Considering A64, convince me to stick with Intel

Originally posted by redpriest
lol. You need more than 768 MB of RAM. I'm talking about the subjective experience of your OS responsiveness slowing to a crawl, not actual performance. If you have 4 GB of RAM - your system is never going to 'slow to a crawl' providing you have things cached in RAM and not have to swap out to disk.
Click to expand...

WARNING - NEWBIE ALERT :rolleyes: :D 256 is fine for most tasks, 512 is plenty for nearly all and 1gb+ for the very very few.
 
The difference between 256 MB of RAM and 1024 MB is night and day. The differences decrease as the amount of memory goes up, but for workstation and server work (which I do) 4 GB is nice.

If you are doing "heavy multitasking" as many people in this thread have stated with billions of windows open, the amount of memory you have is a must.
 
Originally posted by redpriest
The difference between 256 MB of RAM and 1024 MB is night and day. The differences decrease as the amount of memory goes up, but for workstation and server work (which I do) 4 GB is nice.

If you are doing "heavy multitasking" as many people in this thread have stated with billions of windows open, the amount of memory you have is a must.
Click to expand...

I agree I can't even think of using any less than 1GB of ram. :) lots of ram = must :)
 
Originally posted by pakotlar
A p4 @ 3.6ghz matches an fx-51 or at the least a 3400+. I'm happy that, for 180 dollars, I get the performance of the latest from AMD.
Click to expand...

Without proof that statement means nothing.
 
Originally posted by batotman
WARNING - NEWBIE ALERT :rolleyes: :D 256 is fine for most tasks, 512 is plenty for nearly all and 1gb+ for the very very few.
Click to expand...

WARNING - NEWBIE ALERT - The fact that Windows never says that you're using 100% of your RAM on a 256MB system doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit from more.

Install 1GB of RAM and completely disable the HDD swap file -- you'll never want to use anything less again.
 
Originally posted by DaveX
Without proof that statement means nothing.
Click to expand...

lol k: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=1225414&STARTPAGE=1&zb=691950

can your superior intellect derive anything from these numbers? :p

also: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=nw34&page=3

add 200 mhz to clock speed, 228 to fsb (1028) and you have a Intel processor that outpaces the fx-51. albeit a 3.6ghz p4 should really be competing with a 2.4ghz (3700+) A64. A 3.6ghz p4 @ 1028 fsb beats an fx-51 in pretty much every situation. @ 2.4ghz I'm guessing they would be about even, with p4 winning in worstation benches and fx-53 winning in games.
 
But wait, you won't compare to an overclocked FX-51 or 3400+? The norm seems to be 2.4-2.5 GHz on air cooling, so how does that change your statement?
 
Originally posted by xonik
But wait, you won't compare to an overclocked FX-51 or 3400+? The norm seems to be 2.4-2.5 GHz on air cooling, so how does that change your statement?
Click to expand...

Can we compare price as well?
 
No need to, there's no contest. The top end processors always cost more than they're worth, be it from Intel or AMD.
 
I pity and at the same time envy people who buy the top ends. Hell, I've even got the money to get either, but I just don't have the balls to part with a grand just for a CPU.
 
Originally posted by xonik
No need to, there's no contest. The top end processors always cost more than they're worth, be it from Intel or AMD.
Click to expand...

good point, fx-51's do outprice the 2.8c by 4x. and I know that a 2.4ghz fx-51 outpaces a 3.6ghz p4 (not sure about 2.4ghz a64 754 pin tho). also, quite frankly you're pulling these OC numbers out of your ass. The fx/a64 line are horrible overclockers on "average". Hell, getting to 2.8ghz on VAPO is almost impossible.

edit: yeah, a64's overclock so well! http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=724749 so on average, I don't think even 2.4 is going to fly stable.
 
You really think those numbers aren't right? Visit Strictly Intel or AMDZone.com. Those people actually have FX-51s, as few FX-51 owners as there are, and I've never seen an overclock to lower than 2.4 GHz. So basically, a 2.4 GHz average is quite realistic, despite a serious lack of data points from which to determine an average.

