"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:k65l01tgfqogbfg7939tn2lgkuq81ijob0@4ax.com...
> On 9 Feb 2005 13:39:16 -0800, sorchu***@hotmail.com (Kevin
> Lam) wrote:
>
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I know this is a often asked question, but this is more than what it
> >says on the title.
>
> Oh?
>
> >
> >I have got two mini multimedia pc in mind (MSI MEGA PC 180 and MSI
> >MEGA PC 865)
>
> Consider that you don't need maximum performance because
> it's not required for a mini multimedia PC.  What some might
> want is an adequate performance level with hopes to have
> lowest heat/power/noise possible.  If it weren't for the
> crappy integrated video w/PC133, that'd be a Tualatin
> Celeron.
>
> But, all is is a side-note, you already have two boxes in
> mind.
>
>
> >
> >If I were to buy the 180, which is competible with Althons, then I
> >would buy:
> >
> >Athlon 3000+
> >1G RAM
> >The board comes with built-in nForce2
>
> Definitely excessive for multimedia.
>
> >
> >
> >Otherwise, for 865:
> >
> >Pentium 4 3.0G HyperThread
> >512Mb RAM
> >The board comes with built-in Intel Extreme Graphics 2
>
> Also excessive though less so, because the Intel Graphics
> are significantly slower and there's less memory.  You
> didn't mention a need for gaming so it may not matter.  The
> P4 IS going to be faster at video encoding with modern
> P4-optimized codec, but you didn't meniton that... if you're
> using a hardware encoder card then again it won't matter...
> with a hardware encoder card it'd run from a Celeron 500
> system. A few years back I had one running from a Celeron
> 300 @ 450 with a Matrox G200TV card.  No remote though, and
> MJPEG wasn't the most compatible format even though the
> quality is better than MPEG2, the filesize is much larger.
>
>
> >
> >My question is that, which system would perform better?
>
> At what?
> Does it matter?  I mean, would it really matter if you were
> recording a show at 30 FPS and using 12% CPU rather than
> 16%?
>
> >
> >I am sure that Pentium 4 will be faster than the Athlon, because of
> >the HyperThreading and the large cache size.
>
> ?  You'd be wrong, a P4 is often a weaker processor and has
> been benefiting from CPU specific optimizations to pull it
> through modern benchmarks.  However, when it has these
> optimizations and at specific tasks, it's quite good at what
> it does.  There is a vast disparity in the types of things
> each is good at.  The P4 is more of a target-oriented CPU,
> _IF_ you have a specific app that is very linear in nature
> and has optimized SSE3 routines, the P4 is the right chip.
> Otherwise the Athlon is.  Again it's mostly trivia for a
> multimedia PC unless you have a target (usually
> commercialized) codec in mind that you will use for CPU
> soft-encoding.
>
>
> >
> >But if I buy Athlon, I will have more money to buy double the RAM...
>
> What do you plan to do with this system?
> One of my multimedia PCs has less than 128MB in use while
> recording, a few unneeded services disabled but hardware
> monitors and antivirus, etc, still running.  You seem
> confused about what it takes to run a multimedia PC... it is
> NOT a very demanding job except if/when the CPU is encoding
> video, and in which case the memory matters not nearly so
> much as the CPU, BUT having a powerhouse CPU in a small box
> with limited power and at minimal noise levels is also
> potentially problematic in the longer-term.
>
> Most people prefer to offload that job to a hardware encoder
> card.  Problem is if you don't want MPEG2, maybe Divx, then
> you still need soft encoding unless there's some new
> Divx-encoder card on the market that I'm not aware of.
> Actually I've heard of one but the details escape me ATM,
> except that it was a few hundred $$$, beyond the price-point
> of most HTPC builders.
>
> >
> >How about the Integrated Graphics Card? nForce2 better? would the P4
> >compensate the performance lost?
>
> Back up a few steps and rethink the question.
> Even if the two CPUs were identical in performance, CPU
> performance doesn't offset video performance.  Now back to
> relevance-  2D @ 30FPS is not a problem for any video,
> integrated or not, made in the last half-decade.
>
> Do you want to game?  If so, neither video is even close to
> fast enough for modern games.
>
>
> >
> >Which system would be hotter? Would Athlon runs hotter?
>
> Are you a troll?  I"m not pointing fingers yet but I ask
> because this post is all about the same urban legands and
> FUD, being repeated together.
>
> No, P4 has ran hotter at full throttle ever since AMD moved
> away from the Palomino.  If you're not considering full
> throttle, which you might not need, then the whole issue of
> performance between the two alternatives is again less
> relevant.  On the other hand, "some" Athlon boards don't
> have the HALT cooling implemented, such that they'd idle
> hotter.  You can re-enable HALT cooling if that's important,
> since neither box would be near full load ever, unless you
> had captured video and then later were recompressing it as a
> linear job rather than a realtime-based task like viewing or
> recording, etc.  In that specific scenario, AND with a newer
> codec, the P4 is the clear choice, else looking for an A64
> based HTPC instead of the two you're currenty considering.
>
> >
> >Sorry for so many questions, but it would be very very appreciated if
> >anyone could help me to make this decision, thx
>
> Don't get either box, not as configured.
> Consider less memory, slower CPU, put some $ towards your
> favorite video capture card... or two.  That will largely
> cancel any difference.  If either alternative you mentioned
> allows underclocking, buy the lowest CPU offered and
> underclock it.

> >
> > No, P4 has ran hotter at full throttle ever since AMD moved
> > away from the Palomino.  If you're not considering full
> > throttle, which you might not need, then the whole issue of
> > performance between the two alternatives is again less
> > relevant.  On the other hand, "some" Athlon boards don't
> > have the HALT cooling implemented, such that they'd idle
> > hotter.  You can re-enable HALT cooling if that's important,
> > since neither box would be near full load ever, unless you
> > had captured video and then later were recompressing it as a
> > linear job rather than a realtime-based task like viewing or
> > recording, etc.  In that specific scenario, AND with a newer
> > codec, the P4 is the clear choice, else looking for an A64
> > based HTPC instead of the two you're currenty considering.
> >
> > >
> > >Sorry for so many questions, but it would be very very appreciated
if
> > >anyone could help me to make this decision, thx
> >
> > Don't get either box, not as configured.
> > Consider less memory, slower CPU, put some $ towards your
> > favorite video capture card... or two.  That will largely
> > cancel any difference.  If either alternative you mentioned
> > allows underclocking, buy the lowest CPU offered and
> > underclock it.

> Guy wrote:

>
>                                Idle    K7burn
> 3GHz P4 Prescott D0:            30W     90W
> 3GHz P4 Northwood:              18W     70W
> 2GHz AXP Barton:                38W     60W
> 2GHz A64 Newcastle:             15W     55W
> 2GHz A64 Winchester:            <10W    30W
>
> I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
> is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
> playing UT2004 for a while.  And to confirm, yes the heat sink
> is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
> this performance category.
>
> -John