Augustin:
>
> Now, what really matters to me the most is that I want to do some
> video editing with ffmpeg and Kdeenline and maybe some simple 3D
> modelling with blender.
I don't edit videos but I transcode them quite often and you can be
sure: the more cores for encoding, the better. But beware that there are
codecs that cannot (or at least currently don't) use multiple threads.
These only use one CPU.
From my two minute research, it appears Blender can use multiple threads
as well, so it's better to use, say, 4*2.6GHz instead of 2*3GHz.
Don't forget to get as much memory as possible. I opted for 2*2GB in
order to be able to upgrade to my mainboard maximum (4*2GB) without
having to remove any modules that I don't have any other use for. I
don't actually need that much, but you might even want more. Of course,
to use more than 4GB (including graphics memory!) you will have to run
Debian AMD64 (no matter whether you decide on AMD or Intel).
> Here is my current CPU:
>
> $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
> cpu family : 6
> model : 8
> model name : AMD Sempron(tm) 2300+
> stepping : 1
> cpu MHz : 1585.853
> cache size : 256 KB
I upgraded from AMD Athlon XP 1700+ to an Intel Core2Dou E6750 last year
and the performance gain was simply astonishing. You will get a very
nice speedup as well, no matter which route you go.
> and it's really not quite enough for video editing. Kdenlive stutters
> when previewing my movie timeline.
> Would the less powerful AMD be adequate, or should I pay twice the
> price for top Intel processor?
I *guess* the AMD would blow you away but I really cannot comment on the
comparison with the Intel CPU. But it's (almost) never a good idea to
buy the "best" models available. You'll always get most bang for the
buck somewhere in the mid-price range.
> This is why I think we should support the number 2 chipmaker, since
> they do provide relatively cheap but powerful CPUs and since we win
> from their competition with Intel.
ACK. It didn't stop me from buying Intel, though. I had such a good
impression from their Pentium M processors (which the Core2Duo is a
descendent of) that I decided to buy Intel.
> The second ethical element is power saving.
I have read several times that AMDs generally use less power when they
are idle and Intels use less power on load. But of course that doesn't
hold when comparing dual vs. quad.
> The third ethical element is the relation between the company and the
> Software Libre world.
> In which ways is AMD friendlier to the penguin than Intel?
I would say it isn't. Intel has started to (help) develop for their
graphics and wireless devices years ago.
> I have heard of the open sourcing of the ATI drivers, but I am not
> sure what's the latest news in that respect.
From what I have read, it looks god so far, but there's still a long way
to go.
J.
--
There is no justice in road accidents.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature