Hi,
Does anyone know how well the new Pentium D processors will run in a workstation for editing DV and HDV? Are the Pentiums better than the AMD Opterons?

Thanks

Hi,
Does anyone know how well the new Pentium D processors will run in a workstation for editing DV and HDV? Are the Pentiums better than the AMD Opterons?

Thanks

The AMD Athlon X2 will outperform the Pentium D by quite a bit -- check out the benchmarks and wait a couple more months!

The great thing about the new dual-core chips is that they negate the need for dual PHYSICAL processors (unless your dual physical processors are ALSO dual-core). This is a huge thing for customers on the lower end because they can get the dual processor functionality without paying for the expensive boards, bigger chassis, more cooling, more wattage. It's all-around less expensive and JUST AS FAST! The other great thing is that the dual-core chips are using the same chipsets and boards as their single core predecessors - that means that there is no need for us to 'wait' for this technology to be tested because it's the same thing that we've been running.

Liam, you need to consider two things :
#1 : Price. Are you going to buy the dual-core Opterons? I'll assume not because they are incredibly expensive and only people that need extremely high-end workstations and are making lots of money with those workstations are buying them. So then your choice is between the AthlonX2 and the PentiumD's. They are similarly prices and are both dual-core.

#2 : PD or AthlonX2. Big problem that we've always had with AMD is incompatibility with hardware. They are fine with 95% software - it's the hardware like Matrox RTX, Canopus, Bluefish that has always been a problem. If you are not using these types of hardware, the AthlonX2 is performing overall better than the Intel chips.

The Pentium Ds require some of the newer chipsets? That may be something to look out for.

Some motherboards may also need BIOS flashes beforehand if you are upgrading.

They do require newer chipsets but those chipsets are still based on existing chipset technology. We aren't re-inventing the wheel with these, and that is my point. We are still using the same Pentium architecture that we have been for years. When we moved from Northwood to Prescott we changed more than we are changing with Dual-Core, and that was virtually seemless. This is cake - and that makes it a great thing for our industry because of the fears that people have of incompatibility.

Check out this dual-core setup and let me know what you think. Seems pretty reasonably priced unless I am missing something....

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=dim91min&s=bsd

Regards,

Mark

Check out this dual-core setup and let me know what you think. Seems pretty reasonably priced unless I am missing something....

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=dim91min&s=bsd

Regards,

Mark

The 830 is a good bang for the buck now... are you guys serious that the AMD X2 doesn't work w/ the Matrox RTX?

Mark:
That Dell would work. Typically with Dell, they make money off the overpriced upgrades (some of them are reasonably priced though).

I would look at throwing in your own upgrades:

Firewire card - $25 or less
should come with a 6pin-4pin firewire cable

DVD burner - NEC, Pioneer, benQ about $50?
Those that come with Nero are nice, because it's a good program for burning DVDs.

RAM: Maybe upgrade this, depending on the program you want to run. Look at recommended specs of your particular program. Vegas is fine with 512MB, although RAM preview would benefit from 1GB.
Optimal performance on Pentium platforms is with pairs of the exact same RAM... it makes a few percent difference (may be a bigger difference with a dual core system, but I don't have any way of checking). Mismatched RAM will slow your computer down very slightly while rendering.
2X512MB DDR2 is ~$89 on newegg.com... maybe throw that in and eBay off the old sticks.

More hard drive space - look at rebate deals / loss leaders, they are pretty common. Try hot deals sites... gotapex.com, fatwallet.com, bensbargains.net, etc.

The 830 is a good bang for the buck now... are you guys serious that the AMD X2 doesn't work w/ the Matrox RTX?
I think he's just saying they may not work with the Matrox RTX.

Then again, there have been posts about Intel systems not working with particular hardware acceleration cards.

I'd just do your research anyways if you think you might want to use one of those cards.

Glenn,

Great advice the way you have configured it. The Dell is looking like a really good dual-core deal.

Thanks,

Mark

Liam:
Performance will depend on the specific things you want to do.

Encoding DVDs: single-core Pentium (fastest) > Pentium Ds > AMD X2 in the Main Concept MPEG2 encoder.
A licensed version of encoder is used in many software packages out there (i.e. Vegas/DVD Architect). For some reason it doesn't seem to benefit much from dual core processors.
MPEG2 encoding can go really fast anyways (close to RT), so that may not be a big deal. And it probably won't hurt your productivity much.

