Intel P4 EM64T OR AMD64

[sahj]

I am building a new system and I need some advice because I am hesitating between
AMD64 Athlon and Intel P4 with EM64T.
Since I am new to AMD I have difficulties comparing the two options.
I use my PC for video editing (Avid XPress pro, Adobe Encore DVD) and I use software like photoshop, Illustrator, AutoCAD, and 3D viz.
Here is what I managed to select from intel's side of the story :
1-CPU : Intel P4 (640) 3.2GHz, LGA775, EM64T, 2M L2 cache : around 300$
2-Motherboard : Intel D925XECV2 : 190$
3-RAM : Simpletech DDR2 533MHz, 512MB (x2) : 105$x2=210$
4-VGA : ATI Radeon X600 Pro 256MB PCI Express : 130$
That's a total of 830$

What would be an equivalent configuration performance wise from the AMD perspective ?
And would it cost me less ??
Thanks for the help.

 

[7earitup]

For what you do, I believe the P4 you selected would be better than an AMD as for as video editing goes.

 

[zainali]

if ur getting a p4 , get a dell.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Welcome to AT.

I too think that P4 would be a better option for you. Video software is one of the places where Intel shines.

This is the first page of the Video testing Tom's hardware did on a multitude of processors. On the next few pages there are results that would be more relavant to you.

If you're doing significant 3d editing it Might be worth it to get a videocard that's stronger. I know A64 doesn't benefit much from expensive memory, but I'm not sure how it works on the Intel end. I would suspect getting something like giel ram and then using the money saved to get a card like a 6600gt would get you better results in the end.

 

[aatf510]

To answer your question.
For now, no one knows if EMT64 or AMD64 is better because I bet no one is really using them yet.
Windows XP-64 is not released yet.

 

[Vegito]

i have emt64 on windows 2003 server 64 bit..

but yeah, no one knows for sure.. i'm not running video editing

 

[kini62]

If you can wait Intel is supposed to be releasing their none hyper threading dual core processors soon. The cost of the 2.8 dual core is supposed to be about $280 or so.

Notice I used supposed. No guarantee on what "soon" is.

 

[sahj]

Thanks for the replies!
After I've read those articles and many others threads I decided to wait a few weeks. Although you guys have advised me to go towards the P4, and you were right because intel's processor is better than AMD's in many video and multimedia creation tasks. But the AMD64 Athlon 3500+ Winchester wins in many benchmarks over the P4 640. I compared those two processors because they are in the same price range that I am going to spend.
I also found out that DDR2 memory is not worth the upgrade.
So I am going to try the Athlon 3500+ Venice when it's available. I hope that it won't be too expensive and that it will be enough powerful for my demanding applications.

 

[qbek]

If you are going to wait for a couple of weeks you definately go with Venice instead of Winchester.

 

[shoRunner]

Originally posted by: toattett
To answer your question.
For now, no one knows if EMT64 or AMD64 is better because I bet no one is really using them yet.
Windows XP-64 is not released yet.

actually it is released, and has been for a couple of days. and the beta has been out for like a year. and yes people do know, in the beta amd64 was better, but that was the beta so it could have changed

 

[uOpt]

There is no reason to believe that the performance characteristic of EMT64 and AMD64 is any different than the two CPUs in 32 bit mode.

Writing from a 64-mode running AMD64 (Linux, also FreeBSD AMD64 floating around on the box to the right of me).

 

[suse920]

the p4

 

[aatf510]

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
There is no reason to believe that the performance characteristic of EMT64 and AMD64 is any different than the two CPUs in 32 bit mode.

Writing from a 64-mode running AMD64 (Linux, also FreeBSD AMD64 floating around on the box to the right of me).

but we can't be 100% sure yet. Afterall Intel and AMD implement their 64-bit extension a little bit differently. It's like AMD's SSE3 implementation being slower than Intel's even though they are the same instructions.

 

[Ntar]

For all video work always chose a P4 because they are built with certain extensions to make it faster in video work

 

[DaFinn]

I had a dual MP1800+ system which I used for video editing, switched to HT P4 system. All I can say is, P4 RULES IN ALL TASKS RELATED TO VIDEO EDITING. If video is your priority, go the P4 route. For allround performance, AMD seems to be the king.

If you are not in a hurry, wait for dual cores to hit the shelves. Personally this is my next upgrade.

 

[Zebo]

Don't be too hasty.

For non-overclocking and non gamer.

A64 4000 $500
ASUS nForce4 Ultra "A8N-E" $130
Corsair 1GB DC PC3200 value ram $80
Same video card you choose: $130

=$840

See these reviews, the AMD 4000 walks all over 660, let alone the 620 you're contemplating for the same price.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index.x?pg=1
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2353

personally, running stock, I'd just get a 3400 (shown in that same link) nothing can touch this CPU price/performance wise.
For $200
Asus 754 motherboard for $80
Ram above $80
Video card you choose but in AGP $130

total = $490

 

[Zebo]

RULES IN ALL TASKS RELATED TO VIDEO EDITING.

