review they do everything from games to encoding. and like someone else said Xvid is made more for AMD then intel. So WHEN win64 comes out and more software ,akers support AMD a AthlonFX/64 system can only get better while the P4 setup is as good as it gets now.


Also if you look at the socket 939 review here at anandtech AMD and intel pretty much run neck and neck depdning on how much you spend.

So Intel is still a LITTLE faster, but not enough to warrent them over AMD if you do more then just specific encoding and compare $$$

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

i managed to dig up a link, i know its not much...

i've tried stating in these forums before that Xvid is optimized for AMD and i've been called out on it. besides my own personal experience encoding on various machines,i never had any actual benchmarks. well above you can see that if you intend to use Xvid,which most do, AMDs ARE faster,but nothing huge. but this also shouldn't overshadows the P4s ability to outperforme in Dvix and other various formats.

but does it really matter since Xvid is widely accepted and used the most?

i guess people need to change their encoding ideals, its a product of software,not hardware.

 

[Lawranch]

I would wait the 2 months then look at what is available. Intel platforms will be totally different then. Who knows how they will perform.

 

[imported_zenwhen]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
[L=i managed to dig up a link]
but does it really matter since Xvid is widely accepted and used the most?

No person doing serious video work winds up putting said video into a lossy compressed format such as Xvid.

We are not talking about which processor will let you get the newest screen-recorded, crappy quality, pirated movie out to your buddies.

If the guy is using premier, he likely plans to do something worthwhile with it, and put it in a a worthwhile format, such as MPEG2.

Intel still stomps AMD in MPEG2 encoding.

MPEG2 is the most widely used format for people with the money to pay for their movies, and their Pentium 4's.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I would probably spring for an Athlon 64. They aren't nearly as bad as they used to be. Very competitive in encoding nowadays. It can only go uphill from there once 64bit is optimized like crazy.

The main thing is the encoding is much more heavily dependant on pure clock speed thats why intels normally win.

Also odds are that you probably wont make it to 3.8 with a 3.2C. You might as well get a 2.8C because they are better OCers than the 3.2. Also depending on how much you play games, the prescott (put on flame suit because now the flames are gonna start coming at me) is very good at encoding. It can only get better once things are optimized for SSE3. Its pretty much personal preference and what your going to do the most of.

-Kevin

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

SSE3 is at most a 5% increase.. AMD64 was something like 15%?

Anyway, i still vote Intel for encoding !

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: zenwhen

No person doing serious video work winds up putting said video into a lossy compressed format such as Xvid.

We are not talking about which processor will let you get the newest screen-recorded, crappy quality, pirated movie out to your buddies.

If the guy is using premier, he likely plans to do something worthwhile with it, and put it in a a worthwhile format, such as MPEG2.

Intel still stomps AMD in MPEG2 encoding.

MPEG2 is the most widely used format for people with the money to pay for their movies, and their Pentium 4's.

you asume a lot,don't be so god damn obnoxious. you obviously haven't seen a xvid video when properly configured,it has its place just like mpegII. personally,i don't have 200gigs to spare for my home videos so i'll have to settle for a high bitrate xvid array of files. and if he WAS serious enough to need everything in a near lossless enviroment he sure as hell wouldn't be asking questions in here.

 

[imported_chrisbtx]

Even if you're using the system a little more for encoding than you are for gaming, I recommend the Athlon. It will take a bit longer to encode (in my experience not a really big difference... I have Intel and AMD btw), but patience is requred for encoding anyways. When it comes to gaming you want it running as quickly and smoothly as possible at all times IMHO.

 

[eastley]

Are all you guys serious? Now come on I worked with both AMD's and Intel CPU's for 2 years making 3D animations, Movies and video editing, and encoding alot of movies. I highly recommned a Athlon but not a A64, try a Athlon XP 3200+ they are quick with windows apps, very quick with games (especially if you have a nice nforce2 board with it) and they encode just about eh same as the latest P4 CPU's. with the money you save doing that you can then go buy a nice expensive Nvidia Graphics card. Nvidia graphic cards seem to handly alot more codecs better especially xvid. And P4's dont kill AMD in MPEG-2 encoding there about the same.

 

[Gamingphreek]

What are you talking about!!!!!!! The athlon XP's are HORRIBLE at video encoding in every way shape and form. They dont even come close to touching the P$. The A64 is the one who did this. If youre going to be encoding, do not undert anycircumstances get an Athlon XP.

-Kevin

 

[Nemesis2038]

I do a lot of video encoding and personally if its done by the time I wake up in the morning I am happy. Most encoding I do takes several hours. 6-14 hours on average. Were talking large files.

The P4 hands down will trump and Athlon XP.
The P4 will beat an Athlon 64 if your running a 32 bit version of video encoding.

However a Athlon 64 will punch, kick, and mame a P4 when running 64bit beta video encoding. Almost makes me wonder if the hard drive becomes the bottleneck.

If I had to guess I would say What the Athlon 64 can do in a hour the P4 can do in 40 mins the Opteron in 64bit mode can do in 25 mins.

 

[imported_zenwhen]

Nemesis2083, back your claims about 64-bit encoding with some proof.

 

[aka1nas]

There's a lot of FUD in this thread. A P4 Northwood will outperform a Barton AthlonXP by enough that you might want to consider the P4 if you are regularly doing video encoding. However, the Athlon64 is much more competitve and performs very closely to a Northwood(usually slightly slower still) and is cheaper at a given performance level. Also, the P4 is only so much faster on rendering with codecs that have been optimized for SSE2. I would theorize that Xvid maybe isn't and thus Athlons perform so well compared to P4s on it.

Finally, I would suggest the Athlon64 as the best all-around platform to get. Keep in mind, to get this great performance out of the P4, you will want a dual channel RAM configuration to give it maximum bandwith. Right now, RAM will cost you as much as the board or possibly even the CPU as you will probably want at least 1GB for a machine doing heavy video encoding. The Athlon64 will also perform better in most games and it has a better upgrade path.

 

[alexruiz]

Why do we keep posting misinformation?

First, you have to answer the question of what application you are going to run (you already have), then, check what versionh you will be running..... The P4 will be unbeatable in the application in question, if ALL of the next happens:

- Application is very well optimized for SSE2
- Application is very well optimized for hyperthreading
- Codec (and/or container) is very well optimized for SSE2 / HT
- Decoder (if transcoding) is very well optimized for SSE2 / HT

In addition to those, in order to generate the big margin of victory seen in some programs, it is needed that those softwares don't recognize all the features of the AMD CPUs. I am pretty sure everyone remembers the WME ver 7 issue where SSE was not properly set in the Athlon XP.

If the application and/or codec is not very well optimized, the K7 will win (yes, it says K7. The K8 will win by a bigger margin.

As examples, take these:

AMD wins
Codecs: xVID
Consumer programs: Ulead VideoStudio 4,5,6 and 7. Roxio videowave 4,5,6 and 7. Pinnacle studio 7 and older.
Mid range video edition: Adobe Premiere 6.5 and older. Ulead MediaStudio Pro 5, 6, 6.5 and 7
MPEG2 Encoders: Canopus procoder, Ligos, bbMPEG.
DVD transcoding: DVD2AVI, VirtualDubMod
Freeware: VirtualDub.
Streaming: Quicktime.

Intel wins
Codecs: DivX 5.1.1
Consumer programs: Pinnacle Studio 9 and 8.
Mid range video edition: Adobe Premiere 7 and newer
MPEG2 encoders: TMPGEnc, mainconcept
DVD transcoding: XMPEG, FlaskMPEG
Streaming: Windows media 9.

Unknown
Codecs: On2 VP6, Nero digital
Consumer programs: Nero vision express.
MPEG2 encoders: Cinema craft encoder
DVD transcoding: Nero recode, DVD shrink
Streaming: Real video.


As you can see, it is basically a wash. For any application you give where the P4 wins, there will one where the K8 wins. Remember also that the setting used in some sites (retarded by the way) are not realistic.... Who converts a DivX resizing at fastest quality without sound? Those figures of 100 fps are cr@p. Quality is key. I am yet to break the realtime barrier encoding DivX and half real time encoding DVD compliant MPEG2......

Proffesional video applications are usually NOT heavily optimized for SSE2, but rather optimized in features. So, the fastest CPU for video encoding will be the one that fits your application best. Pick your application based on that.

Same goes for audio. A true professional application (cakewalk) runs in a celeron 300. This means it is not optimized for SSE2 / HT, so you know who wins.

Feel free to comment.


Alex

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: zenwhen
Nemesis2083, back your claims about 64-bit encoding with some proof.

I think he has a newer build than mine....

I saw a increase of 15%-20% average in frame rate for video encoding using a 32 bits application in the winXP 64 bits beta for AMD64...... Depends also in the programs. TMPGEnc goes only 7-8%, but Ulead video studio 5 went almost 35% faster.