Difference between Pentium IV, Celeron and AMD?

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:12 am

I have a Celeron 1.7ghz, 256 megs ram and a Geforce 4 MX440. I'm in dire need of a new PC, this one isn't handling today's games very well... I'm too afraid to run Deus Ex II on it!

What's the difference between Pentium IV, Celeron and AMD and which would be the best one to get? When AMDs are stated as something like 2600+ Does that mean it's 2.6ghz?

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:39 pm

You should have got a Pentium!!!!!

The other processors do wonderful things, but in different ways, Pentium is proved to out-perform similar class Celeron and AMD processors. It's worth paying just that little more for the Pentium! It's not just the processor speed that's important, but things like the cache inside the processor, and other factors. This could be a contributing factor to why your PC isn't handling the video brilliantly, but you must also consider other factors like memory size and type, and very importantly drive speed and bus type! You could get a whole new motherboard and processor, only to find there's hardly any difference because your drive (Which runs about 1000 times slower than the processing system) is keeping everything else waiting.

What typically happens when you process a video file (By process, I mean play, edit, re-save, etc.), is that everything is stored on the hard drive. The computer takes a chunk of data (Stores it in RAM), processes it, saves it back to the hard drive, and takes the next chunk of data, and so on. If you have a optimised system, there will be very little delay for the processor while you're cacheing to and from the hard drive.

Tips on drives:

- RAID 0 system - allows double-speed drive useage! It links 2 identical drives together, writing data at the same time - hence double the speed of a single drive. New high-spec motherboards are now coming with RAID systems built in! For the cost of an extra drive, go for it every time you get the opportunity! And Ultra ATA RAID systems rock!

- Drive cache - The bigger the cache, the smoother the performance. The cache is a chunk of memory on the hard drive that acts as a buffer, storing data and passing it to and from the PC, while the hard drive physically tries to play catch up reading and writing to the actual disk.

- Drive speed - Generally, the faster the drive speed (Measured in RPM), the quicker the drive can read the data. There are exceptions to the rule for this.

- SCSI drives - SCSI is a high-speed system, that you will pay through the nose for! I have wwasted so much money in the past on SCSI devices - a 10GB drive I bought about 5 years ago cost me over Ã‚Â£500! If I had got the equivilent RAID setup that would have out-performed the SCSI system, it would have cost about Ã‚Â£200 at the time. SCSI is still a great standard - it keeps being updated all the time, but it's over-priced, and you don't need it!

- Memory - 256MB isn't really that much, especially for the processor speed, so your system is having to work harder with the hard drive system, processing relatively small chunks of data at a time. Don't forget, that the program will take up some of the memory, so there's even less memory available for the video! My system at the moment is a P3 550, with 384MB RAM, RAID0 256GB drive system (4MB Cache, 7600RPM drives), Matrox G400 64MB graphics card - good 2D accelleration. This system doesn't have a load of software cluttering up the system configuration fiules, and runs very well! I use CorelDRAW 11 on it on a regular basis, and it handles the software better than a friend's P4 system!

Oh, and not forgetting to defragment your hard drive on a regular basis, otherwise it spends all it's time moving the drive heads around the drive trying to find little bits of data, rather than reading off largert chunks in 1 go, and this really slows everything down - even to an extend that you start getting errors in programs because the system stars getting impatient, and gets the huff!

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:34 pm

Which processor would be the best for gaming? P4 as well?

Would these specs sound good on a new PC?

P4 2.5 to 3.2GHZ (whichever I can get)
1 Gig ram
120 Gig HD
Geforce FX5600

my friend has 2 250GIG Scsi drives...

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:02 pm

I'd suggest a Pentium each time! It's the best all-round PC processor you can get! Can't you get 2 X 120GB hard drives and set them up as a RAID system? It'll be worth it for an extra Ã‚Â£80! The new motherboard may also include the controller for this.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:15 pm

