On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:23:39 +0100, Franklin
wrote:

I came across this. Is the guy right?

QUOTE
Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
combination of these factors.

Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
community. Everyone knows it.
END QUOTE

http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm

Three years ago (when this article was first written) I would have
agreed hands-down. Now, I'm not so sure because nVidia has really
raised the bar.

Until fairly recently the only companies making chipsets for PCs (ie
not the high-end stuff from Serverworks, Unisys and the like) were
Intel, SiS, ALi and VIA. SiS chips were decent but pretty much only
used on super-low-end stuff, VIA and ALi meanwhile both had very buggy
drivers and occasionally even buggy hardware (though it was always
more a driver issue than hardware). At that time, Intel was far and
away the best bet for stability.

However when nVidia entered the game, the rules changed somewhat.
nVidia right out of the gate had VIA and ALi beat cold in terms of
driver quality and their chipsets were used on higher-end products
that SiS (if you use low-end crap components on a motherboard with a
****ty design, it really doesn't matter how good the chipset is, your
board will still suck). The result of this was two-fold: first off it
gave a real, viable competitor to Intel for the most stable chipsets,
and secondly it really forced VIA to pick up their socks. While I'm
still no big fan of VIA chipsets, my understanding is that their
latest couple versions have been rather significantly better than
where they were two years ago.


Also, Intel is hardly without their own faults as well. While some of
their chipsets have been good, they have had their own sets of
problems, ranging from the extremely problematic memory interface of
the i820 chipset to the very poor quality of the early i810 drivers,
and pretty much all of us who were dealing with PCs back in the late
'96/early '97 time frame remember incredibly problematic ATA drivers
for the PIIX4 southbridge (this caused many people to have to format
and re-install their entire OS just because they installed patches and
drivers in a different order than was required).


Personally, if I were to build a system using an Intel processor, I
would probably stick to an Intel chipset simply because the only
advantage of non-Intel chipsets is about a $5 price savings (ie
nothing). On the other hand, my last 4 motherboard + CPU combos have
been using AMD processors, obviously all of which used non-Intel
chipsets (2 x SiS, 1 VIA and 1 nVidia). If I were to buy a new system
today, it would have an AMD processor in the thing and an nVidia
chipset on the motherboard, because IMO they are now the leaders in
terms of chipset driver quality, not Intel.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca