New CPU

[emericastreetskater]

I am finally getting rid of my old Compaq Deskpro. It's a piece of junk and I need a new PC. I decided I am going to build my own computer with some money I have saved up.

I've got a problem that I need help solving though. The main question I have is about Processors. I don't know if I should go with Intel or AMD. I also don't know if I should go with single or dual-core. I mainly just want a multimedia PC. I mainly want to edit videos, watch videos, and stuff like that. I don't play any games or anything so I don't need a game-specialized processor. I would like to know the best and fastest processor that I can get which specializes in multimedia (mainly editing videos, watching videos, photoshop, music etc.) with a sub-$200 price tag. Thank you for all the help. I appreciate any tips.

Hunter

 

[dwellman]

At this time I would recommend a faster clocked single core than a slower clocked dual core.

 

[emericastreetskater]

Alrighty. I'll have to do some research on those.
So you're saying I should go with AMD?

 

[emericastreetskater]

At this time I would recommend a faster clocked single core.

How do you determine the "clocking speed" so to say? Sorry, I'm a noob.

 

[dwellman]

Well. . . due to the confusing and sometime pointless modeling schemes by today's CPU manufacturer the best you can go by is: the higher the number the faster the clock.

 

[YO_KID37]

Well For what you can buy with that kind of money AMD can provide you with more Performance, Don't Rely on Intel speeds, AMD might have slower speeds but those CPUs can do loads more than a Pentium 4 *3.4Ghz HT can even imagine

 

[dwellman]

Opterons

 

[dwellman]

Athlon 64

 

[dwellman]

Last longer? You mean have more relevancy. . . right? More resistence to technology creep.

 

[YO_KID37]

At this time I would recommend a faster clocked single core.

How do you determine the "clocking speed" so to say? Sorry, I'm a noob.

For Single Core AMD's you can tell buy the P-Rating thats the Pentium 4 rating

a 3200+ does as good as a 3.2Ghz or better a 3700+ does as good as a 3.7Ghz, and mostly related to Pentium 4's the Pentium D's are a little different but you'll have almost the comparisons.

If you wanna look at Opteron 165 or Opteron 170 go head they Have great Overclockability and they can Do about as good as the best or "Conroe" that's still a Quarter away

 

[emericastreetskater]

Athlon 64

Right now I am looking at the the 3700+. You guys got anything to say about that particular one? Thanks again for all the help. I appreciate it very much.

 

[YO_KID37]

get the

3700+

2.2GHz

1MB

939-pin

You Could Overclock After a month of Use to 4000+ or 4200+ levels about 2.6Ghz or 2.8Ghz with loads of luck

 

[emericastreetskater]

get the

3700+

2.2GHz

1MB

939-pin

You Could Overclock After a month of Use to 4000+ or 4200+ levels about 2.6Ghz or 2.8Ghz with loads of luck

That's the one I was leaning towards. Thanks.

 

[luminaris]

I am finally getting rid of my old Compaq Deskpro. It's a piece of junk and I need a new PC. I decided I am going to build my own computer with some money I have saved up.

I've got a problem that I need help solving though. The main question I have is about Processors. I don't know if I should go with Intel or AMD. I also don't know if I should go with single or dual-core. I mainly just want a multimedia PC. I mainly want to edit videos, watch videos, and stuff like that. I don't play any games or anything so I don't need a game-specialized processor. I would like to know the best and fastest processor that I can get which specializes in multimedia (mainly editing videos, watching videos, photoshop, music etc.) with a sub-$200 price tag. Thank you for all the help. I appreciate any tips.

Hunter

Ah yes, I see the AMD camp is in full swing tonight. You guys completely forgot two things, one is, Intel in video editing usually thrives better than AMD and two, you guys completely failed to help this guy. He's looking for a dual core processor and we all know, dual core is the way to go.

Here's a wonderful little gem for you to consider. The price is right and the performance is incredible for what you get. Check it out.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116001

Don't let the AMD camp totally persuade your decision. Yes, I use AMD as well but, since your looking for a processor within your budget, the 805 reigns for it's price.

 

[luminaris]

I am finally getting rid of my old Compaq Deskpro. It's a piece of junk and I need a new PC. I decided I am going to build my own computer with some money I have saved up.

I've got a problem that I need help solving though. The main question I have is about Processors. I don't know if I should go with Intel or AMD. I also don't know if I should go with single or dual-core. I mainly just want a multimedia PC. I mainly want to edit videos, watch videos, and stuff like that. I don't play any games or anything so I don't need a game-specialized processor. I would like to know the best and fastest processor that I can get which specializes in multimedia (mainly editing videos, watching videos, photoshop, music etc.) with a sub-$200 price tag. Thank you for all the help. I appreciate any tips.

