I'm holding out for the new AMD offerings.

Phenom

j razz

I'm curious about Phenom. Can it beat Penryn in video applications?

Three words:

Personally, for the moment I'd just stick with a Core 2 Duo (the E6750 gives you the best bang for your buck, IMO) and wait for the 45nm quad core processors that will be coming out next year. Just make sure to pick up a motherboard with a P35 chipset so it will be compatible with the 45nm CPUs... I've got the Asus P5K-E/Wi-Fi Deluxe and have found it to be quite good. Both it and the E6750 overclock pretty well, even without additional cooling solutions. I didn't OC mine to the extreme, just up to 3Ghz (from 2.66), and it's been completely stable from the day I bought it.

I picked up a new computer around a month and a half ago, and briefly considered the quad cores. However, the best quad core match for my motherboard would've been the QX6850 (w/ the 1333 FSB) and that still goes for well over $1000 in Canada. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of point in getting the lesser quad core for around $300 when the increase in performance wouldn't be that pronounced with current software.

As far as memory goes, unless you're looking to spend quite a bit, 2GB or (if you have a 64-bit OS) 4GB of DDR2-800 memory should be enough to run pretty much anything these days. I've only got 2GB at the moment, and probably won't bother going to 4 until I move from XP Pro to a 64-bit version of Vista, and I haven't had a problem yet; particularly for Vegas. However, even the memory-hogging Premiere Pro and After Effects don't seem to have a problem with only 2GB.

Just for the record, this is what was in my system:

Asus P5K-E WiFi-AP motherboard
Intel Core2 Duo E6750 CPU
Antec Earthwatts 500W PSU
OCZ DDR2 PC2-6400 Platinum Rev. 2 2GB kit
Sapphire ATI Radeon X1950 Pro 256MB
Seagate Barracuda 400GB & 500GB SATA hard drives
Samsung SH-S203B DVD±RW Drive
Lite-On LH-20A1L DVD±RW Drive

As long as you don't buy a Dell or something, and stick with individual components from good manufacturers, you shouldn't get stuck with low-quality stuff. The only thing I ended up keeping from my old system was a Soundblaster Audigy2 ZS Platinum Pro, as I didn't really want to use the motherboard's onboard sound... and I like the DVD-A capability of the Audigy cards.

well, I'm impressed to see the improved 128bit floating point performance, I wonder if that would be better with the 32bit (per channel) floating point that Vegas uses?

(course i just bought into an intel quad core and so I'm going to have to just take it like a man :), but my board is P35 and it says right on the box that it's 45nm proc enabled so next year when the penryn's are getting a little cheaper i can kick up to the new 45's and try some serious overclocking, from what I've read on the new 45nm extreme quad core that's coming out, they've been able to easily overclock it into the 4Ghz range because it's made with a new dialectric process that allows for much more efficient processing and less heat (from what I've read).

It looks like a good time to be processing no matter what line you go with :).

dave

AtomicGreymon, how much did your system ran for?

Could an dual-core E6750 really compete with a quad-core Q6600 for video work with encoders that can use four cores?

UPDATE: Phenom is on the market.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/index.html

AMD's Phenom is what SCS is developing the 64-bit version of Vegas for, at least that's what they were saying at NABshow in April, and I am trusting them. I have some other points for you to consider:

1) AMD still has price leadership, and for the cost of one of Intel's 45nm chips (read just the CPU alone) you can build a two fast render nodes and a low-end workstation based on AMD's chips, yes, even the Phenom ($235-$280).

2) What type of work do you do? Long form? Go with AMD. Why? Multi-threaded, distributed rendering. Short form with multiple delivery formats? Go with AMD. Why? Again, multi-threaded, distributed rendering.

3) At the risk of getting flamed yet again, AMD has an inherently superior architecture with it's on-board memory controller, and it dominated the market for over three years straight with just one design. DreamWorks only uses AMD. Boxx pushes AMD. Alienware has had AMD as a cornerstone in their line since day 1.

A Phenom review with benchmarks and pricing.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153

There's a lot of buzz surrounding the Timex Sinclair 2.

