It's a tough call. The AthlonXPs are excellent, and take advantage of 64-bit technology, just like the new Macs. (Although the hardware for both is ahead of the curve -- there's little software that takes full advantage of it.)

On the other hand, the Pentium 4 HT (the 3.2 ghz are comparable to the Athlon 3200s) are also excellent. The Hyperthreading technology is a terrific step forward, operating almost like a dual processor.

So what does all that mean in layman's terms? They're both terrific processors. You can't go wrong. But, if you've no preference either way, I'd go with the Intel, based on tiny issues with the Atlhons like how much heat they produce and the occasional software issues (They had more issues with the XP SP2).

But these are minor issues. They're both excellent processors that are wicked fast!

You may also consider getting the new Serial ATA drives rather than the old ribbon-connected drives. They really move data quickly!

Oh, and look for a computer with a firewire jack on the front! (HP now does that as a standard on the Pavilions.) It's so much more convenient than having to fish around behind the computer every time you want to plug your camcorder in.

Does anyone know if Movie Studio takes advantage of the the 64-bit chips?

Also, for anyone who has upgraded their processing power, was the performance curve linear or logrithmic for Movie Studio?

bill W

Al, you rascal... unloading Studio on some poor, unsuspecting soul. Are you prepared for the hate mail?

As the others have pointed out, P4l's hyperthreading is an advantage if the software can make use of it. I don't know if Movie Studio does. The big question is really whether the performance boost you may see with HT offsets the bang-for-the-buck advantage you can often realize with AMD. As a guy on a shoestring, I find that I can endure a slightly longer render time in exchange for saving enough $ to buy a fasterAMD processor than I could get if I went with Intel.

Just to side track a little.
Does VSM or SMS (Vegas or Screenblast) really uses the HT feature in the latest P4 or even the SSE3 in the LGA775??
I have seen a lot of ULEAD stuff that say they make use of the feature in their software.
And then for AMD, is there really any video editing software (commerically affordable) that uses 64-bit?

What I experimented was (Using a P4 2.6C HT):

Experiement 1:
Tried rendering a VSM project into MPEG2 DV format. Opened the task manager. CPU Utilization was 50%. Stopped the rendering. Opened another project. Rendered both at the same time. CPU Utilization jumped to 79%. BUT the rendering was very very slow for both projects.
Experiment 2:
Opened a ULEAD COOL3D PS project. Rendered a text animation file Output as AVI file.
CPU utilization was about 71%
Experiment 3:
Render a COOL3D PS Project Text Animation, output as AVI file.
Switch to VSM did editing, previewing on the timeline.
CPU utilization was 98%

As a guess, I infer:
HT is great provided that different programs are using different processes called out on the CPU. If you can 2 same/similar programs running which uses the same CPU processes, HT does not make a difference.
If you are doing output file rendering and want to surf the web at the same time, which I do quite often as it gets boring waiting for the rendering. it makes sense, or even doing MP3 ripping.

Unfortunately I do not think VMS or SMS is 'optimized' for HT so my experiments may not be valid especially Experiment (1) running to VMS rendering at the same time.

Just some things I tried.

Thanks for all the info folks. I think I am leaning towards the AMD solution, although due to budget constraints, it will more than likely be a Sempron.

And rascal that I may be, I am an honest rascal. Well sort of... ;-) Below is the ad that I placed at eBay when I listed the DC10plus capture card.

You are bidding on a Pinnacle DC10plus analog video (AV) capture card and Studio 8 software package.

In hindsight, what with the posts about the firewire problems, I kind of wish I had kept the capture card!!

Al

"In hindsight, what with the posts about the firewire problems, I kind of wish I had kept the capture card!!"

No, no, no --- doesn't the card require Studio for capture? I've read that some of their hardware doesn't work with other capture applications. Why be tied to Studio forever?

Without casting aspersions on the card, just know that you're far better off in the Mini-DV realm. The firewire problem is real, but not exactly wide-spread. Just be careful about following good connection practices.

Ummmm....what firewire problem?

Bill W

"No, no, no --- doesn't the card require Studio for capture? I've read that some of their hardware doesn't work with other capture applications. Why be tied to Studio forever?"

I initially used Studio 8 for capturing with the DC10plus, but once I found Screenblast, I never used Studio 8 again. I was able to capture just fine using VirtualDub and Screenblast. The only reason to use Studio 8 with the capture card was if I wanted to control the video settings during the actual capture process or to output to tape. Since I was never able to get the software to really work, outputting to tape was never going to happen. With VirtualDub, I would preset the video settings (e.g. brightness, contrast, color, etc) for the scene I was going to capture, then start the capture process.

I agree that Mini-DV is by far superior to analog and the ability to control the camcorder via the capture software is great!! If the firewire had died, then I would have used the capture card to capture the analog output from the camcorder.

Well, I finally bit the bullit (not Steve McQueen) and upgraded my computer. Here is what I got:

- Intel Prescott P4 2.4 GHz
- 512 MByte DDR 333
- Asus mainboard
- New case and power supply
- Kept my hard drives, DVD burner, fire wire card and floppy drive
- Right now, I am using the on-board video, but hope to upgrade to an AGP video card after I sell my P3.

I ordered a copy of Windows 2000 Pro off eBay last week and it should hopefully be here sometime this week at which point I will say goodbye to Win98 SE.

My render times for a 1.25 hour video went down from 24 hours to around 8 hours.

Does anyone have any ideas or tips that may help speed it up any more? I don't render to the same hard drive that my project files and raw footage are on.

Thanks...
Al

At first glance, proably a AGP graphics card *smile* since you are using onboard memory.

Next thing would be I notice you put as a Prescott P4 2.4, I believe there are no 2.4Es, think they start off at 2.8E, you could have gotten a Celeron 2.4D instead... which is a lower end CPU.

Adding another 512 of RAM would be sweet.

Cheers

Hi Clarke:

I just checked the CPU on the bill of sale and it says:

Intel P4 2.4A Ghz Prescott 1C 533 FSB CPU RB

What I didn't want is a Celeron.

I just did some checking on the Internet, and an Intel Celeron 2.4 Ghz Processor runs around 69$ and the Intel P4 2.4A Ghz Prescott runs around $118 at ExcaliburPC.com. There is a huge jump in price going up to the 2.8A and another huge price jump to the 3.0E.

As for the video card, my son picked up a Radeon 128 MB AGP card this weekend and that is the card I am thinking of getting when my P3 sells.

Thanks...
Al

Quick Update:

Being very paranoid, I went to the Intel website and looked for info on the Prescott chip vs. Celeron and found the following:

"The Intel Celeron processor is designed to meet the core computing needs and affordability requirements of value-conscious PC users. During 2003, we introduced several new versions of the desktop Celeron processor running at speeds ranging from 2.3 GHz to 2.8 GHz. THese processors have 128 KB of cache and are used in conjunction with chipsets that support the 400-MHz system bus."

The Prescott chip that I just purchased has 1 MByte of L2 cache and a 533 MHz System Bus. I am really hoping that means this is not a Celeron chip. Any time that I have seen advertisements or listings for the chips, it usually stated that it was a Celeron.

Fingers crossed...
Al