Vegas: Both single-core Pentiums and AMD processors run neck to neck in the rendertest.veg benchmark. The highest-clock speed AMD X2 should be faster, but it's a bit unfair because Intel doesn't have a Pentium D offering in that price range.

Premiere Pro: Some of the hardware review sites out there have benchmarks, and AMD processors are faster. I don't know why (I would've expected Pentiums to be faster).

You can also get hardware acceleration for Premiere Pro (i.e. matrox RTX100), which makes things faster in a different way.


Right now both platforms are close in performance for video editing. I don't think you'd be making a mistake to go with either platform. However, do check compatibility
A- AMD platforms can use lots of the older technologies (DDR ram, AGP video card, doesn't need a huge PSU like a Pentium D does), so it may be cheaper/better because you can cannibalize your old system.
B- Some editing programs may be picky about your system's hardware (i.e. Avid, Premiere).

At the end of the day:
A- Upgrade often, because newer and faster computers make today's stuff obsolete. It's not a big deal if you go with Intel/AMD and find out it's a little slower. When you upgrade, it won't matter.
B- Does your system work?
C- Are you productive with your system? AMD and Intel right now perform very similarly so it's not a big difference in productivity if you go with the "wrong" platform (I'm not even sure which one that is; it also depends on your budget, and your needs so there's no universal right answer).

The 830 is a good bang for the buck now... are you guys serious that the AMD X2 doesn't work w/ the Matrox RTX?

The Athlon64 platform will not work with the Matrox RTX hardware. I guarantee it. From the experience of building many many Matrox RTX-based computers.

[QUOTE=Edward Borden]... The other great thing is that the dual-core chips are using the same chipsets and boards as their single core predecessors QUOTE]

I'm trying to configure my system, and I don't get the use of the term "chipset". Is this the same as "instruction set"? I've seen 955 (I think) mentioned in conjunction with the P4 D-series. Why do I (or someone building a computer) need to know what chipset is involved in a particular processor? If I've chosen a software program (PP1.5) and a capture board (say Matrox NX10 or whatever) and a processor that goes with them. The next step ought ot be to select a motherboard (properly configured) that works with the captuer board and processor, and the proper RAM (e.g., DDR2/400)?

Why get bogged down in needless detail about chipsets?

Chipset is not the same as "instruction set". In this case we're talking about the motherboard's chipset. It's the chipset, the motherboard's socket, and the BIOS that determines what processors will work in that particular motherboard.

The Matrox RTX100 happens to be incompatible with many/all of the chipsets for AMD64 processors (I believe it's incompatible with all the chipsets that support AMD64). So... if you want a system with the RTX100 in it, you (may) need to look at the Intel/Pentium side.

Another scenario:
Suppose you have a Pentium system already. If you want to upgrade to a dual core Pentium processor, you may need to upgrade the motherboard (because the chipset doesn't support the newer processors) and the power supply. And the new motherboard may not support your video card and RAM anymore, but that's digressing here.

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- so a dual-core Athlon X2 4200+ won't encode DVDs faster than my current 2.53 GHz Pentium 4?

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- so a dual-core Athlon X2 4200+ won't encode DVDs faster than my current 2.53 GHz Pentium 4?

It certainly will... Your 2.53 chip is on a 533Mhz front side bus, using old memory technology and an old core (I'm not banging your system, just comparing to the AthlonX2). I assume Glenn's comment about the single Pentium being faster than the X2 was referencing the newer Prescott cores, anyhow - not your Northwood.

The comparison Glenn made about DVD Encoding is a very broad, general recommendation on a very specific piece of software that does one specific thing in an entire workflow. I wouldn't have layed out a comparison chart like that with single P4 at the top - but I'm sure he saw a benchmark somewhere that showed performance for MainConcept with the chips ending up in that order.

Why get bogged down in needless detail about chipsets?

I think this is a common misconception about chipsets.. If the processor in a computer can be illustrated as its 'brain', then the chipset would be the 'heart' (possibly a better illustration exists, like the 'nervous system' or whatever - but I'm not a doctor, so I'll stick with it). The chipset IS the motherboard. The chipset (northbridge and southbridge combined) determine everything from what type of processor, socket, memory, graphics, and PCI bus are available - because the chipset is what lets all of those things communicate.

Steps in choosing a motherboard:

1) Choose a CPU chip/socket type

2) Choose a chipset based on what your needs are

3) Choose a motherboard manufacturer

4) Look at the range of boards that your chosen manufacturer offers for the chipset you chose, then choose the board that includes/excludes extras that you need/don't need (IE: do I need with Wireless chip? Do I need these extra 2 EIDE ports with RAID? What DO I need on the board?)

