CPU for video / audio / photo editing?

Hi y'all.

I'm building my first machine and I'm pretty boggled by all the choices of dual-core cpus at this point. I want to spend less than $80 (used ok) not incl heatsink. I was leaning toward the AMD x2 series but now I'm not sure the cheapest core 2 duos aren't better.

What's the story with L2 cache? What I do is mostly a) video editing b) multitrack audio with a lot of plugins c) still photo editing. From the benchmarks it looks like maybe the cache is not as big a deal for these things as for gaming??

Any recommendations / wisdom appreciated. I plan to experiment with oc'ing a bit but nothing over the top. My expectations are really modest because I'm doing this on an ancient AMD right now and I survive : )

You won't see a difference with cache in gaming. Where you'll commonly see a noticable improvement is in video editing and rendering projects. As bc pointed out, you need to post your system specs (motherboard make/model, cpu model, RAM type/speed, Video AGP/PCI/PCIe/integrated, etc.). You may just need a new(used) CPU if you have a decent S939 system.

If not, then I'd say for audio and photo editing, an x2 would do fine. Since you're also editing video and overclocking, I think Intel is probably the better route.

You should be able to find a used E6600 in your price range, if not then an E6400 or E6300. All of which should be easily overclocked to 2.7-3.0GHz (much higher if you use decent cooling). I'd try to get the E6600 if at all possible since it has 4MB of L2 cache as opposed to 2MB on the others. Just don't confuse the E6600 with a Q6600 - the Q is a quadcore, and if you can find one for $80 or less, let me know - I'll take 10.

If you're also buying the motherboard used, look for one based on the 965 or 975 chipset, preferably by ASUS or Gigabyte.

Finally, by "an ancient AMD", I am assuming you still are using DDR RAM, which means you'll have to upgrade to DDR2 no matter if you're going Intel or AMD. Don't get anything less than PC6400 (DDR2-800). Nowdays, it's the same price or cheaper (since it's the one normally put on sale) as slower RAM such as PC5300 (DDR2-667). Newer AMD CPUs need at least PC6400 or you will suffer a performance hit. The Intel CPUs can use the slower RAM without degrading the performance, but you'll want at least PC6400 to get a better and higher overclock.

Thanks for the reply. I will be building this from scratch thus the no posting of system info - I won't be in for quite $800 but yeah, new mobo, ram, etc. Just inviting opine on the cpus. Interesting distinction between amd & intel chips as far as 667 vs. 800 ram.

Looks like the lower-end core 2 duos are more affordable than I thought. Upgraded to a few 6850 systems from Prescotts at work and that was pretty steep, but seems like one can squeeze a lot of juice out of 21**s. But then, these have the lower cache, thus the question..

At this point the argument about upgrading Intel CPU and mobos is irrelevant since Socket T (LGA775) is at the end of it's life (assuming you buy a mobo with a current chipset). Intel's next CPU will require a whole new mobo.

Don't listen to fanboys, they tend to be blindly loyal to a particular brand regardless of performance. At this point in time if you think you can afford an Intel CPU then go for it. Intel has traditionally been and still is better than an comparable AMD Athlon X2 CPU. Play it safe and check out some benchmarks.

AMD Athlon X2 generally needs faster DDR2 800 to achieve it's full potential at stock speed, whereas a 45nm Intel C2D CPUs only need DDR2 667 RAM to achieve it's full potential at stock speed. Getting DDR2 800 RAM for Intel CPUs will allow you to overclock your CPU.

I wasnt saying that being a "fanboy" is the reason why you should choose it, I have used both AMD & Intel for different reasons, and i just PERSONALLY think that performance wise, and money wise, AMD is better.

How much are you wanting to spend?

X2 5400+ 2.8GHz Brisbane 65W
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103242
$80

bump up your ram & hdd I/O

AMD or Intel just like the choice of other products like formal dressing vs causal dressing or Racing CAR vs Deluxe CAR which depends on the owner's personal points of view on value. If talking about good performance system, Intel's system is always on the top at since Core 2 structure. I am not sure if my comment is eaxctly right but it would be AMD system is more likely budget based while Intel system is more likely performance based.

They've fixed the TLB bug. Just make sure that the model number ends in "50" not "00" - but I doubt these chips would fall into the OP's price range.

Thanks guys for the input. I decided to go for an E2180 that didn't break the bank at $50. I think with moderate oc'ing this should serve me well for a while. Truth be told, I wanted to go with the AMD "underdog" but the overclockability and bang-for-buck efficiency sealed the deal.