Operton Vs. A64 AMD chip ?

[HardwareAddicted]

I have the need to buy or build a new PC at work for DVD editing ...

We'll be the getting Adobe Video Collection, and I want it to run smooth.

I'll be going with raid 0 for the project drive ... no brainer there.
Same for 2GB of ram ... easy decision.

But B4 I can shop for price, I need to decide on what CPU and MB for same.

They both clock up to high speeds ... 1mb of l2 cache would be nice, but I'm not sure if I'll need it for this app.

What do you guys think, and why ?

Thx !!

Edit: Opteron vs. A64 , not AMD XP chip ... my bad

 

[charloscarlies]

Have you decided on a single vs. dual setup? The Opteron will be faster in well...everything, but it's justifying the extra cost that's so tough. For the money you can't beat a dual mobile Barton setup. Personally I would grab a couple of Mobile 2400+ 35 watters and crank them up to 2.2 ghz on ~1.6volts or so. If money is not as important...by all means go with the Opteron. I personally can't justify spending 3 or 4 times as much for minimal performance increases.

 

[HardwareAddicted]

Dual would be nice, but I think I'll have to sell this hard just to get a strong single for this.
So my thinking was to get a nice A64 or Opteron, and 2gb ram, with big fast drives.(3)

But just for the sake of arguement, what MB would be best .. ? Tyan ?

Oh, and I still am not sure which video card to get either ...
I'm still in the rough draft mode here ...

Both nVidia and ATI have thier top cards listed on Adobe website as supported.

Any bench's that use Adobe would be a great link if ya got one.

Anyway, thx for the input ..

Keep'm coming !!

 

[wvl38]

I will tell you that many think different . Opteron all the way . A K8V 940 , Opteron 248 1 or 2 gigs of Twin-X , fx 5900 XT , 2 fast hard drives . No need to over clock , dual core opteron is coming some time soon . Sorry but no AXP can crunch as well . Just look at the road map....

 

[klah]

The 2d Content Creation portion of Sysmark2004 should give you a pretty good idea of how these processors compare. It does the following:

"The user uses Premiere 6.5 to create a movie from several raw input movie cuts and sound cuts and starts exporting it. While waiting on this operation, the user imports the rendered image into Photoshop 7.01, modifies it and saves the results. Once the movie is assembled, the user edits it and creates special effects using After Effects 5.5"

Here are the results (The FX53 is equivalent to the Opteron-150): http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_a64-3800/6b.shtml

The A-XP is obviously a poor performer in this suite. If you want to go with AMD the Opteron-150 is the best choice, but you could always go with a 3.4c or 3.4E and get similar performance if you want to save $200.

 

[HardwareAddicted]

Opps ...

I was wondering about a Opteron Vs. the A64 chip ... my mistake.

Some of the A64's have 1mb of cache, I'm just not sure these apps will take advatage of this extra cache.

And if so, which one ?

 

[klah]

From the graph you can see the ($615)Opteron-150 slightly outperforms the ($640)A64-3800+ in these Adobe apps, while the ($350)Opteron-148 slightly outperforms the ($285)A64-3400+[Newcastle].

The Newcastle(512k) generally outperforms the Clawhammer(1MB) at the same product rating.

Here is an Adobe Premiere benchmark: IMG0007894.gif.
The 3400+ Newcastle(2.4GHz) is 7% faster than the 3400+ Clawhammer(2.2GHz).
The 3200+ Newcastle(2.2GHz) is 8% faster than the 3200+ Clawhammer(2.0GHz).

Maybe there is an app where the extra cache makes up for the 200MHz deficit, but it's not Premiere.



The P4 is still the best choice for this appication.

 

[Scopolamine]

Originally posted by: klah
From the graph you can see the ($615)Opteron-150 slightly outperforms the ($640)A64-3800+ in these Adobe apps, while the ($350)Opteron-148 slightly outperforms the ($285)A64-3400+[Newcastle].

The Newcastle(512k) generally outperforms the Clawhammer(1MB) at the same product rating.

Here is an Adobe Premiere benchmark: IMG0007894.gif.
The 3400+ Newcastle(2.4GHz) is 7% faster than the 3400+ Clawhammer(2.2GHz).
The 3200+ Newcastle(2.2GHz) is 8% faster than the 3200+ Clawhammer(2.0GHz).

Maybe there is an app where the extra cache makes up for the 200MHz deficit, but it's not Premiere.

That's because at the same "product rating", the 3400+ newcastle has 0.2 Ghz advantage over the 3400+ clawhammer. If you overclock the clawhammer to the same speed (2.2 Ghz), you'll se that the clawhammer outperforms the newcastle by a small margin. The extra 512K cache does matter at the same clock speed.

I've also noticed that the newcastle overclocks better than the clawhammer even when they're the same stepping (CG). I can't objectively confirm this, though.