My old system would totally choke if I tried to play a 1920 x 1080
video. I'm building a new computer. I just ordered an Athlon X2 5600+
(2.8 ghz + 2 x 1mb L2 cache) and I'm going to buy a Geforce 8800 GTX.
Is that plenty fast enough to display a 1920 x 1080 video with no
problem? I'm going to be recording HDTV broadcasts from a TV card and
I don't want to have to convert my videos into a lower resolution in
order to be able to watch them.
"GreatArtist" <wizzzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60238d70-e38c-4248-a32e-ce9fe74e8726@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> My old system would totally choke if I tried to play a 1920 x 1080
> video. I'm building a new computer. I just ordered an Athlon X2 5600+
> (2.8 ghz + 2 x 1mb L2 cache) and I'm going to buy a Geforce 8800 GTX.
> Is that plenty fast enough to display a 1920 x 1080 video with no
> problem? I'm going to be recording HDTV broadcasts from a TV card and
> I don't want to have to convert my videos into a lower resolution in
> order to be able to watch them.
Not sure why you want to go with Athlon, given that Intel's dual & quad core
CPUs are affordable and beat Athlons to death.
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:27:13 -0500, KlausK thoughfully wrote:
> "GreatArtist" <wizzzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:60238d70-e38c-4248-a32e- ce9fe74e8726@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> My old system would totally choke if I tried to play a 1920 x 1080
>> video. I'm building a new computer. I just ordered an Athlon X2 5600+
>> (2.8 ghz + 2 x 1mb L2 cache) and I'm going to buy a Geforce 8800 GTX.
>> Is that plenty fast enough to display a 1920 x 1080 video with no
>> problem? I'm going to be recording HDTV broadcasts from a TV card and I
>> don't want to have to convert my videos into a lower resolution in
>> order to be able to watch them.
>
> Not sure why you want to go with Athlon, given that Intel's dual & quad
> core CPUs are affordable and beat Athlons to death.
Sure they beat AMD X2s but not at the AMD price/performance. The X2 5600
compares really well with the Dual Core 2.
I will admit that if the OP will be recording a lot of HDTV broadcasts
then he should spend extra for an Intel.
$140 AMD Athlon X2 5600+ = 2.8 ghz dual core with 2 x 1mb L2 cache
I got a much faster AMD CPU than the Intel for only $5 more.
Theirs is 1.86 ghz. Mine is 2.8 ghz.
AMD gives you a lot more for the money.
Plus AMD engineers their chips better.
AMD has true quad CPU's not like Intel's two dual cores stuck
together.
The only advantage of Intel as far as I know is that they had more
money to build
new factories so they could go to smaller chip processes (65nm & 45nm)
before AMD.
Also their fastest CPU's are faster than AMD's but cost a lot more. I
don't want to
spend my money stupidly. That's why I bought an AMD. I'm surprised you
didn't know that.
I thought everyone knew that AMD gives you a lot more for your money.
GreatArtist wrote:
> My old system would totally choke if I tried to play a 1920 x 1080
> video. I'm building a new computer. I just ordered an Athlon X2 5600+
> (2.8 ghz + 2 x 1mb L2 cache) and I'm going to buy a Geforce 8800 GTX.
> Is that plenty fast enough to display a 1920 x 1080 video with no
> problem? I'm going to be recording HDTV broadcasts from a TV card and
> I don't want to have to convert my videos into a lower resolution in
> order to be able to watch them.
A Intel 8200 Wolfdale CPU (the slowest of the three new Core2 Duos)
costs about the same as a Athlon 64 X2 6000+ . Read this review that
tests all the newest Intel Core2 Duos against most of the Athlon 64 X2
series (high to low end). Test after test, Intel is much faster than
the AMD Athlons. Read this article before you buy a CPU: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...-shootout.html
GreatArtist wrote:
>> Not sure why you want to go with Athlon, given that Intel's dual & quad
>> core CPUs are affordable and beat Athlons to death.