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- so a dual-core Athlon X2 4200+ won't encode DVDs faster than my current 2.53 GHz Pentium 4?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying the fastest single-core Pentium available would outperform the Pentium D, which would outperform AMD's dual core offerings.
*Actually I think I'm wrong there. Sometimes the Pentium D outperforms a single-core processor in Mainconcept MPEG2 enconding benchmarks... and sometimes not. And sometimes AMD's dual core processors will outperform a single-core Pentium.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050405/pentium_d-13.html

Xbitlab's review of the AMD64 3800+ dual core (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-3800_8.html)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx57_10.html

I guess that makes everything more confusing... (sorry)
I wasn't expecting that benchmark to have different results like that, although it likely has to do with the particular version and settings they are using with the Mainconcept encoder. Those hardware sites don't seem to have posted their testing methodology, which weakens their results.

The comparison Glenn made about DVD Encoding is a very broad, general recommendation on a very specific piece of software that does one specific thing in an entire workflow.
I don't think I made a recommendation there... just merely point out which processors are fastest at that task (MPEG2 encoding) with a particular encoder. I don't see how it was "broad", but anyways I don't think it makes sense to argue over semantics.

2- Anyways, to put this discussion back on track...

Does anyone know how well the new Pentium D processors will run in a workstation for editing DV and HDV? Are the Pentiums better than the AMD Opterons?

I think Liam's question has kind of been addressed?

I was saying the fastest single-core Pentium available would outperform the Pentium D

Are you saying this because the fastest Pentium-D's are only 3.2Ghz and the fastest Prescott P4's are 3.6Ghz? ... Otherwise I'm not sure why you would say that considering they are essentially the same chip - just two cores in one.

Are you saying this because the fastest Pentium-D's are only 3.2Ghz and the fastest Prescott P4's are 3.6Ghz?
Yes. The fastest Pentium right now is clocked at 3.8ghz, and there's two or more versions of it. It may be that the 5xx series Pentiums perform faster than the 6xx series Pentiums. Example: The 570 is faster than the 670 in some cases (probably due to lower cache latency).

Anyways, this stuff is so confusing now and I could very well be wrong.

I guess it's just generally confusing to say that, though, because obviously if you have two Pentium chips with practically the same core technology, the one with the higher clock is going to be faster. I think it's misleading in that sense to say that a single Prescott P4 is 'faster' than a Pentium-D for that reason.

Following up... "a single Prescott P4 is 'faster' than a Pentium-D" - The misleading part is that a single Prescott is faster... at a single task. If what you are doing has multiple threads that are processor intensive, the dual core is faster.

A prime example is computer games. Most have a single thread that is processor intensive. When run on a dual core or multiple CPU machine, the games are slower than a faster Prescott. A Northwood is actually faster clock-for-clock at games. Prescott only really shines because it does encode faster. A Prescott can be clocked faster too. (Don't say it... yes, it is hotter, but that is within design spec, so pointless.)

But, run a NLE on a dual core, where a render is a single task, and you have multiple renders queued to be processed, the dual core will finish much more quickly.

This is partially why Hyperthreading works well. Hyperthreading allows the processor to handle the transition from task to task better by more efficient queue management (if a process is waiting for a disk read, another process is better served with CPU time while the other is waiting).

My brother just finished putting together my Pentium D 830 system today and reported that so far it looks like a "honkin'" system. It can do things we haven't effectively been able to do on any single-processor computer, like capture directly from HDV source to the Canopus HQ format (which happens to be a particularly difficult task). Based on various reports I've heard from other people, I expect the Pentium D at 3.0 GHz to perform about the same as two 2.8 GHz Xeons, which is pretty impressive for a single processor which only cost about $330. I may find I'll want something better next year, but this sounds like it's going to suit me just fine for now.

http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/WishShareShow.asp?ID=1594035&WishListTitle=Intel+Dual+Core

Add in Vegas 6 Suite, Matrox 128pci-e and I think it'll do pretty good.

Please feel free to comment.

This will be my first Intel Machine ever, I blame AMD for the X2 being so freaking pricey.

Steven:

1- You should post a new thread unless your issue is kind of related to the topic of this one?

2- It may be cheaper to get a Dell Inspiron ?9100? and throw in your own upgrades (RAM, video card [although dell is reasonably priced here], hard drive, optical drive, etc.). There's various ways to get deals on a Dell (wait for the right combination of free shipping and good upgrades, call them up and see which rep gives you the best discount, coupons, deals not advertised on the website, etc.).