Hunter

Ah yes, I see the AMD camp is in full swing tonight. You guys completely forgot two things, one is, Intel in video editing usually thrives better than AMD and two, you guys completely failed to help this guy. He's looking for a dual core processor and we all know, dual core is the way to go.

Here's a wonderful little gem for you to consider. The price is right and the performance is incredible for what you get. Check it out.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116001

Don't let the AMD camp totally persuade your decision. Yes, I use AMD as well but, since your looking for a processor within your budget, the 805 reigns for it's price.

Word. We are on the same page.... It is shocking that for his needs (the application he describes) people drove him this direction when it is pretty common knowledge that Intel excels at encoding, video/media. An since most media encoding is being released multi-threaded, dual core could only get better...

If he would have said, "I mostly want to play games", heck right now AMD is a better gig....but that is not what he wants

Even in gaming, all of my intel machines have done just as good a job as my AMD rigs do. There's litterally no difference. Yes, maybe a few more framerates :roll:

I've had several Intel and AMD side by side with similar graphics setups and they compare relatively the same. Benchmarks don't mean crap other than they might show more framerates from AMD. BFD

Half of these guys that post crap in this forum have no idea as to how Intels perform anyway as, they've probably never even used an Intel machine. Yes, i'm ranting tonight, can ya tell? 8O

 

[SidVicious]

Ah yes, I see the AMD camp is in full swing tonight. You guys completely forgot two things, one is, Intel in video editing usually thrives better than AMD and two, you guys completely failed to help this guy. He's looking for a dual core processor and we all know, dual core is the way to go.

Here's a wonderful little gem for you to consider. The price is right and the performance is incredible for what you get. Check it out.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116001

Don't let the AMD camp totally persuade your decision. Yes, I use AMD as well but, since your looking for a processor within your budget, the 805 reigns for it's price.

In fact, the situation is'nt that clear-cut, the 805D failed to impress me in This AnandTech review, a 820 would be a much better buy as it almost ties the top runners.

Despite the traditional lead that Intel enjoyed in media encoding, the X2 3800+ and Optie 165 dominate those benchmarks.

Then again, you need to consider the total cost of a platform, not just the price of a CPU, the 85$ difference between the 820 and the X2 3800+ (or 40$ between the 920 and the X2 3800+) is marginal but the performance gap is not.

Needless to say, a computer built around an X2 3800+ may turn out to be 40~85$ more expensive but it will run cooler and provide better overall performance.

 

[CompGeek]

Well,since you're into photoshop and stuff be advised that Intel does a lot better here.
Also a 3700+ is not equall to a 3.7 Ghz Intel. Why? because Intel will beat it by a large margin when it comes to multitasking,encoding,photoshop( provided it has HT,anyway even without it Intel would still be in front), while the 3700 will win in games.
Your best bet is a 820. Do not let the AMD fanboys influence you. The only way to go right now is dual. Since you don't game much,you won't be affected by the somewhat poor clock speed(and even if you do,the gfx card will probably bottleneck,not the CPU).

 

[Natarian]

I had the same needs as u when buying a PC, alot of multimedia editing and a little gaming. I ended up getting/affording a Pentium D 830. It is absolutely brilliant. The best video and image editing software are multi threaded, so you'll have a ball with Photoshop and Premiere Pro.

Get a lot of RAM!

And yes, I think AMD is overrated, they do perform brilliantly in games probably IS better with video editing and mp3 ripping, see for yourself in the CPU charts.

 

[Atolsammeek]

I think amd better. Power Price and speed for the same cpu for intel.

 

[luminaris]

Ah yes, I see the AMD camp is in full swing tonight. You guys completely forgot two things, one is, Intel in video editing usually thrives better than AMD and two, you guys completely failed to help this guy. He's looking for a dual core processor and we all know, dual core is the way to go.

Here's a wonderful little gem for you to consider. The price is right and the performance is incredible for what you get. Check it out.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116001

Don't let the AMD camp totally persuade your decision. Yes, I use AMD as well but, since your looking for a processor within your budget, the 805 reigns for it's price.

In fact, the situation is'nt that clear-cut, the 805D failed to impress me in This AnandTech review, a 820 would be a much better buy as it almost ties the top runners.

Despite the traditional lead that Intel enjoyed in media encoding, the X2 3800+ and Optie 165 dominate those benchmarks.

Then again, you need to consider the total cost of a platform, not just the price of a CPU, the 85$ difference between the 820 and the X2 3800+ (or 40$ between the 920 and the X2 3800+) is marginal but the performance gap is not.

