Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

I NEED your OPINION

Apr 27, 2005 7:56AM PDT

I am a film student who is building a top of the line computer for film purposes (photoshop, editing, capturing video, rendering, etc.) as well as the occasional game (Half-Life 2, Doom 3). I am stumped on which processor to go with, and would like your opinion. The two I am debating on are the

AMD Athlon 64 4000+ 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Processor
and

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Newcastle 1GHz FSB 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor

The price difference is roughly around 180 dollars, but is it really worth it?The dual processing AMD chips are due out in June sometime, and I will upgrade to those sometime this year. I will be using all different types of programs on my computer, but this will mainly be for film purposes, so I need a processor that will aid me in that way as best as possible. If there is a different chip you think would work better than these two, feel free to suggest it.

Additionally, If I do not go with the 4000+ chip and pick the 3800+ instead, I was going to use the money I saved and purchase 2 gigs of ram instead of 1 gig. The rest of my computer is top of the line. I have a Raptor hard drive and a 250 gig western digital HD as my backup. Video card, sound card, etc, are all the best you can get, etc, etc.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
since...
Apr 27, 2005 8:23AM PDT

you are gonna buy a new CPU sometime this year anyway, I would go with the 3800+ and grab 2 GB of RAM and if ur computer is all top of the line, I would also buy a bunch of fans

- Collapse -
no no no no!
Apr 27, 2005 8:38AM PDT

ok, please, please please follow me on this
the Intel Pentium 4 completly whips the Athlon64 @ video encoding (it's faster, by a decent ammount) and Intel just launched Pentium D (which is dual core!, avliable for about $1000, and it's video encoding performance is equal to that of a dual Xeon workstation)


SO!
here is what i'd do/consider
Intel's Pentium D cannot run on exist Intel chipsets, currently only the Intel 945 and 955 chipsets support it, the 915, 925, VIA and SIS chips DO NOT support the Pentium D (it's a pair of 3.2GHZ HT enabled EM64T prescotts, the lower end models (This is the EE 840, the non-EE models) won't have HT enabled)

i'd get the Intel Pentium D 840 EE, yes i know it's around $1000, but it'll perform like a dual Xeon, and considering that the 955 supports 2x PCIE x16, you can run SLI, which means more video performance for gaming (ok, considering that Intel's chips don't game as well, you could run the 840 and a pair of 6800nU's to pick up the slack, it'd probably be comparable to an Athlon64 FX-53 with a 6800 Ultra)

and i'd also get the 2GB of RAM
as you haven't stated what video/sound your getting, i'd like to point some stuff out on those too

for video get nVidia, don't even tell me that Radeon is better, yeah it's faster now, but so what, nVidia is capable of DirectX 9.0c "the way it's meant to be played" (their logo, and in this case, TRUTH) the reason i say that, DirectX 9.0c requires FP32 and PS3.0, currently only NV4x based cards (GeForce 6) support that

Radeon X can run it, but not at top settings (not as much eye candy and so on) also nVidia is the only company that supports SLI (their way of combining two graphics cards for more speed)


i'd get two 6800nU's, and the 840 EE
it'd be a killer in games, and a monster in video editing

- Collapse -
response
Apr 27, 2005 1:47PM PDT

I don't like Intel, never really have. My first built computer had an intel chip and I had bad experiences with it. Ever since switching to AMD, it has been great. I find them to be faster where it matters.

In June, AMD will release the dual core processing chips, which I plan on getting this summer. I am not a fan of Intel, never have been. It will be around the same price, 800-1000 as the Intel chips. My video card is solid.

My only concern is between the two AMD processing chips. what should I do?

I will go with 2 gigs of ram.

- Collapse -
welll....
Apr 27, 2005 9:09PM PDT

if the money really isn't an issue (which it sounds like) why not go with the 4000+

- Collapse -
between the two AMD processing chips.
Apr 28, 2005 2:07AM PDT

Since your are planinng to get the dual core AMD in a few months buy the 3800+ now and save the difference for the dual core chip.
Yes, Intel will render video faster than AMD chips, but we are usualy takling about 20sec in a 10min render.
I belive that the dual core AMD chips will support the SSE3 instruction set, this is what gives Intel the advantage on video rendering. John

- Collapse -
a few things i'd like to comment on...
Apr 29, 2005 9:20AM PDT

ok
2GB of RAM will help, but for gaming it's worthless (for video editing it's a good idea though)

as for the CPU
if your waiting for AMD's dual core, just wait
as I can gurantee the 3800+'s board won't be compatable with the new dual core's board (Intel's isn't...)

so you'd be replacing the mobo, and possibly the RAM
if your cooling buying a $800 set-up now
and then buying a $2000 add-on in a few months
go for it

- Collapse -
Opteron...
Apr 30, 2005 10:22AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) not all operton's are dual cored, only 1 or 2 are
Apr 30, 2005 10:45AM PDT
- Collapse -
future proof yourself
Apr 28, 2005 10:07PM PDT

I think you are on the right track overall - but consider getting a motherboard that can support the athlon 64 FX cpu. You can start out w/ cheaper CPU and later upgrade w/o too much hassle this way. (maybe more ram too) The FX supposedly is tuned for AV editing, but i believe FX would be out of budget for you right now.
This gives u some use, and opp to upgrade once your budget recovers.

I am using premiere 6.5 w/ pinnacle dv500 (does all rendering in HW) on an athlon XP 2100, I find it acceptable performance. If you do any substantial editing, storage space is the key issue. I use removeable bays found at compgeeks.com ($8.50 each) and 7200 rpm ata seagate HDD's. I have 5 bays avail in the mid-tower case, not incl burner and intermal boot drive.
Each video hdd has a "twin" HDD where everything on that disk is mirrored to and left on a shelf for backup. I found it to be cheapest/simplest method to deal w/ 500Gig of video. For premiere, the raw video never really changes, just the edit decision list. Any previews can be re-rendederd if you lose the hdd.
I previously used tape and it took a week to recover the data, as the blasted thing had a bad spot on the tape. Lost 20gig and took a week or retries to recover the first 80gig. Aaarrrggguuuhhhh.

- Collapse -
RE:
Apr 29, 2005 9:25AM PDT

All motherboards that support an AMD Athlon 64 supports the FX mostly...
ROger

- Collapse -
(NT) excluding Socket 754
Apr 30, 2005 10:45AM PDT