And the FX-51 has been overclocked to nearly 3.1 GHz on a few occasions, for all that it's worth to you.

Nonetheless, I agree that the Athlon 64s are all pretty bad overclockers, but that's not what we were discussing.
 
Originally posted by xonik
You really think those numbers aren't right? Visit Strictly Intel or AMDZone.com. Those people actually have FX-51s, as few FX-51 owners as there are, and I've never seen an overclock to lower than 2.4 GHz. So basically, a 2.4 GHz average is quite realistic, despite a serious lack of data points from which to determine an average.

And the FX-51 has been overclocked to nearly 3.1 GHz on a few occasions, for all that it's worth to you.

Nonetheless, I agree that the Athlon 64s are all pretty bad overclockers, but that's not what we were discussing.
Click to expand...

no it certainly was not.
 
FOr those arguements that are based on....

The P4 is at 3.6Ghz.... is equal performance to the 2.2Ghz FX...

ok so what?

It doesnet matter, because they both are avaible... in fact a P4 is cheaper.... so... i dun understand... its not like you are running the p4 @ 2.2Ghz...
 
patkolar what about the numerous people getting their A64 3000+ @ 2.3-2.5gHz using the Shuttle AN50R? That's using air and low-end water (modded waterblocks to fit Socket 754 that don't have very good contact with the core). I think you're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about. That would easily outpace a P4 @ 3.6gHz
 
Okay WHO here HAS used and PERSONALLY tested both an A64 and a P4C?

Well I have.

The P4C is faster in everything I use it in, EVEN with the A64 using 64bit software and shit.

Read my comparison a few pages back. Until someone ELSE can give me compariative numbers, I stand by my observations.

PS I never got my A64 past 2.15 ghz STABLE Prime 95 24 hr stable.

Just FYI. But I was using a gigabyte K8T800 mobo...

DaveX you have NO idea what YOU are talking about.

My 2.8C @ 3.23 ghz easily outpaces the A64 [email protected] ghz I had in everything I use it for, even when comparing 32bit vs 64bit. Just FYI, the place where the A64 DOES beat the P4C is games...but seriously...when playing something at 200 fps, and the A64 gets like 10-15 fps more are you gonna notice?
 
Originally posted by Daemos
My 2.8C @ 3.23 ghz easily outpaces the A64 [email protected] ghz I had in everything I use it for, even when comparing 32bit vs 64bit. Just FYI, the place where the A64 DOES beat the P4C is games...but seriously...when playing something at 200 fps, and the A64 gets like 10-15 fps more are you gonna notice?
Click to expand...

Well then according to you, we won't even notice that the P4 encodes video/audio faster. We could just go to the kitchen and make ourselves a sandwich and come back to find it finished.

Not everybody here does exactly what you do or use their computer for what you do. So until then, don't force your results on us.
 
You're telling me you can tell the diffrence of 10 fps in games at 200fps but you can't tell 1-2 hours DIFFRENCE in encoding times (for what I use it for?)

I'm sorry to say the Intel whoops for now, and for the forseeable future.

Don't get me wrong I'm a HUGE amd fanboy, Amd will always be me, that's why I got the Athlon 64 in the first place. But after using a P4C and the lack of 64-bit software, and the P4 being faster in 99% of what I use it for (I play alot of games too) I upgrade once every year or so. So by the time there is some 64-bit software out, I will have upgraded again, and the A64s of today will be worthless :)
 
Originally posted by DaveX
patkolar what about the numerous people getting their A64 3000+ @ 2.3-2.5gHz using the Shuttle AN50R? That's using air and low-end water (modded waterblocks to fit Socket 754 that don't have very good contact with the core). I think you're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about. That would easily outpace a P4 @ 3.6gHz
Click to expand...