Needless to say, a computer built around an X2 3800+ may turn out to be 40~85$ more expensive but it will run cooler and provide better overall performance.

Yes, I completely understand where your coming from. Intels platforms aren't cheap by any means however, my point is this, the guy asked about a cheaper solution for his needs. Everybody jumped on the fact that he needs to go opteron or X2 and for his budget, they don't fit at all.

The problem is, alot of people simply don't respect what the original posters are asking and just try to shove AMD or whatever they want in their face and that's flat out wrong. The AMD camp makes it seem as if AMD is the only one in existence.

Yes, I may not agree with the products that Intel has out or thier business practices but, they haven't been convicted of any wrong doings as of yet and their products really aren't that bad compared to AMD.

My point is this, simply respect what people ask in this forum and be respectful of others. If they ask a simple question, answer them thoroughly and not OMG, YOU GOTTA HAVE AMD, END OF STORY! LOL

Jesus, if they want nothing but AMD bias, AMD has their own forums.

 

[YO_KID37]

Well,since you're into photoshop and stuff be advised that Intel does a lot better here.
Also a 3700+ is not equall to a 3.7 Ghz Intel. Why? because Intel will beat it by a large margin when it comes to multitasking,encoding,photoshop( provided it has HT,anyway even without it Intel would still be in front), while the 3700 will win in games.
Your best bet is a 820. Do not let the AMD fanboys influence you. The only way to go right now is dual. Since you don't game much,you won't be affected by the somewhat poor clock speed(and even if you do,the gfx card will probably bottleneck,not the CPU).

For Chip And Motherboard Spec comparison From AMD
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487%5E9492,00.html

A Z-Net AMD Vs Intel P4 Power Consumption Table, And Everyday Application Performance Benches
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE=stirt&AT=39164010-39024015t-30000019c

In 3/14 Tests AMD might be matched or beaten by some margin Still Proves that the AMD was 1600Mhz to 1800Mhz slower than the Intel And still edge out INTEL in mostly All everyday Applications

AND i just realised that the Dual Core Just came out Last May, So Dual core Is hardly been around for a year And already we're having a Dualcore Shmorgus board

I've got a shytty rig That could Still hold it's own against a P4 3.0GHz+HT
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=83360

 

[luminaris]

I've got a shytty rig That could Still hold it's own against a P4 3.0GHz+HT
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=83360

That's the most unbelievable thing i've heard all day. Thanks for a great laugh.

 

[weskurtz81]

Definately go for dual core if you are going to be doing cpu intensive stuff like video editing. Any dual core processor should beat out and single core in stuff like that. My dual core at stock out encoded my 3500 at stock by about 25-30 minutes faster on finding nemo. And if you choose to go with an Intel dual core system, stay away from the 820 and up, they are slow and power hungry. I would recommend the 920 or up, and I have heard good things about the 805, but the 8 in 805 is what would keep me away from it. Depending on your budget, the Pentium Dual core offerings are less expensive. But IMHO I would either get the Opteron 165 or the X2 3800. They use less power and run cooler than the Intel counterparts. My Opteron Encodes Finding nemo even faster than my X2 3800 did clock for clock..... somehow. @ 2.6 Ghz my X2 3800 took 33 minutes to encode finding nemo while my opty takes 28 minutes. And at 2.7 stable it takes 24. Basically, if you are looking to build a budget system, and plan on doing multimedia, go with the Pentium D 9XX series, but for an extra $50 bucks you can also buy an AMD X2 3800 which will probably outperform the Pentium D 920 use less energy and run cooler..... so your call.

 

[YO_KID37]

Luminaris we're not being AMD Pushers, WE used AMD and seen the Benchmarks on the newer and better P4-Pent D and they only seem to be gongi faster and performing less, My old crappy computer can still mark up against a brand new Pet D, That's why i'm defending and recommending AMD to him because he'll get the most out of his 200$ or a bit lower Price range. We care about emericastreetskater like a brother, Were not just gonig to push crap into his face, INTEL had 80% or so of the market, Don't you think Recomending a better alternate at a cheaper price with less power consumption is helping him?

Back 4 years ago when i set up my own Rig

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=83360

An Intel fan admitted this would be as good or better than a 2.0Ghz or even a 2.4Ghz P4 that's why i made this and it's a great rig, it still holds its own agains some of the newer Processers, since its overclocked to 1700Mhz

 

[weskurtz81]

I missed the Sub $200 pricetag. The only one you can get for that will be the Pentium D 805. It is dual core and will outperform most reasonably priced and even most midrange single chips. I would opt for the sub-$300 dollar route if I were you, it opens up the Pentium D 9XX series and the X2 3800 to your price range. But your money, and that is the only one you will probably be able to find in that range.