512k cache vs 128k for video editing

[Art]

I'm upgrading my old rig (Athlon 2200+, Asus board) to a new ECS KN1 board
with a Athlon 64 processor. Here's the question. I do alot of video
rendering and editing. I can afford about 110-130 USD for the chip. Should
I get a faster Sempron 64 with a smaller cache, or a slower Athlon 64 with a
larger cache. Which will have the most impact on rendering time?

TIA,
Art

 

[David Kanter]

I'm upgrading my old rig (Athlon 2200+, Asus board) to a new ECS KN1 board

with a Athlon 64 processor. Here's the question. I do alot of video
rendering and editing. I can afford about 110-130 USD for the chip. Should
I get a faster Sempron 64 with a smaller cache, or a slower Athlon 64 with a
larger cache. Which will have the most impact on rendering time?

Hi Art,

I'm not an authority on the subject, so I'd suggest doing a bit more
research to verify what I say. With that caveat, here are my thoughts.

Video files are usually quite large, especially raw, I'd guess around
50-100MB/minute. So, the L2 cache on an Athlon really won't hold much
more than a quarter or half second of frames. More is better, but I
bet most of the time you're going to end up going to memory and cache
won't help too much.

I'd be a lot more concerned about how much memory bandwidth a Sempron
has versus an Athlon64. If you're doing video stuff you definitely
need to have as many channels of memory as possible, with good memory.

So my advice is: Worry about bandwidth first, since the cache is
basically not going to do much. However, I'd like to hear what
everyone else has to say.

DK

 

[The little lost angel]

I'm upgrading my old rig (Athlon 2200+, Asus board) to a new ECS KN1 board
with a Athlon 64 processor. Here's the question. I do alot of video
rendering and editing. I can afford about 110-130 USD for the chip. Should
I get a faster Sempron 64 with a smaller cache, or a slower Athlon 64 with a
larger cache. Which will have the most impact on rendering time?

I don' think cache helps here as much as memory bandwidth (video takes
up a lot) and importantly clockspeed.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1842194,00.asp
This article seems to indicate the newer Sempron will outperform a
single channel A64 (note the A64 used here is socket 754) but it
doesn't really provide a clue on what happens when you double the
memory width.


http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/sempron3400/7.html
This shows a pretty strong 50% advantage for the 2.2Ghz A64 over the
Sempron 2Ghz if the application used is memory intensive but POVray
isn't exactly video encoding and this isn't a slower A64 vs faster
Sempron (they don't have data for the 1.8Ghz A64 which the Sempron
does beat out by a bit across the board)


Finally this
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/02/02/fast_computer_on_the_cheap/page10.html
seems to indicate that clock for clock, the Sempron will be an even
match for the A64 or at most need about 50~100Mhz clock advantage in
video encoding and 3DSMax (pg11).


So you will have to guesstimate between the exact model of Sempron and
A64 you are planning to go for. Although based on these articles, I'll
say the faster Sempron appears to be the slightly better option for
your particular use.

You could possibly try an experiment with your existing system. The
AthlonXP and A64 are probably similar enough for you to guesstimate
the effect between running 1.8Ghz using single channel vs downclocked
1.6Ghz using dual channel.

 

[Martin Grundy]

Do yourself a favour, get the new pentium d 805.
give AMD a miss for this one, especially for video and rendering.
get a good mobo, and o clock it.
BUT
dont take my word for it read around, count your cash, and THIS TIME go
Intel.

 

[Martin Grundy]

before ya start.
YES I know its really old Smithfeild cores, (but a newer
revision).
but its a new package.

 

[David Kanter]

Why not just wait a month or two for a Conroe based system? They will
probably kick the snot out of a P4 based core....

DK