• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Video capture & editing... Which Cpu?

B

bob

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 13, 2002
Messages
2,971
On a budget that squeaks, which would be the obvious performer in video production work?
(no flaming or bitching, please)

Ive always been told "AMD AMD AMD!!!" for heavy duty work like games and video stuff. But I see a lot of "professional" people using Intel processors, and ive been told intels have some multimedia exensions which are better for video. If this is true or not, I have no way of knowing.

Now, I have posted in here once concerning Amds and intels, but Now I dont even need a gaming computer at all. Im going off to school within the year, I have about 2300$ in the bank for a car and a computer. Ive figured 600$ for a computer is enough (no monitor, keyboard, mouse, CDROM, or anything like that).

I have a 600Mhz celeron laptop for regular stuff (inner net, word processing, dos games...). Its great for that. somewhat low power usage, stable at 170F, never any weirdo errors... But Ive always had a desktop computer with my CD burner, 3 hard drives, DVD drive, and every PCI/ISA slot full of stuff I use.

The way I feel about modern intels is the same about AMDs. a 2Ghz "barton" 2700+ should be x many times faster than my 500Mhz K7 athlon. A 3Ghz P4, should be X number of times faster than a 1Ghz P3. and with my experiances with the older hardware, its already biased my opinion on intels.

Now, For years after AMD finnaly started making "real" processors, I have been disgusted with Intels performace with big stuff (Video & audio editing). Celerons (mine is a coppermine) are laughably slow for video and audio work. My K7-500 was acceptable, considering it was made in 1998.

But All I do is edit upwards of a 20 hour long WAV file at one time (painfully slow on any old hardware), and I usually have to pop in a movie in my VCR, and wait while it even loads and does conversions into nero wave editor format.

To save myself a few pages of typing, I skip to my point. Intel or Amd for budget video?
 
The answer to this question lies in what software your using. For every Intel optimized big name software there are options that are not optimized for anything(AMD will be faster) or optimized for AMD arch. Its all subjective, find out what software you'll be using, what codecs for encoding possibly, transcoders, etc and buy a processor based on that and price.
 
IN GENERAL, Intel is better for what you are describing. Specific programs may be different, of course. But in general, the newest P4s are better for most hings "multimedia"-related.

AMD 64 owns games, no doubt about it. It is also fast as hell in office type applications, file compression, CAD, and development workstation work. IIRC it is also extremely good for scientific computational-type software. But P4 typically is ahead in audio/video editing, Photoshop and similar apps, and 3D rendering.

You might want to consider one of ATI's "All-In-Wonder" video cards, they have gotten ALOT cheaper than they used to be.
 
I use Premiere Pro 1.5, and have tried it on a couple AMDs...intel's (to me) seem more responsive...just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top