I posted this in another newsgroup and it was suggested that I should post
in a video etc. group as well.



I'm assembling the components to upgrade this machine (it is a 939 mobo with
a nForce3 chip and early releases of Windows7 didn't play well with the
chipset). I'm not a gamer, I don't need the latest and greatest cpu and I
don't plan on any overclocking. The most demanding things I do are video
recoding of HDTV, some audio recoding and some simple image editing.

I already have a mobo that takes AM3 processors and DDR2 memory. I'm
considering a Athlon II x4 or a Phenom II x3 both running at 2.6. They are
about the same price and the only difference, other than the cores, is the
L3 cache. The Athlons don't have any and the Phenoms have 6 MB.

What are your opinions? Will I see any difference in the performance in my
real world situations?

probably not much unless your editing is coded to muti-threaded to multi-processors.

bigger improvement might be memory size.

mikeyhsd@newsgroup



"wayneP" <me@newsgroup> wrote in message news:3C5418AC-F495-4AB9-9C1F-BB2CD02BA93C@newsgroup
I posted this in another newsgroup and it was suggested that I should post
in a video etc. group as well.

I'm assembling the components to upgrade this machine (it is a 939 mobo with
a nForce3 chip and early releases of Windows7 didn't play well with the
chipset). I'm not a gamer, I don't need the latest and greatest cpu and I
don't plan on any overclocking. The most demanding things I do are video
recoding of HDTV, some audio recoding and some simple image editing.

I already have a mobo that takes AM3 processors and DDR2 memory. I'm
considering a Athlon II x4 or a Phenom II x3 both running at 2.6. They are
about the same price and the only difference, other than the cores, is the
L3 cache. The Athlons don't have any and the Phenoms have 6 MB.

What are your opinions? Will I see any difference in the performance in my
real world situations?

I'm not up on AMD processors, but if all you are doing is recoding then if
it doesn't really matter if it takes 5 minutes or 20 minutes to recode a
piece of video then you could go for either.
On the other hand, it takes a much better processor to succesfully play HDTV
video on your machine.
In Intel world a high end core2 processor or i7 would play recorded hdtv
fine.

--
Graham Hughes
MVP Digital Media


"wayneP" <me@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:3C5418AC-F495-4AB9-9C1F-BB2CD02BA93C@newsgroup

>I posted this in another newsgroup and it was suggested that I should post
>in a video etc. group as well.
>
> I'm assembling the components to upgrade this machine (it is a 939 mobo
> with
> a nForce3 chip and early releases of Windows7 didn't play well with the
> chipset). I'm not a gamer, I don't need the latest and greatest cpu and I
> don't plan on any overclocking. The most demanding things I do are video
> recoding of HDTV, some audio recoding and some simple image editing.
>
> I already have a mobo that takes AM3 processors and DDR2 memory. I'm
> considering a Athlon II x4 or a Phenom II x3 both running at 2.6. They are
> about the same price and the only difference, other than the cores, is the
> L3 cache. The Athlons don't have any and the Phenoms have 6 MB.
>
> What are your opinions? Will I see any difference in the performance in my
> real world situations?
>
>

Most video, simple video editing and audio recoding are multi-threaded programs right now, (look under options or look at support for your programs to find out if they support this) I've found video editing of HD content considerably better when used in conjunction with a cpu boasting more cores, and the benchmarks reflect this also.

Phenom's are considered the better processor in this class. The L3 cache will play a small part in boosting speeds this is because L3 cache (normally bigger than L2 or L1) shortens the time to run highly accessed programs, this would benefit you especially in audio and video editing using deinterlacing and other key features. But ultimately I would suggest a Phenom II x4 as it is a newer architecture offering faster speeds.
This being said, you should see an increase in performance because you were talking about upgrading your "old" CPU with one of these new ones.
If you are into video and picture editing look for programs that support the use of your GPU (assuming you have a graphics card) this will speed up your editing results considerably, multifaceted with a new CPU and you cant go wrong. Just make sure your RAM is up to the task of video, audio and picture editing (anything less than 2GB is a crime - 4GB recommended, 8GB will breathe new life into your machine {provided its 64-bit}) Hope I gave you some more thoughts, AMD CPU prices are getting cheaper keep your eye out for a bargain mate.

