Are you "a" or "b"?

Mikeof7 wrote on 7/26/2004, 4:27 PM
Please provide guidance. Which system is YOUR choice for use with V5?

Since I have a couple of 120GB 2MB cache hard drives and there are other extraneous things on the 3.4GHz machine, cost is fairly even.

I have a choice of either:

a) 3.2GHz Extreme Edition, ATI 9200SE, 80GB SATA, 2-120GB ATA 100 2MB cache hard drives, 1.5GB (2-256MB + 2-512MB) PC3200 DDR400 RAM

or

b) 3.4GHz Prescott, 2GB PC3200 DDR400, GeForce 5200, 120GB OS drive, 320GB SATA RAID 0 Video drives

Thanks

Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 7/26/2004, 4:44 PM
Prescotts run hot, so I would try to make sure that you get adequate cooling. If these are pre-built PC's you are comparing, I would look for reviews that talk about cooling and noise. The SATA drives on b look tempting though. I would check sites like Tom's Harware to see what the difference in speed between a 3.2EE and a 3.4 Prescott are.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/26/2004, 6:04 PM
I'd go with A. The extra cache might help more then 200mhz.

Personaly, for that price i'd look into an AMD FX or Opteron. They are probley just as fast & let you hold more RAM (don't have the 4gb limit)
John_Cline wrote on 7/26/2004, 6:58 PM
The Prescott processors are slower than the Northwood versions at the same clock speed. The Northwood architecture is pretty much maxed out speed-wise, while the Prescott can scale up to much higher clock speeds. Personally, I'd go for the 3.2 Ghz Extreme.

John
Mikeof7 wrote on 7/26/2004, 7:26 PM
Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Forgot to mention that "a" includes Win XP Home while "B" includes Wiin XP Pro.

I'd heard that the 3.2GHz Extreme Edition processor is a screamer (with 2MB of L3 cache), and since Vegas is software/processor based, it might be the difference maker. Aside from the actual processor speed of the 3.4 GHz Prescott being faster, the system includes a RAID 0 configuration for faster access to storage as well as more storage.

Since this system would be only for video editing, gaming is not really a factor...so the video card is not as big a factor for me. Also looking at an ASUS P4P800 E Deluxe motherboard on both.

Still evaluating, but looks as though the additional capability of the 3.2EE is more important than faster and more storage, which can be added easier than processor upgrades later. I guess 1.5GB vs. 2GB doesn't really make that much difference?

Thanks, again
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/27/2004, 5:05 AM
I'd even save some cash & get a cheaper vid card... unless you want duel monitor support. I'd recomend the ATI 7xxx or 8xxx series. I've used both, liked them, and they are cheap. :)
Bill Ravens wrote on 7/27/2004, 6:37 AM
DEFINITELY go 'b'. In tests over at Anand's site, the "extreme" basically was no faster than the Prescott. In addition, the "extreme" is a bandaided, dead end street for Intel. There will be no further products made along this line. If I were you, I'd wait a few months for the Intel P25xe chip to be released. This chip will have 1024 FSB, the fastest yet.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/27/2004, 7:51 AM
doesn't intel double or quad their busses like AMD does (so 1024 is 256x4, 512 is 256x2, 800 is 200x4, etc)?

Not being nitpicky, just catching up on tech (a friend who worked for intel said they're in a little trouble now because AMD get the 64-bit desktop first).
Bill Ravens wrote on 7/27/2004, 8:51 AM
yeah, I beleive you're correct. I should note that 64 bit processing doesn't really help DV, but, it does help HD IF the NLE is written in 64-bit. NOt much advantage to using 64 bit processing with 32 bit software. There is a lot of urban rumor and mis-understanding about this. Personally, my experience with AMD chips is that they're not as stable as Intel. I gave up my old TYAN multi-processor AMD rig and never looked back. I'd recommend waiting for Intel to release their 64 bit processors. Perhaps, by then, Vegas will be 64 bit.