False. it's evenly split. Go read some reviews before spouting untruths.

Here's a good site.
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2353

 

[Jeff7181]

If video work is that important to you, definately wait for a dual core solution in your price range.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Ntar
For all video work always chose a P4 because they are built with certain extensions to make it faster in video work

Bye Bye, not anymore.

First, I guess you missed the lastest DC review here at anandtech where every single one of the "video work" was won by AMD's dual cores? Have a look if you dont believe me: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397

Second AMD chips and Intel chips have cross licence to copy each other. Every extention applicable AMD has, such as SSE2, SSE3 etc. Intel is missing some but thats another story altogether.

The only reason not to buy A64 right now is irrational hatred or clinical retardation.

Besides the benchmark, price superority, and overwhelming consensus by professional reveiwers; there's the A64's "snap" it's talked about by lots of reviewers: READ THIS
http://silentpcreview.com/article169-page2.html
Problem is there is no benchmark for it. It's just there!!! It's Huge!!!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Besides the benchmark, price superority, and overwhelming consensus by professional reveiwers; there's the A64's "snap" it's talked about by lots of reviewers: READ THIS
http://silentpcreview.com/article169-page2.html
Problem is there is no benchmark for it. It's just there!!! It's Huge!!!

Yep, that "snap" is your $500 AMD processor's core being cracked in two by the 3 pound heatsink trying to keep it cool

Now, seriously, the question was which 64-bit extension technology to use. Not whether A64 was "snappier" than P4, et al.

 

[Sunbird]

Zebo, only prob is, where can he go buy a dualcore A64 (say that out loud) ?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Sunbird
Zebo, only prob is, where can he go buy a dualcore A64 (say that out loud) ?

I got the same Q w/ Intel.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Zebo
Besides the benchmark, price superority, and overwhelming consensus by professional reveiwers; there's the A64's "snap" it's talked about by lots of reviewers: READ THIS
http://silentpcreview.com/article169-page2.html
Problem is there is no benchmark for it. It's just there!!! It's Huge!!!

Yep, that "snap" is your $500 AMD processor's core being cracked in two by the 3 pound heatsink trying to keep it cool

Now, seriously, the question was which 64-bit extension technology to use. Not whether A64 was "snappier" than P4, et al.

According to techreport the A64 X2 run signifigantly cooler use way less power (100W Less) than Intels DC. So I got the same Ans x 2 "Intel processor's core being cracked in two by the 6 pound heatsink trying to keep it cool.

64 bit extensions technology are identical between the two..

64-bit extensions ? Intel has dubbed its 64-bit extensions EM64T, for Extended Memory 64 Technology, but they are really just a functional clone of AMD's AMD64 extensions, first implemented in the Opteron processor a couple of years ago. With these extensions and the right software, including a 64-bit operating system and applications compiled to use 64-bit extensions, the Pentium 4 gains the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM (without any workarounds). AMD64 and EM64T also include some additional registers, or local slots on the chip for storing data, that should provide a bit of a performance boost in 64-bit applications. The move to 64-bit computing won't bring revolutionary new heights of CPU performance overnight, but it will prevent us all from bumping our heads on the 4GB memory address space limitation in the next few years.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=1

If you finish the review there, you'll find AMD 64 executes it better, cooler, cheaper.

 

[uOpt]

Originally posted by: toattett

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
There is no reason to believe that the performance characteristic of EMT64 and AMD64 is any different than the two CPUs in 32 bit mode.

Writing from a 64-mode running AMD64 (Linux, also FreeBSD AMD64 floating around on the box to the right of me).

but we can't be 100% sure yet. Afterall Intel and AMD implement their 64-bit extension a little bit differently. It's like AMD's SSE3 implementation being slower than Intel's even though they are the same instructions.

That is an entirely different situation. SSE1, 2, 3 are not "implemented" as such. They are instructions that merley expose instructions in the fundamental instruction set that the CPU uses, before the x86 "filter" comes on top.

Of course the outcome for AMD and Intel is different, Intel has the advantage of choosing what to expose and AMD might not have something fitting and most likely has to emulate, "assemble" quite a few of the SSE instructions from more building blocks than Intel.

The 64 bit x86 extensions are fundamentally the same instruction set as 32 bit x86. While there might be differences they will be smaller than with SSE.

My boss might buy me a Sager 9860 with EMT64, if so I could post more results.

 

[Zebo]

Here's a good review showing operation/comaprison under 64Bit OS vs. 32 bit OS both XP, If you're intersted in OS Choice. Shows competeing chips too from both vendors.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index.x?pg=4