AMD vs Intel for video format conversions and editing

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

I'm close to springing for a new computer with an Athlon 64 3500+
processor. I don't do any gaming, but do a good bit of video
format conversion and video editing.

I read in a forum somewhere that gamers like AMD, but video editors
like Intel (something to do with hyperthreading). So I wondered if
the experts here have any thoughts on that.

Well, here's the machine I'm looking at, at Circuit City:

eMachines T6522 - full system for $629 after rebates.

AMD Athlon 64 3500+
1GB ram
200 GB HD - parallel ATA
DVD burner
Integrated 128MB ATI Radeon Xpress 200 (display model has 400 chip)
TV tuner with remote
17" CRT
Canon photo printer
Windows Media Center
Three PCI slots, one PCI express slot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Video editing seems to be the Pentium 4's last remaining advantage over
Athlon 64; everything else is faster on the Athlon. I don't really
think Pentium's advantage is on all video encoders, just a few select
ones like Divx, but I think Xvid is faster on Athlon.

Part of the reason might even be as a result of the fact that Divx uses
the Intel compiler, while Xvid uses the Microsoft one.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan wrote:
> Video editing seems to be the Pentium 4's last remaining advantage over
> Athlon 64; everything else is faster on the Athlon. I don't really
> think Pentium's advantage is on all video encoders, just a few select
> ones like Divx, but I think Xvid is faster on Athlon.
>
> Part of the reason might even be as a result of the fact that Divx uses
> the Intel compiler, while Xvid uses the Microsoft one.

Whoa! That would be one of those really-hard-to-believe occasions
in which Microsoft apparently does the right thing?! ;-) That
really doesn't happen often!

Carlos
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> YKhan wrote:
>> Part of the reason might even be as a result of the fact that Divx uses
>> the Intel compiler, while Xvid uses the Microsoft one.
>
>
> Whoa! That would be one of those really-hard-to-believe occasions
> in which Microsoft apparently does the right thing?! ;-) That
> really doesn't happen often!

Not really, look at the targets. Microsoft is only out to screw other
software makers, it doesn't care who's chips it runs on. Intel on the
other hand will try to screw other semiconductor makers.

Whereas Intel might put code in its compilers to generate suboptimal
code paths when run on non-Intel processors, Microsoft might try to sell
its competitors less capable compilers whereas it keeps its better
work for its own inhouse development.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

>>> Part of the reason might even be as a result of the fact that Divx uses
>>> the Intel compiler, while Xvid uses the Microsoft one.
>>
>> Whoa! That would be one of those really-hard-to-believe occasions
>> in which Microsoft apparently does the right thing?! ;-) That
>> really doesn't happen often!
>
> Not really, look at the targets. Microsoft is only out to screw other
> software makers, it doesn't care who's chips it runs on. Intel on the
> other hand will try to screw other semiconductor makers.
>
> Whereas Intel might put code in its compilers to generate suboptimal
> code paths when run on non-Intel processors, Microsoft might try to sell
> its competitors less capable compilers whereas it keeps its better work
> for its own inhouse development.

Oh no, of course! It was perfectly clear to me the logic behind
all this (both on the Intel and the Microsoft sides).

Just thought I'd comment on the humor of the situation -- Microsoft's
compiler is doing its job reflecting what really should be happening
(that AMD processors run faster). A Microsoft product *does its
job correctly*, a job that Intel's compiler doesn't. When you look
at the "summary" without digging into the reasons why, you *have* to
admit that there's a certain component of humor in this

Carlos
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan says...

> Video editing seems to be the Pentium 4's last remaining
> advantage over Athlon 64; everything else is faster on
> the Athlon. I don't really think Pentium's advantage is
> on all video encoders, just a few select ones like Divx,
> but I think Xvid is faster on Athlon.

> Part of the reason might even be as a result of the fact
> that Divx uses the Intel compiler, while Xvid uses the
> Microsoft one.

Thanks very much. Could it have anything to do with the
instruction sets? I think both have SSE, but could there be
differences in the instruction sets that allow for
Intel-friendly optimization?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Peabody wrote:
> YKhan says...
> > Part of the reason might even be as a result of the fact
> > that Divx uses the Intel compiler, while Xvid uses the
> > Microsoft one.
>
> Thanks very much. Could it have anything to do with the
> instruction sets? I think both have SSE, but could there be
> differences in the instruction sets that allow for
> Intel-friendly optimization?
>

No actually, it's not quite so innocent as a mere technical difference.
It's got more to do with marketing. Intel's compilers tend to enable
features only if they're running on an Intel processor, even if the
other processor supports those features. So even if the AMD processor
supports SSE2, the compiler will ignore it, and just go with basic
instruction sets. This has been proven when people have manually removed
the "Intel" processor check and let the program run. The program ran
faster than it did before on the Athlon, and it ran just as fast as it
did previously on Pentium. And yes, it did run faster on the Athlon than
on the Pentium, even using the Intel compiler, as long as the processor
identity check was removed.

Unfortunately, there's quite a few well-known applications that are
compiled with the Intel compiler. They basically act as free advertising
for Intel.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:10:06 -0400, Carlos Moreno
<moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote:

>YKhan wrote:
>> Video editing seems to be the Pentium 4's last remaining advantage over
>> Athlon 64; everything else is faster on the Athlon. I don't really
>> think Pentium's advantage is on all video encoders, just a few select
>> ones like Divx, but I think Xvid is faster on Athlon.
>>
>> Part of the reason might even be as a result of the fact that Divx uses
>> the Intel compiler, while Xvid uses the Microsoft one.
>
>Whoa! That would be one of those really-hard-to-believe occasions
>in which Microsoft apparently does the right thing?! ;-) That
>really doesn't happen often!

Depends what you mean by "right thing". It could also be that Intel has
managed to get optimizations from the compiler which are particularly
applicable to their CPU design; it could also be, if you believe AMD's
anti-trust complaint, that Intel has special code in their compiler to
penalize Athlon64.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:10:06 -0400, Carlos Moreno
> <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>>YKhan wrote:
>>
>>>Video editing seems to be the Pentium 4's last remaining advantage over
>>>Athlon 64; everything else is faster on the Athlon. I don't really
>>>think Pentium's advantage is on all video encoders, just a few select
>>>ones like Divx, but I think Xvid is faster on Athlon.
>>>
>>>Part of the reason might even be as a result of the fact that Divx uses
>>>the Intel compiler, while Xvid uses the Microsoft one.
>>
>>Whoa! That would be one of those really-hard-to-believe occasions
>>in which Microsoft apparently does the right thing?! ;-) That
>>really doesn't happen often!
>
>
> Depends what you mean by "right thing". It could also be that Intel has
> managed to get optimizations from the compiler which are particularly
> applicable to their CPU design; it could also be, if you believe AMD's
> anti-trust complaint, that Intel has special code in their compiler to
> penalize Athlon64.

Hmm, it seems like my humor is a bit too different from what people
are used to?

Yes, as you can see from my other message, I'm clear on those
possibilities -- they're more or less direct conclusions from what
Yousuf said in his OP, and was just pointing out the component of
humor in it.

Cheers,

Carlos
--