Originally Posted by Graham Hughes

I'm not up on AMD processors, but if all you are doing is recoding then if
it doesn't really matter if it takes 5 minutes or 20 minutes to recode a
piece of video then you could go for either.
On the other hand, it takes a much better processor to succesfully play HDTV
video on your machine.
In Intel world a high end core2 processor or i7 would play recorded hdtv
fine.

--
Graham Hughes
MVP Digital Media


"wayneP" <me@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:3C5418AC-F495-4AB9-9C1F-BB2CD02BA93C@newsgroup

>I posted this in another newsgroup and it was suggested that I should post
>in a video etc. group as well.
>
> I'm assembling the components to upgrade this machine (it is a 939 mobo
> with
> a nForce3 chip and early releases of Windows7 didn't play well with the
> chipset). I'm not a gamer, I don't need the latest and greatest cpu and I
> don't plan on any overclocking. The most demanding things I do are video
> recoding of HDTV, some audio recoding and some simple image editing.
>
> I already have a mobo that takes AM3 processors and DDR2 memory. I'm
> considering a Athlon II x4 or a Phenom II x3 both running at 2.6. They are
> about the same price and the only difference, other than the cores, is the
> L3 cache. The Athlons don't have any and the Phenoms have 6 MB.
>
> What are your opinions? Will I see any difference in the performance in my
> real world situations?
>
>

You do not need a high end CPU to play back HDTV content. I suggest getting a dedicated graphics card for this. For $50 US you get all you need an ATI radeon HD3400 or 3600 is all you need for basic tasks. A high end CPU in "intel world" starts at a around $100 US and can be found for over $1000+ for the highest end. AMD you will get your "bang for buck" and trust that you will have a supported chipset with the ATI HD3600. remember getting a graphics card can help with your video and audio/ picture editing (if the program supports it ie adobe photoshop) Windows 7 will also help use a GPU's processing power. And im surprised that your pc cant support it currently as it really should. "ive already tested it on a Celeron"

"d3aths3rver" <guest@newsgroup-email.com> wrote in message
news:7aed8ac3f1ca43acea9473f79de26414@newsgroup-gateway.com...

>
> Graham Hughes;1189297 Wrote:

>> I'm not up on AMD processors, but if all you are doing is recoding then
>> if
>> it doesn't really matter if it takes 5 minutes or 20 minutes to recode
>> a
>> piece of video then you could go for either.
>> On the other hand, it takes a much better processor to succesfully play
>> HDTV
>> video on your machine.
>> In Intel world a high end core2 processor or i7 would play recorded
>> hdtv
>> fine.
>>
>> --
>> Graham Hughes
>> MVP Digital Media
>>
>>
>> "wayneP" <me@newsgroup> wrote in message
>> news:3C5418AC-F495-4AB9-9C1F-BB2CD02BA93C@newsgroup> > >

>> > >I posted this in another newsgroup and it was suggested that I should
>> > post
>> > >in a video etc. group as well.
>> > >
>> > > I'm assembling the components to upgrade this machine (it is a 939
>> > mobo
>> > > with
>> > > a nForce3 chip and early releases of Windows7 didn't play well with
>> > the
>> > > chipset). I'm not a gamer, I don't need the latest and greatest cpu
>> > and I
>> > > don't plan on any overclocking. The most demanding things I do are
>> > video
>> > > recoding of HDTV, some audio recoding and some simple image editing.
>> > >
>> > > I already have a mobo that takes AM3 processors and DDR2 memory. I'm
>> > > considering a Athlon II x4 or a Phenom II x3 both running at 2.6.
>> > They are
>> > > about the same price and the only difference, other than the cores,
>> > is the
>> > > L3 cache. The Athlons don't have any and the Phenoms have 6 MB.
>> > >
>> > > What are your opinions? Will I see any difference in the performance
>> > in my
>> > > real world situations?
>> > >
>> > > > >