In your newegg.com wish list, I think you're missing some things like an optical drive. Also... with the money you are spending on some of the parts (case + sufficient power supply I believe can be bought for under $200), that machine will definitely be more expensive than the route above. The Dell is not necessarily a better machine (bloatware, possibly India-based tech support, proprietary parts).

3- There may be a better alternative to the Matrox card, although that depends on your needs.

Following up... "a single Prescott P4 is 'faster' than a Pentium-D" - The misleading part is that a single Prescott is faster... at a single task.
I thought it would be clear that a single-core 5xx Pentium would be faster than a Pentium D at that particular task (mpeg2 encoding), implying that dual cores would otherwise be faster in most other video tasks. I think I miscommunicated there.

http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/WishShareShow.asp?ID=1594035&WishListTitle=Intel+Dual+Core

Add in Vegas 6 Suite, Matrox 128pci-e and I think it'll do pretty good.

Please feel free to comment.

This will be my first Intel Machine ever, I blame AMD for the X2 being so freaking pricey.


I thought you needed PC4200... You've got PC3200. The Pentium D I'm getting a friend to buy is PC4200 DDR2 533MHz.

[QUOTE=Glenn Chan]Steven:

2- It may be cheaper to get a Dell Inspiron ?9100? and throw in your own upgrades (RAM, video card [although dell is reasonably priced here], hard drive, optical drive, etc.).

In your newegg.com wish list, I think you're missing some things like an optical drive.

3- There may be a better alternative to the Matrox card, although that depends on your needs.


Hey Glenn,


I'm still working on pricing. My goal really is to get a dedicated video machine, possibly do my graphic work on it as well, probably my web stuff too, geeez, I just need another machine. (more than one)

Seriously though, I've been pricing for months. I stepped back from choosing the X2 chip, it's just too expensive. After reading, I'm going with my first ever Intel chip.

And BTW, for now I'm going to pull my dvd burner out of my current machine and put it in the new one, that'll get me by for now. I did a Dell pricing and it came out to be a couple of hundered dollars cheaper. I've spec researched most everything on my list, I'm still thinking.

About the Matrox card, I was going to go with the 128 bit paraphlia card, but I'm not planning on using my computer monitor for preview, I need to pick up a post monitor instead. I've just always heard that Matrox is solid good for video and doesn't come with all that crap that Nvidia and ATI put in their cards. i.e. bloat software, bloat hardware.

I'll probably order it all within the week.

As always, thanks for the help Glenn

If you are watching you pocketbook, the Parhelia is not the answer. It's comparatively expensive, and unless you are going to be taking advantage of the triple monitors, or getting the APVe with the HD WYSIWYG output, it's just not worth it. And you mentioned Vegas, and I don't think Matrox has the plugin for Vegas. They aren't listing it at least on their site.

What type of graphics work? What other software? I'm sure there's a better video solution.

Are these two Hyper Threading cores?

The Pentium D has hyperthreading turned off (for heat reasons I believe).

There's an extreme edition that does have hyperthreading I believe.

2- Nvidia/ATI should be fine for the video card, lots of people here are running them.

For video editing, usually the cheapest card with dual monitor support will do. Check whether the card does DVI+VGA or DVI+DVI or VGA+VGA output. Which you want depends on your monitor. DVI can usually but not always drive a VGA output with a DVI-VGA adapter.

The Pentium D has hyperthreading turned off (for heat reasons I believe).

There's an extreme edition that does have hyperthreading I believe.



The Extreme Edition processor has hyperthreading and a faster bus... The non-extreme processors don't have HT for MONEY, not for heat.

There's hardware sites which benchmark the processors for energy consumption and find that turning on hypthreading increases power consumption (which increases heat).

But anyways, does it really matter why hyperthreading isn't there?

Can you post a link?

I'm sure that it does matter why HT isn't there... After all, if you are claiming heat issues with HT, it would be useful for individuals reading this thread to take that into account as well... If it doesn't matter I'm not sure why it was mentioned.

Can you post a link?

I'm sure that it does matter why HT isn't there... After all, if you are claiming heat issues with HT, it would be useful for individuals reading this thread to take that into account as well... If it doesn't matter I'm not sure why it was mentioned.

Hey I've been reading dual core comparisons till my eyes fall out. I found this link to be very helpful.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html

I rearanged my wish list and I think I've talked myself out of the Intel option. Sigh. I should just order this thing and get it over with. :}

I was talking more specifically about Hyperthreading in conjunction with heat.