AMD vs. Intel CPU for MPEG-1/-2 encoding (1 Viewer)

[Steven K]

I have a P4 1.8 GHz with 1 GB of PC2100 DDR RAM. I do quite a bit of MPEG-2 encoding.

I primarily use CinemaCraft SP for MPEG-2 encoding... however I do use TMPGEnc occasionally as well. I find that the CinemaCraft encoder produces slightly better results (although these are very slight) but works much more quickly than TMPEGEnc. 2 Hours of VBR encoding in TMPEGEnc can take well over 8 hours; with CinemaCraft I can do this in roughly 5 hours.

However, note the price difference between the two: CinemaCraft SP runs ~$2,000; TMPEGEnc runs $50. You can use the free version of CinemaCraft SP, which produces a watermark in the final product.

 

[Ken Chan]

For something that costs 40 times as much, you'd expect it would be better....

Have you tried Ligos?

//Ken

 

[DaveGTP]

I have built several AMD-based systems since I started in on it many years back. I built AMD because they had the most performance for the $$. I have never had ANY stability problems. But I don't buy cheap motherboards or RAM.

Remember what I've described are generalities. You will of course find people out there who have very stable AMD setups who have never had a problem, and you will find people with Intel based PCs who are suffering (especially prebuilt systems like Compaq, HP, etc. who use lowest bidder parts).

As the quote above says, you will find people that hate AMD and those that hate Intel. I've never seen any significant evidence sited that AMD CPUs are unstable provided anywhere. There are too many variables. Too many manufacturers of motherboards, memory, video cards, etc. The most important thing to do is research the hardware before you buy. Buy good, NON-generic RAM. Check reviews (of motherboards, especially); both for Intel boards and AMD boards.
Look for motherboard reviews that say "STABLE". Look for chipsets that are rated "STABLE". Don't buy into the brand-name, non-evidence backed arguments from either side (mine or theirs =). I could tell you I don't like Fords, and I buy GM products, Fords are nothing but trouble. I don't really have enough evidence to back up my declaration. Why should you listen to me?

If you find the Intel performance worth the $, spend it. If you are looking for price/performance ration, buy AMD. But don't let our fanboy-bashing for each side influence you.

My opinion: you can build or purchase an unstable Intel system just as easily as an unstable AMD system if you buy cheap parts. Worry more about the motherboards, memory, and power supplies than the CPU brand name hype.

 

[Steven K]

For something that costs 40 times as much, you'd expect it would be better....

CinemaCraft was designed for the professional... TMPGEnc was designed for the hobbyist.
CinemaCraft is well worth the money for the features that it presents... but for what I use MPEG-2 encoding for, I don't need these features.

 

[Carlo_M]

Good points Dave, some of which I tried to highlight but may have gotten lost in the length of my post.

Inherently there probably aren't many differences in stability between an Athlon and Pentium 4 processor. The probs arise, as you say, out of cheaper "peripheral" components. Unfortunately most mobos a year or two ago for AMD were based on VIA chipsets, with SiS and nVidia only recently coming on board. Those VIA chipsets were wonderful in their flexibility, but most people will tell you the chipset itself was hit or miss. Even normally reliable third party mobo makers like ABIT and ASUS had some real bombs based on the VIA chipsets. From what I understand the SiS and nVidia chipsets are making VIA clean up their act and become stable as well as tweakable.

Meanwhile, you'll notice I recommended for Rob the official Intel boards, not just the chipset but the actual mobo from Intel. Those (the 850MVL and 850MVRL) have proven to be among the most stable solutions up there. One hopes that they will keep that track record with the upcoming Springdale and Canterwood chipsets. Given what he wants to do, that is why I also recommended the Intel platform as current and near-future P4s have HyperThreading Technology which has been shown to increase performance in those areas. Sure there's an Athlon64 on the horizon but no mobo he buys now will be compatible (in all likelihood) whereas the current Intel sets and the Springdale/Canterwood sets will. The Athlon64 is not quite vaporware, but pretty far from being a reality. The new P4 chipsets will be out in Q2 & Q3 of this year (within the next 2-5 months).

As I said, I'm not loyal to either camp, I'm just trying to build the best bang for my buck without sacrificing stability and because of the uniformity of the Intel/Intel solution (Intel processor + Intel board) vs. the AMD/3rd party mobo combo I'm choosing to go with Intel.

Oh one additional benefit: most P4 systems are quieter than Athlons. Athlons require major cooling, even non-overclockers who use the stock fan have it running at 6000+ RPM which gets pretty darned loud. P4 stock fans have a huge heatsing and a quiet 2500RPM fan. I have grown to hate the sound of my Athlon fan, and my GFs P4 sys that I built is near silent in comparison and the temps are just as low if not lower...that matters to me, may not to Rob (and others).