>
> $135 Intel E6300 Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz 2M Dual Core
>
> $140 AMD Athlon X2 5600+ = 2.8 ghz dual core with 2 x 1mb L2 cache
>
> I got a much faster AMD CPU than the Intel for only $5 more.
> Theirs is 1.86 ghz. Mine is 2.8 ghz.
> AMD gives you a lot more for the money.
> Plus AMD engineers their chips better.
> AMD has true quad CPU's not like Intel's two dual cores stuck
> together.
>
> The only advantage of Intel as far as I know is that they had more
> money to build
> new factories so they could go to smaller chip processes (65nm & 45nm)
> before AMD.
> Also their fastest CPU's are faster than AMD's but cost a lot more. I
> don't want to
> spend my money stupidly. That's why I bought an AMD. I'm surprised you
> didn't know that.
> I thought everyone knew that AMD gives you a lot more for your money.
>
Here is an equation. It is an approximation, but is intended to make a point.
performance = clock_rate * IPC
IPC is "instructions per clock". Processors have multiple functional units
inside. They allow more than one instruction to be executed per clock cycle.
The current Intel IPC is higher than the AMD IPC. By comparing just
the clock rate, you are missing the IPC. And that is an important factor.
To avoid all the arithmetic, try a benchmark chart. Notice how here,
an Intel processor at 2.33GHz (E6550) beats the AMD 5600+ at 2.8GHz.
For your comparison exercise, you should have selected this one. It would
be slightly faster than the E6550, on the above benchmark. The E6550 has
4MB L2, which would help in benchmarks that have some cache dependency.
Too bad the E4600 is not in the Tomshardware chart, as you might be
closer to parity with your AMD example with this one.
Notice in the WinRAR benchmark, how the E6550 is beating the E6600, even
though the E6550 runs at 2.33GHz and the E6600 runs at 2.4GHz. One
difference there, is the E6550 has a higher FSB speed. (The E4600 in
this case, would drop down closer to the AMD 5600+ in performance,
because the E4600 FSB isn't as fast.)
The pricing schemes can reach parity, if you look around. If there
isn't parity, then one manufacturer would run away with sales.
> The pricing schemes can reach parity, if you look around. If there
> isn't parity, then one manufacturer would run away with sales.
I disagree that one would run away with sales, it depends on a person's
preference. Some people are more comfortable with the Intel name, like a
company asking IBM to do work for them. Others can do it better and cheaper
in many cases but IBM (and Intel) have the name recognition.
Second, Intel runs on Intel chips, so, in theory, everything works better.
If you want the best Unix, buy HP-UX, but it only runs on HP hardware.
Compatibility and choice/price are the trade-offs. I personally have never
had any AMD/chipset issues.
Thirdly, AMD has a better performance/price ratio, however, for those who
want the fastest CPU on the planet, they can buy all Intel.
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:29:26 GMT, "geoff" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> The pricing schemes can reach parity, if you look around. If there
>> isn't parity, then one manufacturer would run away with sales.
>
>I disagree that one would run away with sales, it depends on a person's
>preference. Some people are more comfortable with the Intel name, like a
>company asking IBM to do work for them. Others can do it better and cheaper
>in many cases but IBM (and Intel) have the name recognition.
>
>Second, Intel runs on Intel chips, so, in theory, everything works better.
>If you want the best Unix, buy HP-UX, but it only runs on HP hardware.
>Compatibility and choice/price are the trade-offs. I personally have never
>had any AMD/chipset issues.
>
>Thirdly, AMD has a better performance/price ratio, however, for those who
>want the fastest CPU on the planet, they can buy all Intel.
I tried an AMD CPU years ago, but remember being unhappy with it
without recalling specifics of why. The motherboard did have a VIA
chipset, which could explain a lot of my dislike.
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
1920 x 1080 hdtv videos? 
Linear Mode
