I should add: For encoding, realize, MCE requires all encoder cards (TV) to be hardware encoders, and as such, we found no difference in any testing for capture of video performance on any processor greater then 2.6ghz, even Celeron-Ds. The only time it comes into play is with HDTV capture, where really, either 2.8Ghz (or equiv) and up processor functions fine; however, playback of upscaled DVD, etc. to a HDTV output can suffer ;)
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rls Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:49 PM To: 'The Hardware List' Subject: RE: [H] CPU Intel 6xx series v. AMD 939 (3 gig plus) Well on the AMD side was looking at the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice 1GHz $205 And Intel Pentium 4 640 Prescott 800MHz FSB LGA 775 Processor $280 Thing is I want to use the ATI 200 express chipset. So on the AMD side they only make MATX - so limited slots - and the MSI version has a few wrinkles than need addressed. Intel cpu would go in a full size Asus m/b that has a nice selection of advanced slots I want to put together a Media Center PC in a case that will not move a lot of air - hence the heat gen on the cpu is important. I don't want to purchase a video card at this time - cost and heat - and the ATI 200 express has the best current onboard video. BUT HEY - thanks for the observations - you always provide top notch info - thanks -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Reeves Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:14 PM To: 'The Hardware List' Subject: RE: [H] CPU Intel 6xx series v. AMD 939 (3 gig plus) Even in the 90nm configuration, the Intel is still significantly hotter (significantly so). If you're comparing, it's somewhat difficult; AMD has two different 90 nm chips on the market.. the newest being Venice. Venice offers SSE3, which is new to the AMD family, and a newer memory controller, it basically is coming in to replace the Newcastle core. Now, here's the thing, so far, in all our tests, the SS3 function doesn't make a giant bang in all applications (though it does in a few), but it keeps AMD within 2-4% of DiVX encoding and basically dead on with encoding Nero MP4, which is all I care about. But more then that, the Venice runs so damn cool it's freakish, and it makes overclocking with even standard fans a cinch.. The 3800+ Venice core, right now, is one hell of a bang/buck. Below that I'd put a 3500+ Venice, then the P4 (right now). Venice 3800 - $386 Intel 660 comparable: $620. So, a little more then $80. For that kind of price difference.. shew. The 650, which would be closest comparable (about $80) is not a direct compare to the 3800+ Venice, because in multiple areas (outside of encoding, where it is neck & neck) it gets stomped. CW -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rls Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:43 PM To: 'Brian Weeden'; 'The Hardware List' Subject: [H] CPU Intel 6xx series v. AMD 939 (3 gig plus) --- Note please comment if you have had hands on experience with both of these CPU's 1 - AMD 939 with 90 nano design And 2 - Intel 6xx with 90 nano design Both cpu's can operate in an 64-bit environement Both cpu's are designed to run 'cooler' The AMD is cheaper clock v clock The Intel employs a 2 mg cache to offset the lack of significant increased clock speeds. So the question - What was your overall impression of both systems? Did the Intel display a clear superiority in video creation - and if the video cards were the same, how about overall video performance. The Intel option is going to cost me about 70-80 more and I want to go that direction as that motherboard has the overall features I want. I would feel better about making the purchase if the Intel was faster in important areas.
