I'm about to start upgrading my computer. Got a camcorder for Christmas and want something able to cope with a lot of the video editing software out there. I was having a brief chat with Tatts on this last night as I'm after some advice about what proceeor to go for. Now the one thing I can't understand is this - Out of the two processors below everyone tells me that the 2nd is definately the better of the two. What I can't get my head round is that every site I look at puts these up at the same price as each other. If chip 2 is so superior to chip 1, why on earth are they the same price. 1. Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz (Prescott) Socket 478 800FSB 1MB Cache 2. Intel Pentium 630 3.0Ghz Skt775 BTX Fsb800 2Mb Cache Retail A few people have also suggested that I'd be better off with AMD, but forget that for the time being. Why are these chips the same price; and Why is chip 2 better?
Not sure exactly why the 2nd is better but it has more cache so will presumably be quicker.</p> As to price - how much difference is there? It's probably down to manufacturing costs...more demand for the better chip which means they are maing more and brings the cost down</p>
Been reading up on it recently AMD f*ck all over Intel. In every test ever done AMD come out so far ahead. Most people won't notice a difference, but if you're doing a lot of video editing... And the fact that AMD are capable of 64 bit processing means you're future proofing your purchase. Get the dual processor AMD 64*2 4400 and you're on to a real winner. Sorry, I know you said forget AMD, but I wouldn't do that.
On the subject of AMD processors I think most, if not all, games show their required specs for Intel...so how do you compare if you have an AMD? Just that I'm possibly changing my PC in next few months and would be more inclined to go for Intel for that reason
amd i have an amd duron 500 processor which i think is ****. it runs v slow on fmanager 2005 and 2006. i have bags of memory too. i think its an old processor so want to upgrade too and i see from your earlier posts that you too have an old machine. gotta be a dell for me
RE: amd Probably another Dell for me too. I've got a Dell Pentium 3 700Mhz. Bought back in 2000 and cost a small fortune.
AMD USED to be inferior to Pentium for stuff requiring many calculations .... for example music stuff like Cubase VST, Cool Edit etc and for graphics editing. This was down to the absence on the AMDs of a co-processor used by the Pentium for mathematical calculations. For some reason AMD were always superior when it came to gaming machines. Not so sure that either is the case nowadays. I have however switched to P4s for my last 3 machines. I believe most commercial software is coded on Pentiums these days rather than AMD.
I have the sckt 775 at 3.2 gig. I can surf the net, watch tv and rip a DVD without it even hiccuping once,BUT that is a lot down to memory as well as the processor. I have built both AMD and Pentium, i have a preference for Pentium but have been quite impressed with the AMDs IF they would only tell you what the actual speed is and not some number that is nowhere close. I like the Intel chipset boards better than the others but that is personal preference. Spend as much on memory as you can, even if you have to drop to a 2.8 or 2.6 you got more return for memory than for higher spec precessors. The best speed increase i have made was using a Western Digital Raptor Hard drive as a boot drive, they are the fastest available with a access time of less than 4.8 and run at 10.000 rpm AND Maplins have them on in the sale Mmmmmmmm wonder if i can fit another LOL.
RE: AMD vs Intel I have 3 AMD Machines two of them have a duron 1 Ghz chip and they do the job. The problem is that you cannot compare AMD and Intel directly for example when I bought a AMD Athlon 2000 XP it was only equivelant to a Intel Pentium 1.6 Ghz. I have recently puchased a Dell Dimension 5150c Brand new with a Intel Pentium D 2.8 Ghz chip and dual core technology and its fantastic. The way I see it the AMD chips is for a games PC and the Intel for everything else, also worth noting the vast majority of all games/software still use Intel as the benchmark.
OK..I do video editing. The first Intel option is what you want. Hyperthreading is a must for Video Editing, and a warning..... ALL GOOD VIDEO SOFTWARE has NOT got good AMD support. I have used AMD's all my PC life but no more. Intel are pissing all over them and most future software only offers Intel support (SSE2 and 3 instruction set) Also, the other argument against AMD is power usage and cooling. As to why chip 2 is so much better - well it uses a 64 bit instruction set, so you MUST have a motherboard that is 64 bit enabled. I reccomend this motherboiard, as it accepts the new DDR2 memory as well as your existing DDR memory. http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=3VVH&CategorySelectedId=11143&PageMode=1 This works fine with the Intel 630. AMD's run hot as ****, and thus suffer from instabilty at high speeds. Intel, on the other hand run very cool. If you notice, very few factory built PC's use AMD these days. Just upgraded mine to a socket 775, 3.00Ghz 64 bit Intel, and it's brill. Cost me 180 quid for motherboard and Processor. Totally recommned the Intel route. It's a must. As for why the CPU's are the same price, well the first is older, and the 2nd is new and the most popular CPU around at present, hence supply and demand makes it cheap.
RE: I have the sckt 775 at 3.2 gig. The new Adobe Premiere software only supports Intel Hyperthreading processors, and I suspect this is the way it's going.
RE: AMD USED to be inferior to Pentium for stuff requiring many calculations .... That is correct. For music, video, encoding etc.. Pentium Hyperthreading CPU's are far superior, and, more importantly run much, much cooler.