here seem to be a lot of people out there that think if it\'s great for videogames then it\'s the end all, be all solution.
There\'s a major flaw in your argument. You do realize that a good portion of the PC market is being pushed by the Videogame industry. What do you think the main driving force is that creates the demand for people to buy most the expensive ram, Video card and processor so that they can encode divix faster? Sure there is a segment out there that is geared towards 3d animation, or CAD stuff, but in reality the PC game industry has given the consumer the incentive they need to go and purchase a $500 64bit CPU, which in turns allows these companies to engineer and produce these chips. Games play a big part my friend and AMD has been the leader in that area for a while, the only time Intel has beaten AMD in the game benchmarks is when that particular game has been optimized for the P4 just like your divix program.
my argument was for dv encoding, with the link to that Anandtech test it should have been self explanatory.
It was for me, from the benchmark you provided:
AMD64 FX55 -- 56.1 FPS
Intel P4EE ----- 54.9 Fps
Now I understand that you are making the argument that the P4 3.0C encodes divix faster than a similar priced AMD chip. That I agree is true, after all DIVIX has been optimized for INTEL, yet when comparing both manufactures top of the line processor it\'s AMD who put the smack down on INTEL\'S own optimized software. Now if you ask me that\'s one hell of a chip. My main argument in this thread was that AMD does produce the fastest CPU\'s today, not INTEL and other than some synthetic benchmarks or software that has been optimized for Intel AMD has shown time and time again that they have engineered a better CPU.
Still no benchmarks?
if you want benchmarks I will provide them, just give me time to go through my bookmarks to find them. Oh and one more thing those anandtech benckmarks you posted, show that the AMD is kicking Intel in 95% of the benchs. How about them apples!
