OT - AMD x2 AM2 -vs- Intel Duo Core 2

Back to post

Comments

fldave wrote on 10/13/2006, 8:14 PM
glenn, care to clarify the render settings for the rendertest? I've tried to find the definitive answer, but have fumbled.

AVI output or MPG2?
widescreen or 4x3?
Best or Good?

I report my results Best and Good.
GlennChan wrote on 10/13/2006, 8:20 PM
I think you render to DV AVI, 4x3, **BEST**.

(Dang it's been a long time since I ran it.)
Guy Bruner wrote on 10/14/2006, 7:35 AM
Ok, Glenn. I ran the original rendertest posted at VASST by Spot in 2002 which defaults to 'Best' for quality. Here are my results with a stock speed (1.86 GHz) bottom of the line E6300 Intel Core 2 Duo (this is a $180 processor) on a:

* Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 motherboard
* 2 GB Crucial 800MHz DDR2 RAM
* Samsung SATA 3G 250GB with 8MB Cache (7200 RPM)
* HIS X1600 Video Card with 2 DVI ports

Vegas 7b --> 35 seconds
Vegas 6d --> 34 seconds

At stock speed, the E6300 is at least 4 seconds (12%) faster than an AMD X2 4600+ according to your post at DVInfo. And, it is faster by at least a second than an AMD X2 4800+ overclocked to 2.7 GHz (according to the VASST website. I want to emphasize that this was run without overclocking the E6300 and both CPUs were operating at 100% utilization during the render. I will run a test with it overclocked, but these processors have already been shown to maintain a margin between a similarly OC'd X2.
Cliff Etzel wrote on 10/14/2006, 9:00 AM
Render time: 46sec
Vegas 7b

*AMD 3800+ X2 AM2 no OC
*4GB Corsair DDR2 Dual Channel RAM
*Gigabyte M55SLI-S4
*2x160GB Raid0 7200RPM drives - Rosewill PATA Raid Card
Guy Bruner wrote on 10/14/2006, 10:57 AM
Ok, Glenn. The E6300 system I listed above overclocked from 266 MHz FSB to 333 Mhz FSB (2.33 GHz processor clock) with memory voltage increased to 2.1V and CPU voltage to 1.36V and with the Intel stock HSF does the rendertest in 27 seconds (V6d) and 28 seconds (V7b), matching your lowest test to date. That is a 25% decrease in render time (which scales precisely with the increased FSB)...pretty significant IMO. This is by no means the top end for this processor as this was done with the Gigabyte EasyTune 5 overclocking software in Windows. Doing the OC with the Bios utility is more reliable and offers more upside. Oh, and the CPU temp is 44 degrees C.

I think the E6300 qualifies as the value performance platform for video editing. Price-performance wise, AMD can't beat it and you have to go to a much more expensive Intel CPU to beat it.
Jim Harring wrote on 10/14/2006, 2:37 PM
You are right --beat to death...
Short story is if you are building new system (RAM, Mobo, CPU) Intel's core Duo is the way to go RIGHT NOW. The e6600 seems to be the sweet spot in price performance on this platform, assuming u are budget minded.

If you can upgrade your existing system to AMD X2, (again on a budget) the A64 x2 4600+ seems to be the sweet spot. I would not build an AM2 system from scratch. Slightly more $$ buys lots more intel performance.

I have no "religion" in this, am presently using a AMD platform and like ti very much. Bear in mind in November intel will do their 4-core cpu and promises to make the core duo look slow. AMD's entry is due mid-07. Both are expected to be pricy.
hope this helps.
Coursedesign wrote on 10/14/2006, 3:19 PM
I just couldn't help commenting that it's important to look into all vendor claims, even the simplest ones.

Intel is coming out with a quad-core CPU next month, while AMD is not bringing theirs out until spring.

Interpretation 1: Intel is nimble, while AMD has gone back to sleep.

Interpretation 2: Intel is taking two vanilla dual-core CPUs and putting them in one capsule, marketing them as a "quad-core CPU," while AMD is doing four cores on a single chip with full and equal ultra high speed communication between all cores. The former approach saves time-to-market, and gives more power per watt (an issue that has caused Intel to be thrown out of many data centers). The latter approach is a lot more advanced, has a number of different performance advantages, but takes more time to get into production.

Sun is using Opteron CPUs for a new line of servers in beautiful (and cost-effective!) ways that could not be replicated with Intel chips, this line is currently so hot-selling they can barely make them fast enough.

So it's different chips for different applications (and Sun's new ZFS for Solaris 10 also looks like it's going to eat into Linux and Windows server sales substantially, it's manna from heaven for geeks and people with IT responsibility).

The most helpful thing for people on this board right now would be good recommendations for solid motherboards to run Core 2 Duo CPUs, with the reight feature set for NLE users.

GlennChan wrote on 10/14/2006, 5:32 PM
Guy, thanks for doing the tests. So now the top of my list is:

27s - Overclocked Intel E6300 @ 2.33Ghz (266mhz FSB --> 333mhz, 2MB cache, 1.86ghz originally; V6d; V7b = 28s)
SOURCE: Guy Bruner @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=488694&Replies=31

28s - Intel E6600 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 6d; 2.4ghz, 4MB cache)
SOURCE: Emailed submission.

34s - Intel E6300 Core 2 Duo (Vegas 6d; 35s in Vegas 7b)
SOURCE: Guy Bruner @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=488694&Replies=31

39s - AMD X2 4600+
SOURCE: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=4

*39s/74s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: philfort@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=399447&Replies=26

*39s - AMD X2 4400+ overclocked to 2420mhz
SOURCE: Jayster @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=465519&Replies=0

*40s/76s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: TheRhino@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=61

44s - Pentium D 3.0ghz
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=454055
see also: http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=8 (45s)

47s - Core Duo 1.83Ghz (laptop)
SOURCE: FrigidNDEditing @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=477142&Replies=3
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=454055
QueenGeek wrote on 10/15/2006, 1:55 PM
I don't have any Intel DC to compare, but I just upgraded my AMD machine to another and am quite pleased with the performance improvements.

Old Configuration, Render Time: 3m 52s or 232s

AMD Athlon XP 1.29 GHz
1GB RAM
WinXP Pro Version 2002 SP2, latest patches
2 7200RPM HDD
Vegas 7.0b
No other applications running
Services running: InCD, PGP, ATI screen Mgmt
Disabled PFW, AV
rendertest.veg drive: d:
Render to C:\tmp\ - fresh defrag, 20.1 GB free space


New Configuration 1, Render Time: 44s

AMD Athlon 64 X2 DC 4200+ 2.22 GHZ
4GB PC3200DDR
ASUS 48N-5X MB
GEFORCE 7300GS 256MB PCI-e
2 7200RPM HDD
WinXP Pro x64 Version 2003 SP1, latest patches
Vegas 7.0b
No other applications running
Services running: PGP, NVIDIA screen Mgmt
Disabled PFW, AV
rendertest.veg drive: d:
Render to C:\tmp\ - fresh defrag, 260.0 GB free space

I ran on the new box multiple times and got multiple answers, so honestly, to do a real comparison, one would have to run some large number of times on each box and take the average. I did not do that. The 44s is the lowest number I got, and I got it most consistently. Not the best, clearly, based on the numbers posted here, but wow! That's a 5.27X improvement over what I had.

At some point, I may throw on an image of WinXP Pro (x32) on the AMD64 and just see what difference, if any it makes.
ronaldf wrote on 10/15/2006, 8:35 PM
I have been following this thread for a few days. From Queengeek’s information, I guess I can expect a significant performance boost if I upgrade my AMD Athlon 1500 – 1.3 Ghz / 512mg machine to an AMD 64 X2 with 1 or 2 Gig of ram. I’ve been away from the hardware end way too long!!!
GlennChan wrote on 10/15/2006, 9:40 PM
You may be better off upgrading to Intel's offerings, i.e. the E6300.