sigh, look at the links that I put up. A 2.3 ghz 3000+ gets smoked by my 2.8 @ 3.6 in cases like superpi, Primordia, PcMark. It loses in ut 2k3 (by 9.5%) and 3dmark 03 CPU (9.5%). The 3200+ is a different story as it has an extra 512k cache. I think a 2.3ghz 1mb a64 will most likely equal a 3.6ghz p4 in many cases, lose in some, and win in some (cough ut2k3). And unless you oc the hell out of that an50r it sucks in many cases. I'll post a link of it sucking in a sec. For a really good overclocker I guess the an50r is great because of pci/agp lock and just general high overclockability. I don't know, I've never used one.

edit: not as bad as I thought, but nforce3 chipset has some flaws as seen here: http://www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rlid=71172

and here:http://www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rlid=71172

But I wasn't comparing an OVERCLOCKED amd64 to a 3.6ghz p4 w/1000mhz fsb. I was just trying to show that I'm HAPPY with my p4 and NOT going to switch, because @ the speeds it's running at, even the fx-51 is slower, even in games (except ut, by about 5 - 10%). Overclocks are NEVER guaranteed, so do you think it would make sense for me to switch to AMD 64, and then HOPE that I get over 2.3ghz? I know that some a64's don't go that high. It just wouldn't make sense to me. Ok? thanks.
 
look at how many people in the [H] Forums have 3.4-3.6+ Ghz P4's and a lot of them with air cooling. Simple stuff any noob can do it. (and lots of them are)

Now the A64's are having trouble with 10% OC's... since they are locked. The FX's are doing much better... (cherry picked) plus not locked, but they COST a lot more. So its not as appealing as P4's systems.

Which you can buy a $160 CPU with a $100 mobo and almost any ram will do. (pairs) A lot of people have even kept their old DDR333 and have nice OC'd systems.

My 3.6 is more like a 3.8Ghz with the ultra high FSB and super bandwidth. It performs better than the 3.2 Extreme Edition in almost every bench I've ever seen.

So the choice is easy for me. $160-180 (2.4 - 2.8) CPU with the performance of $720 processor (FX or EE)

if those 3.2EE or 3.4 EE's ever come down to about $300 I might get one. The 3.2 has come down from $999 to $720 so maybe there's hope.
 
Originally posted by DaveX
Well then according to you, we won't even notice that the P4 encodes video/audio faster. We could just go to the kitchen and make ourselves a sandwich and come back to find it finished.

Not everybody here does exactly what you do or use their computer for what you do. So until then, don't force your results on us.
Click to expand...

Not to be pro-AMD, but P4's only encode video faster when the quality is at a level where raw memory bandwidth is more important than processing power. Up the quality of the capture/encoding and the P4 and A64 look alot more equalized. Maybe if I was doing VCD's I'd worry about getting a P4 for its blazing speed, but for HD capture/encoding I'd use either one.
 
lol...You guys would probably flame me but I'd just go make myself a sandwich and watch something on TV while it's encoding. Not trying to tell you guys to do the same but it suites me well.
 
Originally posted by DaveX
lol...You guys would probably flame me but I'd just go make myself a sandwich and watch something on TV while it's encoding. Not trying to tell you guys to do the same but it suites me well.
Click to expand...


hehe, Amen! Seriously guys, when we step back from it all, we're comparing processors that are so fucking fast that this level of performance was unimaginable 2 years ago. I mean COMEON! 3.6ghz NORTHWOOD (which kicks serious ass) to a 2.2ghz Amd 64 (which is incredible tech with fantastic IPC). Neither of these processors are weak, nor are they not sufficient for doing anything that we do with them. I mean, ok, so the fx51 is 5 fps faster in Ut2003 botmatch. We're STILL dealing with 95fps :D. Whose gonna notice the diff? Ok so the a64 is 5sec slower than that northwood in media encoding... Whose going to notice in real life? I mean we're still dealing with incredibly fast processing times! Like DaveX said, why don't we kick back and enjoy what we have instead of bitching?
 
A64s are lousy overclockers.

Abit KV8 boards OC by default to 207FSB ( or 2074Mhz ) and people are complaining that most won't even boot since the cpu can't handle 2070Mhz.

A bios upgrade is waited...
 
