Cheap Dual-core beats the expensive ones at DVinfo.net

Patrick King · May 12th, 2006, 04:33 PM

Amazing article on Tom's Hardware about how an overclocked entry level dual core processor beats it's more expensive rivals.

Evidently, Intel left a key piece of code in the chip that permits stable over-clocking to the point it beats all of the top-end Athlons and other Intel chips. Good read.

Alex Thames · May 12th, 2006, 11:18 PM

133 Mhz FSB? Upped to 190 when 3.8ghz? Not good enough.

Eric Gorski · May 13th, 2006, 12:01 PM

yes, good enough. looks at the benchmarks.

Alex Thames · May 13th, 2006, 01:11 PM

No, not good enough for me.

Pat Sherman · May 13th, 2006, 08:15 PM

Don't be confused by the 133mhz.. You have to remember dual cores, xeons, M and the Pentium 4 all transfer data four times per cycle. So the FSB really doesn't suffer with the OC since the CPU Core clock is making up dramatically for it.

133MHZ = 533MHZ
200MHZ = 800MHZ
190MHZ = 760MHZ

So for $130 it's a huge speed increase. Keeping the FSB low also helps with compatibility with any add-on cards, i.e. soundblaters, video cards, editing cards,etc..etc..

Marco Wagner · May 15th, 2006, 12:03 PM

How quickly we forget that Intel Duo's are a huge bottleneck at the FSB level at ANY speed. Go AMD!

Pat Sherman · May 18th, 2006, 06:41 PM

True the FSB is handled different than AMD.. But for the price in that article with 2GB DDR2, Fast HD's and a good video card you really can't complain if you currently on a P4 or earlier..:)

I run a Presler 3.7Ghz @ 1066MHZ FSB as my Production Studio System and a Dual, Dual Core Opteron AMD system for my After Effects system.

They are both extremely fast to me and since I do SD video I can't really say one is faster than the other. Both systems are running 7900GTX video cards.. But I can say this, Battlefield 2 kicks some major !@# on the AMD System.. :) I can run full resolution at 1280x1024 Max Settings with 2x AA and average 80-100Fps. Woot!

I think fast computers are in the eyes and budgets of the beholders. Kinda like my 24" LCD, first week "WOW", "What a screen" and "This is awesome".

1 Week Later..

"That 30" looks sweet", "man that would be nice".. I went a different route.. I ordered two 19" LCDs and paired them with my 24". So take that you 30" LCD..:)

Marco Wagner · May 18th, 2006, 07:11 PM

Yes I QUITE enjoy my Presler 930, I've had it for a couple months. I am part of Intel's Retail Edge program and managed to get a smoking deal. Intel's dual core is the best price for performance, I agree. AMD's duo is still more powerful (even more with DDR2 soon). Unlike Intel's duo, the two AMD chips can actually communicate with each other realtime, Intel has to go all the way through the BUS! AMD's hypertransport is much more efficient. Intel literally just slapped two cores on the same die. Presler is a better improvement. IF I had the cash right now, I'd give this duo to my wife and give AMDX2 a try.

I do LOVE my current rig though, can't complain either for the price. I see about 10%-30% decrease in rendering times (PPRO1.5).

Carlos E. Martinez · May 21st, 2006, 03:09 PM

Has anyone tried dual-core based systems with Avid Xpress and got it to work faster?

Other editing programs, like Premiere or Vegas, benefit from them? How, where does it show?

That should be my specific question for this matter.

Marco Wagner · May 21st, 2006, 07:56 PM

Before I dismantled my P43.06GHz PC and put in a new chip and board I ran a few basic benchmarks with some general stock footage. I wanted to know myself how much of an increase I was looking at. With stopwatch in hand I rendered, and rendered and re-rendered.

With the dual-core setup (D930) I opened the same project, deleted all the preview files and retested. I made sure my XP install was on the same drive, and was as identical as possible regarding software and drivers.

I am seeing a 10% - 40% increase on the files I tested with. Definitely go with a Presler dual-core though. I only got a 8% - 30% increase with the first gen. duo of the same clock speed (D830). Could be the extra 2MB cache on the Presler though. I'm sure.

Carlos E. Martinez · May 21st, 2006, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Wagner

With the dual-core setup (D930) I opened the same project, deleted all the preview files and retested. I made sure my XP install was on the same drive, and was as identical as possible regarding software and drivers.

I am seeing a 10% - 40% increase on the files I tested with. Definitely go with a Presler dual-core though. I only got a 8% - 30% increase with the first gen. duo of the same clock speed (D830). Could be the extra 2MB cache on the Presler though. I'm sure.

What motherboard are you using with the Presler?

Any temperature problems?

Marco Wagner · May 21st, 2006, 10:08 PM

Intel D945PVS - Media Edition
667MHz DDR2
Stock HS&F w/copper core and Arctic Silver.

It runs warm, no where near hot as the D830 though (90nm) Presler is 65nm. I haven't gotten around to getting a better cooler (which I really should). It doesn't run really that hot about 115 - 129F at high load. Get a better cooler and you're set.

I had it on an ASUS or MSI board and it overclocked to almost 4GHz with standard cooler, heat 130 -149F. Those were just test boards at my friends work though.

Carlos E. Martinez · May 22nd, 2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Wagner

I had it on an ASUS or MSI board and it overclocked to almost 4GHz with standard cooler, heat 130 -149F. Those were just test boards at my friends work though.

Any point in overclocking for editing?

Marco Wagner · May 22nd, 2006, 09:48 AM

I never trust it due to data corruption. Sure it'll render faster, but one wrong zero or one and you may have unusable clips or footage or worse -PROJECT. Overclocking, IMHO, should be saved for gaming.

May 12th, 2006, 04:33 PM	#1
Patrick King Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Enterprise, AL Posts: 857	Cheap Dual-core beats the expensive ones Amazing article on Tom's Hardware about how an overclocked entry level dual core processor beats it's more expensive rivals. Evidently, Intel left a key piece of code in the chip that permits stable over-clocking to the point it beats all of the top-end Athlons and other Intel chips. Good read. __________________ Fear No Weevil!

May 15th, 2006, 12:03 PM	#6
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	How quickly we forget that Intel Duo's are a huge bottleneck at the FSB level at ANY speed. Go AMD! __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

May 18th, 2006, 07:11 PM	#8
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	Yes I QUITE enjoy my Presler 930, I've had it for a couple months. I am part of Intel's Retail Edge program and managed to get a smoking deal. Intel's dual core is the best price for performance, I agree. AMD's duo is still more powerful (even more with DDR2 soon). Unlike Intel's duo, the two AMD chips can actually communicate with each other realtime, Intel has to go all the way through the BUS! AMD's hypertransport is much more efficient. Intel literally just slapped two cores on the same die. Presler is a better improvement. IF I had the cash right now, I'd give this duo to my wife and give AMDX2 a try. I do LOVE my current rig though, can't complain either for the price. I see about 10%-30% decrease in rendering times (PPRO1.5). __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

May 21st, 2006, 07:56 PM	#10
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	Before I dismantled my P43.06GHz PC and put in a new chip and board I ran a few basic benchmarks with some general stock footage. I wanted to know myself how much of an increase I was looking at. With stopwatch in hand I rendered, and rendered and re-rendered. With the dual-core setup (D930) I opened the same project, deleted all the preview files and retested. I made sure my XP install was on the same drive, and was as identical as possible regarding software and drivers. I am seeing a 10% - 40% increase on the files I tested with. Definitely go with a Presler dual-core though. I only got a 8% - 30% increase with the first gen. duo of the same clock speed (D830). Could be the extra 2MB cache on the Presler though. I'm sure. __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

May 21st, 2006, 10:08 PM	#12
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	Intel D945PVS - Media Edition 667MHz DDR2 Stock HS&F w/copper core and Arctic Silver. It runs warm, no where near hot as the D830 though (90nm) Presler is 65nm. I haven't gotten around to getting a better cooler (which I really should). It doesn't run really that hot about 115 - 129F at high load. Get a better cooler and you're set. I had it on an ASUS or MSI board and it overclocked to almost 4GHz with standard cooler, heat 130 -149F. Those were just test boards at my friends work though. __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

May 12th, 2006, 11:18 PM	#2
Alex Thames Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York Posts: 508	133 Mhz FSB? Upped to 190 when 3.8ghz? Not good enough.

May 13th, 2006, 12:01 PM	#3
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	yes, good enough. looks at the benchmarks.

May 13th, 2006, 01:11 PM	#4
Alex Thames Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York Posts: 508	No, not good enough for me.

May 13th, 2006, 08:15 PM	#5
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	Don't be confused by the 133mhz.. You have to remember dual cores, xeons, M and the Pentium 4 all transfer data four times per cycle. So the FSB really doesn't suffer with the OC since the CPU Core clock is making up dramatically for it. 133MHZ = 533MHZ 200MHZ = 800MHZ 190MHZ = 760MHZ So for $130 it's a huge speed increase. Keeping the FSB low also helps with compatibility with any add-on cards, i.e. soundblaters, video cards, editing cards,etc..etc..

May 18th, 2006, 06:41 PM	#7
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	True the FSB is handled different than AMD.. But for the price in that article with 2GB DDR2, Fast HD's and a good video card you really can't complain if you currently on a P4 or earlier..:) I run a Presler 3.7Ghz @ 1066MHZ FSB as my Production Studio System and a Dual, Dual Core Opteron AMD system for my After Effects system. They are both extremely fast to me and since I do SD video I can't really say one is faster than the other. Both systems are running 7900GTX video cards.. But I can say this, Battlefield 2 kicks some major !@# on the AMD System.. :) I can run full resolution at 1280x1024 Max Settings with 2x AA and average 80-100Fps. Woot! I think fast computers are in the eyes and budgets of the beholders. Kinda like my 24" LCD, first week "WOW", "What a screen" and "This is awesome". 1 Week Later.. "That 30" looks sweet", "man that would be nice".. I went a different route.. I ordered two 19" LCDs and paired them with my 24". So take that you 30" LCD..:)

May 21st, 2006, 03:09 PM	#9
Carlos E. Martinez Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Posts: 1,138	Has anyone tried dual-core based systems with Avid Xpress and got it to work faster? Other editing programs, like Premiere or Vegas, benefit from them? How, where does it show? That should be my specific question for this matter.

May 22nd, 2006, 09:48 AM	#14
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	I never trust it due to data corruption. Sure it'll render faster, but one wrong zero or one and you may have unusable clips or footage or worse -PROJECT. Overclocking, IMHO, should be saved for gaming. __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto