hi there guys.
Im buying a computer for video editing (just as a hobby, im not going professional or anything).
was wondering if an athlon 2.8 gig as my processor is a good choice.
Also ive been adviced on the GA - 7n400 pro motherboard with an onboard firewire card. could any1 please confirm if im making the right choice. (complaints if any about athlon or the motherboard as of yet)
also im getting a fxs700 leatek videocard.

is this a good enough config for my newly found (and expensive) hobby.
do I really need to pay a few hundred dollars extra for the intel p4 hypertheading technology, or will the athlon work just fine for me?

thanks u guys. I just have like 12 hrs to confirm my decision.

Not really my area of expertise but 'the word on the street' does seem to be that the P4 with hyperthreading are the way to go for best performance at the mo.

As I understand it though, it's only a performance issue. My two and a half year old Athlon 1800+ system is editing quite nicely under Windows XP pro.

I'd agree with that - benchmarks imply high end P4s are better for video encoding time. BUT, you get more "bang for your buck" out of the mid-range Athlon XP range.

__________________

| video editing guides | our videos |
| wedding guides | website hosting |

thats cool. thanks marc and millsy.
ill tell u guys how i like my new machine over the weekend.

What about the Athlon 64s?
I have my eye on an Athlon 64 3400+, would it be better than a Pentium 4?

If it's in your budget, I'd recommend a Pentium 4 "Extreme Edition." These cost over £600, but they're well worth it. They've got 2MB of onboard cache, making rendering tasks fly right by at top speed.

I can only speak for the processor. I have a 2.8 in my box with 1gig of RDRAM and I have never dropped a frame capturing analog or from the firewire (DV). I have an Intel D850 chipset. I am weary of Athalon but have never used one myself. I'd go with what is known to work well, what the rest of the group is saying and I'd check to see if the software and hardware you are going to use to capture with is fully compatible.

Sooo...

I should spend £350 extra to get a P4 extreme edition at 3.2GHz rather than just £300 on an Athlon 64 3400+ with 1.5GB PC3200 kingston RAM?

It just doesn't seem sensible, especially from the performance Athlon 64s are supposed to deliver.

I personally use athlons and have only had trouble when the heatsink I had was insufficient when I upgraded my processor, no harm done, just meant I had to get a better heatsink for a whopping £10..

So I know that Athlon XPs work fine, although above the Athlon 2800+ I'm skeptical. The Athlon 64s are supposed to remedy this shortfall in the old XP series.

One final note, just because I see it so often and it annoys me - there is only 1 "A" in "Athlon" - not Athalon or anything else.

You'd be the same if both your parents had been teachers..

don't worry, kebab, I'm a pedant too.

to be honest, i'd go for the amd solution, and spend the difference on RAM/Drive space/Bigger (or extra) monitor.