You know, it surprises me, with all the money people spend buying multiple CPUs that they only keep for a couple months anyway until the next "300a" comes out, that you simply don't keep the CPU as an encoding box.

Who needs hyperthreading or dual cpus when you can have BOTH of them? Video encode away on PC#1 and then play games on PC#2 while downloading that shareware on PC#3. Folding on all 7. Once you go multiple computer, multiple screen, you can't go back to just 1.
 
Originally posted by pakotlar
hehe, Amen! Seriously guys, when we step back from it all, we're comparing processors that are so fucking fast that this level of performance was unimaginable 2 years ago. I mean COMEON! 3.6ghz NORTHWOOD (which kicks serious ass) to a 2.2ghz Amd 64 (which is incredible tech with fantastic IPC). Neither of these processors are weak, nor are they not sufficient for doing anything that we do with them. I mean, ok, so the fx51 is 5 fps faster in Ut2003 botmatch. We're STILL dealing with 95fps :D. Whose gonna notice the diff? Ok so the a64 is 5sec slower than that northwood in media encoding... Whose going to notice in real life? I mean we're still dealing with incredibly fast processing times! Like DaveX said, why don't we kick back and enjoy what we have instead of bitching?
Click to expand...

I won't notice 5 fps, but 5 seconds...you have never compared have you?

Hiqual encode with Divx 5.1.1 with HuffyYUV and proper filters, the diffrence is like 1 hour ATleast between my old A64 [email protected] ghz using 64-bit build stuff on a 64 bit linux vs my current 2.8C @3.23 ghz using a 32bit linux (same build) I won't notice 5 fps, but I will notice 1 hour diffrence. And it's also nice to know I can still play games while encoding without taking as *big* of a performance hit vs the A64 :)
 
Uhmmm.. Divx 5.1.1 is running like 24/7 on an old Pentium 3 Tualitin (no videocard) here. Thats all it does, sort of like other peoples Seti or folding machines.

I don't think I'd use an AMD for Divx, but for a main gaming rig sure.
 
Originally posted by batotman
Hmmmm I use Dr. Divx to encode and it takes like 15-20 minutes max.
Click to expand...

They must be lowquality encodes :)

I'm a perfectionist :) I'm talking about cleaning up the source, making it look better.

DR Divx isn't anything :)

I'm also talking about something that is really only 30-45 min of film.
 
Originally posted by savantu
A64s are lousy overclockers.

Abit KV8 boards OC by default to 207FSB ( or 2074Mhz ) and people are complaining that most won't even boot since the cpu can't handle 2070Mhz.

A bios upgrade is waited...
Click to expand...

That is why there is the Shuttle AN50R...
Some A64 oc's here
More surely to come since many of those who have oc'd their A64 haven't even posted yet.
 
Hehe, I'm a perfectionist too. I accept no less than 5 passes using the Slowest level of coding on Divx 5.1.1 pro.

If I have the time, I will do 8 passes. On a 720x480 2 to 3 hour video, it can take days before the final product is finished.

I bet I can't tell the difference between a 5 and 8 pass, but somehow it just makes me feel better :)
 
Originally posted by Daemos
They must be lowquality encodes :)

I'm a perfectionist :) I'm talking about cleaning up the source, making it look better.

DR Divx isn't anything :)

I'm also talking about something that is really only 30-45 min of film.
Click to expand...

This is of course after the DVD has been ripped to my hdd. Look real good to me.
 
Pirates...I am a good citizen and go out to buy my DVDs...hahaha who am I kidding :)
 
I do own the dvd's, well the ripped ones...lol. I simply put them on computer for organization and don't like dealing with discs.
 
Alright this Dr. Divx is crashing on 2nd pass and I need another solution. Any ideas?
 
Originally posted by batotman
Alright this Dr. Divx is crashing on 2nd pass and I need another solution. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Do what i did. Get a DVD burner!!! .. Just kidding.

I havnt messed with divx in a while . Cept for using my Winfast DVD TV card that encodes straight to Divx on the fly for my TV shows i never get to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top