>
> You do not need a high end CPU to play back HDTV content. I suggest
> getting a dedicated graphics card for this. For $50 US you get all you
> need an ATI radeon HD3400 or 3600 is all you need for basic tasks. A
> high end CPU in "intel world" starts at a around $100 US and can be
> found for over $1000+ for the highest end. AMD you will get your "bang
> for buck" and trust that you will have a supported chipset with the ATI
> HD3600. remember getting a graphics card can help with your video and
> audio/ picture editing (if the program supports it ie adobe photoshop)
> Windows 7 will also help use a GPU's processing power. And im surprised
> that your pc cant support it currently as it really should. "ive already
> tested it on a Celeron"
>
>
> --
> d3aths3rver

It's not the processor with Windows 7; it's my nForce3 mobo. I haven't tried
Windows 7 since RC1; so the problems may have been fixed. But at the time
nVidia indicated that they were not going to provide support for the chipset
in Windows 7. The onboard ethernet didn't function in Windows 7 RC1 and
there were other issues which I don't remember.

My current Athlon x2 4200 and nVidia 6200 are fine using BeyondTV for HDTV.
The combo doesn't work worth a damn with Vista Media Center with OTA HDTV
and Vista doesn't support QAM tuners. I expect that BeyondTV (Snapstream
Media) will be exiting the consumer business in the near future; so I'd like
to be able to play around with the Windows 7 Media Center as a substitute.

"d3aths3rver" <guest@newsgroup-email.com> wrote in message
news:a77af8d8c902e23e66bd218371ee23c8@newsgroup-gateway.com...

>
> Most video, simple video editing and audio recoding are multi-threaded
> programs right now, (look under options or look at support for your
> programs to find out if they support this) I've found video editing of
> HD content considerably better when used in conjunction with a cpu
> boasting more cores, and the benchmarks reflect this also.
>
> Phenom's are considered the better processor in this class. The L3
> cache will play a small part in boosting speeds this is because L3 cache
> (normally bigger than L2 or L1) shortens the time to run highly accessed
> programs, this would benefit you especially in audio and video editing
> using deinterlacing and other key features. But ultimately I would
> suggest a Phenom II x4 as it is a newer architecture offering faster
> speeds.
> This being said, you should see an increase in performance because you
> were talking about upgrading your "old" CPU with one of these new ones.
> If you are into video and picture editing look for programs that
> support the use of your GPU (assuming you have a graphics card) this
> will speed up your editing results considerably, multifaceted with a new
> CPU and you cant go wrong. Just make sure your RAM is up to the task of
> video, audio and picture editing (anything less than 2GB is a crime -
> 4GB recommended, 8GB will breathe new life into your machine {provided
> its 64-bit}) Hope I gave you some more thoughts, AMD CPU prices are
> getting cheaper keep your eye out for a bargain mate.
>
>
> --
> d3aths3rver

I think I'll get a Phenom II x3 720 since the Athlon II x4s, and the newer
Phenom II x4s, require a BIOS upgrade to use the more recent AMD processor
releases and, of course, I can't do a BIOS upgrade without a supported
processor on the mobo. I checked the supported processor list before I
bought the AM 2+ mobo and the Athlon II x4s Phenom II x4s were listed as
being supported but it certainly wasn't obvious that a BIOS upgrade was
needed.

I'm going to go with Vista 64 for the time being, since I have a NFR copy of
Vista 64 Ultimate and 4GB DDR2, at least, until I have everything working.
The mobo has onboard ATI HD3200 graphics which is supposed to be a decent
chip, but I'm not sure how much memory I can dedicate for video . If it
proves to be inadequate, I'll get an add-on video card.