The Athlon is using an old socket (socketA), so you can't drop any of the newer processors in there. Similiarly, you may not be able to cannibalize your RAM (DDR versus DDR2, DDR333 or DDR400). And you'll likely need a new PSU, etc. etc. which almost means a new computer. Some parts like hard drives and optical drives you can cannibalize.

ronaldf wrote on 10/15/2006, 9:51 PM
I should not have used the word "upgrade". Yes, my intensions are to build up a whole new computer.
Guy Bruner wrote on 10/16/2006, 2:23 AM
You should read the Anandtech Buyers Guide. It offers very good advice on building a computer with currently available parts. One thing you should consider is the new Intel motherboards are coming with only 1 channel of IDE (IDE0). All the other ports are SATA. Most folks have CD-ROM and DVD burners that are PATA (IDE). So, you will need to use up the IDE channel to support your existing CD/DVD drives (unless you put them in a external USB enclosure). That means no legacy PATA hard drives internally. Fortunately, SATA drives are cheap and you'll want the larger capacity and faster speed.
ronaldf wrote on 10/16/2006, 10:35 AM
Thanks for the info. I'm trying to get up to speed on the tech as fast as I can. I think I'll wait until Intel's quad technology comes out next month before making any final decisions. I'll see what effect it has on prices.
DGates wrote on 10/21/2006, 2:28 PM
Hey Glen,

I did the render test with my new HP desktop. I'm still using Vegas 5, so maybe my numbers aren't as good as they'd be if I was using 6 or 7.

Mine rendered in 63 seconds, using a Core 2 Duo, 1.8 mhz and 2 GB's of RAM.
GlennChan wrote on 10/21/2006, 9:37 PM
Hmm those results seem a little slow. I can't remember how dual cores fared in Vegas 5... I think it wasn't until Vegas 6 that Vegas took advantage of them better.... i.e. it used both cores for video rendering.

In Vegas 5, all video rendering was done on a single core (to be more precise, in a single thread). Encoding was in its own thread, audio in its own thread.

- For the sake of usefulness and not cluttering up the list, I'm going to leave off the slower results. I think the fastest results in a class would be better indicators of actual performance (which may be a bit lower) but also good for benchmarking your own system to see if it can be faster.
fldave wrote on 10/21/2006, 9:42 PM
I think my 3.2Ghz P4 HT did the test at 70 sec. 64 sec seems slow for the new core 2 duo.
DGates wrote on 10/21/2006, 10:27 PM
I think my 3.2Ghz P4 HT did the test at 70 sec. 64 sec seems slow for the new core 2 duo.

But I think the point is that even at 63 seconds, and using a measly 1.8ghz, it still beat your presumably much more expensive set-up.
DGates wrote on 10/21/2006, 10:55 PM
Hmm those results seem a little slow

Glenn, it's because of Vegas 5. I just downloaded the trial of Vegas 7, and the time was 35 secs. Maybe when V7 gets to version C or D, I'll buy it.



BrianStanding wrote on 11/21/2006, 9:29 AM
glennchan,

A little late, but I just tested my new system and wanted to get my results on your "official" render test list:

30 sec.
Vegas 7b
Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13 gHz
2gb dual-channel RAM
2 non-RAID SATA 250 gb drives

I know I'm a few seconds off the lead, but I'm pretty happy with this considering it's an "off-the-shelf" E6400, with no overclocking. Looks like it falls right where it should, between the E6300 and the E6600.

For a more real-world example, I just rendered a 26-minute project with titles, color correction and a couple of simple composites and audio sweetening into MPEG-2 NTSC DVD in 31 minutes. Just a shade over real-time!

Sweet!
Bill Ravens wrote on 11/21/2006, 9:42 AM
kinda interesting to me that for all the CPU "my father can beat your father" talk, no one has payed much attention to the mobo and chipset. Fact is, the future is multi lane PCI-express. If you're interested in capture or render to HD, the only capture boards on the market are all moving to 4 lane PCI-express. To my knowledge, there's only one ASUS mobo out there that provides PCI-express with more than 1 lane on anything but the video card slot. bottlenecks happen in significant places other than the cpu. pci bus is a bottleneck, and so is hard drive i/o.

so, I think jaydee's point is well made. things tend to follow fads, consumers dont really know what they're doing, they just follow the leader....but they can sure pick up the tech lingo if given half the chance.
BrianStanding wrote on 11/21/2006, 9:45 AM
If you're not running SLI or Crossfire graphics, couldn't you just use one of the PCI-E 16 graphics slots?
Bill Ravens wrote on 11/21/2006, 10:05 AM
dunno....i've often wondered if that was possible.
MH_Stevens wrote on 11/21/2006, 12:28 PM
how does sli help vegas7? i thought vegas was not that dependant on graphic card processing?