i've heard that Pentium 4's are better for editing & copying movies, while Athlon 64's are better for gaming.

i want to spend around £110 on a Processor.
i dont play games but i will be editing home movies & copying DVD's so would i be better with a:

- Intel Pentium 4 630 3 Ghz Socket 775 800Mhz 2mb (also 64bit)
or a
- AMD (Venice) Athlon 64Bit 3200+ Socket 939pin 512k L2cache 90nm

they're both around the same price on ebuyer

so if Pentium 4's are better at editing & copying movies when you compare two equal speed processors, which is better in the above? as the Pentium is 3Ghz but the Athlon is 3.2Ghz

anyone?

thanks

I'd go for the Pentium4 if it were me.

Processor speed is nothing these days, IMO its all down to how much L2 cache you have.
P4 has 2mb and the AMD has 512k.

Originally posted by RPG
I'd go for the Pentium4 if it were me.

Processor speed is nothing these days, IMO its all down to how much L2 cache you have.
P4 has 2mb and the AMD has 512k.

What he said.

Pentiums have better all round software compatibility as well, as I've had issues with getting stuff to work on my AMD, but I blame Windows XP Service Pack 2 for that more than the fact I'm running an AMD branded Pooter :rant:

Originally posted by jamesconner3
i've heard that Pentium 4's are better for editing & copying movies, while Athlon 64's are better for gaming.

i want to spend around £110 on a Processor.
i dont play games but i will be editing home movies & copying DVD's so would i be better with a:

- Intel Pentium 4 630 3 Ghz Socket 775 800Mhz 2mb (also 64bit)
or a
- AMD (Venice) Athlon 64Bit 3200+ Socket 939pin 512k L2cache 90nm

they're both around the same price on ebuyer

so if Pentium 4's are better at editing & copying movies when you compare two equal speed processors, which is better in the above? as the Pentium is 3Ghz but the Athlon is 3.2Ghz

anyone?

thanks

In the olden days, AMD-branded stuff was seen as poorer and duff, but these days, AMD is more for your money.

Of course, you need to be mindful of the old 2.2GHz from an AMD CPU is not the same as 2.2GHz from an Intel CPU.

The AMD rating is what it's equivelant in Intel terms.

See mine and t's post. (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=569250#post569250)

At the level your at, the P4 is faster than a AMD 3200. But if you go for the top level the new AMD's outrun the P4's.

This (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html) chart sums it up pretty much. It may seem complicated but take a few seconds and you can see the difference :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Rich
Pentiums have better all round software compatibility as well, as I've had issues with getting stuff to work on my AMD, but I blame Windows XP Service Pack 2 for that more than the fact I'm running an AMD branded Pooter :rant:
Rubbish - don't blame AMD processors for your problematic operating system! I've never had or heard of any problems with either AMD or Intel compatibility - are you going to turn your recommendation the other way now that Intel CPUs are designed to be compatible with AMD64? :)

Generally I always recommend amd, but Pentiums have historically been good at integer maths (while not so good at floating point) - which makes their mpeg encoding good. Or at least it was good when they were compared to Athlon XP, 64 bit may be better!

But let's face it, you won't really go wrong with either choice... The intel price hoiking really takes effect further up the chain.

I edit video files at work and have a P4 3.2Ghz HT and it's been pretty good.

I would imagine that a good, fast bank of hard drives (I have three 200Gb SATA drives) and plenty of memory (2*1Gb) will be just as important as your CPU.

remember to consider the price of th motherboard and if there pci-e or not!!