If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
1920 x 1080 hdtv videos?
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
1920 x 1080 hdtv videos?
"GreatArtist" wrote in message ... 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
1920 x 1080 hdtv videos?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
1920 x 1080 hdtv videos?
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. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...74&char t=410 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. E4600 2.4GHz/FSB800/2MB L2 $144 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115032 Now, compare WinRAR for the various options. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...74&char t=434 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. Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
1920 x 1080 hdtv videos?
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. --g |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
1920 x 1080 hdtv videos?
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:29:26 GMT, "geoff" 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 - §§§ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
desktop at 1080 but all vidz at 480 | Tym | Ati Videocards | 2 | March 1st 06 11:05 PM |
Compaq Presario 1080 RTC Battery | [email protected] | Compaq Computers | 0 | November 2nd 05 07:28 PM |
+P4C800-E and an Antec 1080 case | Bob | Asus Motherboards | 2 | September 11th 04 01:34 AM |