Y'know ... all this debate about AMD vs. Intel ... there's only one thing that's certain: in a few months AMD will have something out that will blow the pants off Intel. A few months after that Intel will have something out that blows the doors off of AMD. Repeat ... ad nauseum.

Pick something that works and that you can afford now. There's no sense waiting for something better because there will always be something better after that.

edit -

Oh, and on that note, over the weekend i dug my old 866MHz P3 out of mothballs and installed Vegas 8.0a on it so i could run some renders while doing other things on my new computer. It takes a while, but so what? It gets it done while i'm being productive with other tasks.

So according to Anandtech, AMD is now only 24% slower than Intel (for about the same price). Before the new Phenom was released, they were 38% slower.

The sad thing is that I can't help wondering what AMD could have done if they hadn't been so distracted by buying ATI.

Today they can't afford to do the development work they really need, because of their corporate debt. That debt is identical to the purchase price they paid for ATI...

ATI was a long term payoff investment, and perhaps they were thinking that Intel would stay asleep.

Didn'a happen.

At least AMD is ahead of Intel in the retail channel for computers. The last number I saw was 54%. If you look at computer flyers in local newspapers, it may seem to be closer to 90%...

AtomicGreymon, how much did your system ran for?

Around $800 CDN at the time; about a month and a half ago.

Could an dual-core E6750 really compete with a quad-core Q6600 for video work with encoders that can use four cores?

No, of course not. However, I simply chose to go with the much better priced dual core as opposed to an inferior (relative to other quads) quad core. The E6750 seemed to be a better match for my motherboard, with its 1333Mhz FSB support than the Q6600. It would've been great if I could afford the QX6850 quad core, but even now it's going for well over $1000 up here.

For the moment, the dual core is sufficient for my encoding needs, and I saved around $100 by purchasing it instead of the Q6600. I"ll reconsider the issue when the new 45nm quad cores from Intel come out next year, though.

I just completed all the research and finished a new build. My last build was a 3Ghz HT P4 on an Asus P4C800E Deluxe 2 years ago.

I chose the quad 6600 over the duo 6750 based on a performance benchmark showing that this application takes advantage of the quad cores and outperformed with the quad over the duo version. At that time the duo 6750 was at price parity with the quad 6600. Now I believe that the 6800 duo is at price parity and I do not know if this 3Ghz duo surpasses the 2.4Ghz quad. I can confirm that Vegas uses all four cores of the 6600. During renders all four cores run at around 90%.

I also chose the Abit P35 Pro board after a dozen builds based on Asustek and I am very happy with the new MB. The price of DDR3 memory turned me off to an X38 based board and the 975 is getting out of date.

I found the best price/perfomance choice in video cards to be the 8600GTS. It is my first nVidia based card as I am tired of the cumbersome driver remove and install process of ATI. nVidia is much cleaner.

Ram is 4G Crucial DDR2, PS is a 450W Corsair, HD's are WD 160G/320G, Zalman CPU cooler, Scythe case fans, lian Li case.

It's cool and very quiet (very critical to me). Vegas runs like a champ and is fast.

George

I chose the quad 6600 over the duo 6750 based on a performance benchmark showing that this application takes advantage of the quad cores and outperformed with the quad over the duo version. At that time the duo 6750 was at price parity with the quad 6600. Now I believe that the 6800 duo is at price parity and I do not know if this 3Ghz duo surpasses the 2.4Ghz quad.

I never saw the E6750 and Q6600 going for the same price up here... the store in Toronto with what I've found to be the best prices, at the time of my purchase, had them at 204.99 and 299.99, respectively. As of today, the Q6600 is down to $271.99... with the E6850 going for $2 less. The E6750 is now 189.99.

They all seem to overclock quite well, though. I pushed my E6750 up to 3Ghz with only the stock cooling, and it's been nothing but stable. It'll be interesting to see how fast the 45nm CPUs can be pushed.

I see that I made a typing error. As you pointed out it's the E6850 (3.0 Ghz Duo) that is at price parity with the Q6600 (2.4Ghz quad). I found this comparison that shows the Q6600 significantly faster on Vegas renders:

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX9770_Performance_Preview/?page=6


George