OK here's a quick breakdown...A celeron is a Pentium of equivalent class with only half the on die cache available, slow therefore slightly slower when processing instructions even tho the clock speed (MHz) of the chip is the same. Bsically they are the same architecture otherwise.
AMD uses a different architecture and different instruction set, even tho it's instruction set is comaptible with the Intel 'x86' architecture. AMD also uses a more efficient video instruction setr than the pentium, able to pipeline video draws with fewer instructions. However that advantage is compensated for by the increased cache on the P$. An AMD 2600 clocks out equivalent to about a 2.4 Pentium speed. For a price performance break, AMD is the better choice. If you had asked me the same question 2 - 3 years ago I would agree with CamClub on go Pentium, however, with the rollout of the Athlon XP chip, a lot of the advantages the Pentium had are now history. Also a BIG advantage of the AMD family is the Athlon MP chip. Designeed to support dual processors, it puts a high performance dual processor workstation within everyone's budget. We are in the process of upgrading all out servers to Dual Athlon MP 2800s with 1 GB of Registered DDR Ram. Cost for Motherboard, processors and RAM, less than 800 bucks... Now we are reusing the rest of the existing hardware in the box. but still a heck of a bargain!! Coupoled with XP Pro ( which has multi processor support) and Premiere Pro ( which also support MP machines) you have an awesome editing machine for less than $1000 ( assuming you take that other $200 and put it into a fast Serial ATA drive should be able to pick up 160 GB drive for that if you shop it!)We're also repalcing all our current Celeron and PIII machines in the classrooms with AMD Processors and boards... Athlon XP 2800+, Motherboard 512 MB RAM < $300 per box.
When we were planning this upgrade we got P4 2.6 MB processor and ram and one of the AMDs we settled on. As is our want my hardware tech and I selected video apps to use to benchmark the syatems. We had one of the other members of our team build the boxes, so we were going in blind. We had no idea which system was which. The AMD box had 'slightly' faster render times ( still not anywhere near what you would get with hardware MPEG encoding) and not really all that much faster ( maybe a minute faster rendering a 10 minute clip with a ton of useless transitions and effects ) the clips were identical. Both Chris and I however felt the AMD machine was 'smoother' opening apps quicker etc. So we settled on the AMD combo for our upgrade. And the price difference allowed us to do 25 machines rather than 20 with our initial budget for the project. SO now we are left with two 'extra' motherboards... he he he he Our current editing machine at work was a Pentium running at 1.8 GHz, SOOOOOO our edit box now has the AMD board and 2800+ the P4 board??? It went into Chris's workstation, and he hasn't been happy since. He says for day to day work it's not much faster than the Pentium 1.6 we pulled from it, and in fact is slower burning CDs.... Just some practical experience from a former anti AMD user...

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:22 pm

AH, well it's been a few years since I was building PCs, glad to see AMD has taken the market more seriously, and has churned out a better processor! Come on Intel, you're letting your side down!

Now what about P5? Are they available yet? That would have been my upgrade option in about 9 months time!

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:01 pm

No P5 yet, tho we did build aan AMD 64 system as a game machine for one of our instructors sons for a Christmas gift... ( wonder if she wants to adopt me??? ) Hot machine, but still didn't see a lot of iimprovement in the 64 bit proc. Ran every 32 bit app we could throw at it well tho. Check out Alienware, they are even offering more Hierf AMD systems...

U.S.Amateurfilmaker · Post by **U.S.Amateurfilmaker** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:29 pm

The AMD 64 outperformed the p4 in quite a few gaming tests, but when 64 bit starts kicking in, it will be faster than any of intel's processors.

justsomeguy · Post by **justsomeguy** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:53 am

If you want good deals on processors or other computer stuff, try www.newegg.com they usually have pretty good prices

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:48 am

do not touch Celerons or Durons!!! Bad choices. Basically Athlons are very good for their price and are rather fast now and are the gamers usual choice because of this. Pentiums are more expensive and extremely solid and reliable for Application work. If you have the money go Pentium, otherwise Athlons. This is just a basic look though. Always go the most powerful processor you cab afford

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 12:03 pm

Ah, so Pentiums still have the upper hand on data-critical applications then?

Reiji · Post by **Reiji** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:31 pm

P4 2.5 to 3.2GHZ (whichever I can get)
1 Gig ram
120 Gig HD
Geforce FX5600

3.2GHz is the best speed around, I have 3.06.
512Mb RAM is cheap and fast
80Gb HD is perfect
GeForce FX5600 supports all the latest stuff but doesn't do it that fast. It gives great performance in QIII engine games though. Get an ATi 9700.

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:41 pm

Just because a graphics card offers great 3D accelleration for games doesn't mean that it's going to be any good for video editing. If you're looking for a spec for video work, make sure your card had good 2D accelleration, otherwise it'll be pinching processor time to give a good display when it's not working out 3D graphics!

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:15 pm

yeah the only reason i do not have a Pentium at the moment is the price. For Apps they are so reliable and solid in performance. The newer ones are also extremely good for games. My capture and editing card, the Matrix G400tv is only 16 meg and about 4 years old now but still handles and operates beautifully. I have a friend who has a G-Force 4 video card/capture card and i would have to say that the capture quality etc does not look better than mine at all

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:22 pm

That's because like my Matrox G450, it had professional specs on it's 2D accelleration!

If I went for a new graphics card, and didn't mind spending a bit on money on it, I'd definetly go for a low-end-professional matrox graphics card again!

In fact, I notice from their website that they are bringing out special video editing cards optomised for Adobe applications. They have a lower budget home/small business system, and then they have the (expensive) proifessional cards! Here's a link to read more: http://www.matrox.com/video/products/home.cfm It seems that the video editing cards are a bit pricey, but seeing that they come complete with a copy of Adobe Premier, it seems v. good value to me!

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:25 pm

See... I'm quite the gamer, Although I'm more into Console games. I've always had bad luck with PC's. I always pick bad hardware and when I do actuall get good hardware, It's obsolete in a few hours.

I need a PC that'll handle games incredibly well and not require an upgrade for a few years. But I also need something that will handle Video Editing. Does a 3D Card make a difference in editing? I'm pretty familiar with Nvidia and Intel, so I'll probably stick with them. Radeons just confuse me... 9700, 9800, 9800XT, 9800pro, 9600... Is the 9700 better than the 9800? Is the 9800 the same as a FX5900?

I think that a 256 meg FX5600 will handle games nicely (or maybe a 5800). I'm guessing I'll stick with a P4... Or do you guys recommend an AMD if I'm going to be doing alot of editing and gaming?

What's the maximum amount of RAM I can get? 1 Gig?

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:36 pm

3D cards work differently, the are designed to process the information in a 3D game - the textures, lighting, depth, etc. The 3D accelleration sits on it's hands doing nothing when you're video editing, because for this you need good 2D accelleration.

Look up th especs on different graphics cards, and compare the values. You don't have to understand what all the different technical bits mean, but you'll get an idea of how capable the card is for what you need it for!

Remember, for good video editing, 2D accelleration helps, but that's just 1 factor in the specs of a good editing machine.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:34 pm

The max amount of ram is limited by the motherboards specs. The last I bought would handle up to 4 GB

El Brenty · Post by **El Brenty** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:54 pm

Ay Carumba! Things really are moving on quickly. My P3 motherboard is maxed out at 384MB!

Truggy · Post by **Truggy** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:47 pm

Dude, i run a P4 1.8 ghz Nvida Geforce 4 MX440 Video card, and it runs fine, i keep it up to shape maybe thats why. + the celeron sux. My mom is on disability and she gonna by me my new Dell Laptop....Lucky me! heh

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:12 pm

I have an MX440 as well... I can't run games like Deus Ex II or anything like that, so I keep games like that on Xbox (I have XBox, PS2 + Dreamcast and chips for all 3 so games for consoles are pretty easy to get)

The thing is, computer hardware here is so incredibly cheap. That FX5600, which might have cost around $250 here in the beginning of the year is now around $75 becasue the Rand has gotten so much stronger. a 40 Gig hard-drive is around $40.

My friend is a hardcore gamer and he has a P4 3,2GHZ, 1 gig ram and the Geforce FX5600 128 Meg... All his games run fine so mine should run the same if not better with a 256 meg FX5600.

PC Games here around $29 for a game that has just been released but PS2 games are around $70 new and $50 for older "Platinum" ones

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:53 pm

also the OS will govern RAM. Just chuck in your PC as much/as fast RAM it can handle, the fastest video card you can afford and the fastest processor you can also afford. This will lessen any bottlenecks you may have in performance. They all rely on each other for speed of data processing and movement

Vamp · Post by **Vamp** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:48 am

Which is a better card? High-End Nvidia or H-E Radeon?

What is a Radeon 9800 equivalent to in the Nvidia world... Is the 9800 the most powerful Radeon

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:35 pm

hmmmm not sure. Although alot of my tech friends are backing the new Radeons at the moment