Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: AMD Venice 3800 or Intel 651 for video?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ultimate Member FijiJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Savusavu Fiji
    Posts
    1,197

    AMD Venice 3800 or Intel 651 for video?

    Any guesses as to which CPU would be better for encodig video? (I do not care at all about gaming performance on this box.) Given the 2MB L2 cache on the Intel (vs. 512MB on the AMD) , will it be faster at encoding?
    FijiJohn

  2. #2
    Ultimate Member mobo57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    In a So Cal Tube
    Posts
    1,971
    I'd go Intel you can compare here:
    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
    Profanity: a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly.
    http://www.thegopnet.com

  3. #3
    Ultimate Member FijiJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Savusavu Fiji
    Posts
    1,197
    Nice charts there! Thanks for the link. However, as I read the chart, for the two closest matches - and the matches seem very close (only die size difference from the models I was looking at), the AMD is faster than the Intel on Mainconcept video encoding (which is what I do a lot of). I guess the architecture difference negates the impact of the level 2 cache.
    FijiJohn

  4. #4
    Ultimate Member mobo57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    In a So Cal Tube
    Posts
    1,971
    Yes, it used to be the Intel chips spanked the AMD chips at working video. Any more, it's a close race. While Intel does seem to have a slight edge working video with some of it's chips, the newest generation of the AMD chips are really getting close, if not exceeding the comparable Intel chip in performance in some areas.
    I have (had) a couple of boxes I use for working video. One is a 3.2E Intel. The other is a AMD 3800 X2, recently upgraded from a AMD 3200 XP. The Intel machine would smoke the 3200 when it came to encoding and compiling video. Now I don't even use the Intel box for video, it's relegated as a server box. I can encode video and still do other work and do it faster with the dual core 3800 than the Intel just doing video alone.
    I would really suggest you look at the dual core chips, especially the 3800. For the extra dollars they are really worth the investment IMO.
    Profanity: a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly.
    http://www.thegopnet.com

  5. #5
    Ultimate Member FijiJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Savusavu Fiji
    Posts
    1,197
    Hmmm, tough decision. I have two boxes (five feet apart) and one is totally dedicated to video (no anti-virus, no Internet, etc.) the other is my workhorse for everything else. (The video box is an early AMD 3000, Skt 754, with WD Raptor system HD, 120 GB internal SATA and big USB externals for main video storage.) I do keep Photoshop and a couple of other apps on both. So, I am not sure I really have much use for dual core on the video box, as when it is encoding that is all it does. However, maybe I could edit another project and not slow down encoding with dual core??? That would be worth it big time!!
    FijiJohn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •