i was backing up a dvd and just for fun i did the same movie on 2 computers
the amd finished in 15 min, then pentium finished in 25 min. It just seems strange to me...since the memory on the amd is 3200 and the pentium has 4200 memory...both have 1.5 gb of memory. Other than this they should both have pretty similar setup. So is amd really that much faster?

AMD Sempron 3400+ processor it only runs at 2.0 GHz...but the fsb is 1600MHz (the pentium has 800mhz)

Sounds right to me. P-4s are anything but fast.

But you didn't specify what, exactly, you are doing with the DVD. Mostly, shrinking a DVD is not a memory-intensive task. It's mostly a raw CPU-power task.

i was backing up the dvd with clonedvd. But is it the fsb that makes the difference or also that the amd is just faster than the pentium at encoding?

The fsb defenetly makes some change, like my CPU runs faster too eventhough I've barely changed the fsb when overclocking.

So I personally believe the fsb has something to do with it too, plus /evethough you didn't tell what clock does the pentium have/ mostlikely it's just simply faster than the pentium in full. If I remember correctly the AMD Sempron 3400+ was a pretty good CPU.

i put it in the thread title...the pentium 4 is a 3.0 ghz 800mhz fsb

This might provide some insight...

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=77&model2=216

Not sure which Pentium 4 3.0 you are using so I took the liberty of selecting one.

nice...its 631 (pentium 4 3.0) thanks for the link

Sorry didn't see it was in the title. But the end result is the same. Yes the AMD Sempron 3400+ is faster than the pentium.

afaik, memory reads,writes and latency all impact video encoding

use everest to compare the 2 machines

early ddr2 memory was awful, new stuff is now starting to catch the premium ddr1

This Sempron is really an Athlon64 with half the cache (and half the heat of the P4 ).

There isn't really a FSB on the AMD 64 platform because the memory is directly accessed by the CPU, whereas Intel has go to through the north bridge that adds latency to the whole system, thus increasing the signal delays.

AMD had Intel beaten all over the place until Core 2, now AMD are looking for a Core 2 killer.

Basically, the promise of Intel Netburst (P4 family) was a deep pipeline, scaling to high clockspeed. The problem, was it tan too damn hot to ever reach the theoretical limits, while the long pipeline gave it a huge pipeline stall penalty.

The A64, on the other hand, had shorter pipelines and the CPU was in charge of the memory, giving low latency.

The Intel "core" architecture rewrote the book, backtracking away from Netburst and drawing on the shorter pipelined and power efficient Pentium M -a brave admission that the P4 had deadended.

If you like the setup you have with the Intel P4 chip I would check the motherboard and see if it supports the E6xxx range of Core2Duo chips. Your P4 uses a LGA775 socket so its the same as the Core2Duo chips and if your board supports something like an E6600 you will be looking at a nice speed boost.

What motherboard does your intel setup have?

And yes, AMD totally wipes the floor with the old P4 Netburst chips from Intel. Things changed around with the Core2Duo chips though and clock speeds can no longer be used to work out how fast a chip is that is not in the same family.

I can't wait for the new AMD X4 chips .... hopefully they'll have something to rival Intel.

The AMD64-X2 architecture is a tad ... aged.

not sure what the motherboard is...i'll check it out and see if it would take a core2duo cpu