A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel chipsets are the most stable?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 15th 04, 12:11 PM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intel chipsets are the most stable?


"Franklin" wrote in message
...
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



He only owns p4 systems, so I do hope they are the most stable fo rhim..

Look at the dates he quoted on some of his "proof"

Why are you posting this to an AMD group.. You should be posting to a
chipset group (via, nv, sis, others)

He also goes to say on that to help stability you should have like 5
installs of windows.

He also goes on to say that you should buy asus.

If your amd box is unstable then chances are it's down to something you have
done..

Are intel chipsets more stable.. Yea maybee, Lets not forget that just last
month they had to recall a ****load of boards, and that their first
PCI-Express boards out the door have this little warning that says dont use
your pci-express slots yet.

/Slaps on hand for Feeding Trolls


  #2  
Old October 15th 04, 12:18 PM
Grumble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Franklin wrote:

I came across this. Is the guy right?


Posted:
02dec2001

Sigh... Trolls these days...
  #3  
Old October 15th 04, 01:27 PM
George Macdonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


Oh gawd, where's my Nomex underpants?

Over the years, the above quote has been true ON *and* OFF and with notable
exceptions. It may still hold right now, somewhat, for an Intel CPU but I
haven't used an Intel chipset mbrd for 5years now, the last being an Asus
P3B-F and that, i440BX, *was* one of Intel's best ever chipsets. In the
meantime, we've had i820/840, i815 and i845... all of which were lacking in
some way or another. With i865/875 they seemed to get back on track again
but now, with i915/925, they're trying to play market segmentation again
and it *will* backfire on them.

Right now, an AMD CPU on an AMD or nVidia nForce chipset will give just as
much of an err, "stable computing experience" as any Intel CPU+chipset and
add some functionality and future-proof into the bargain. "Common
knowledge" needs to be updated... or the "community" needs to umm, move
along!shrug

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  #4  
Old October 15th 04, 02:32 PM
JK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I found the article to be very amusing. I guess it was first written when Intel
fell behind AMD in performance a few years ago. Now that AMD has an even
greater performance lead than ever before, we see all this FUD and excuses
why performance doesn't matter so much. This paragraph in particular made
me laugh.

"Now that CPUs contain over 50 million transistors and are capable of processing
information at
clockrates exceeding 3,000 Megahertz [3 GigaHertz], raw performance no longer carries the
importance
it once did. Certainly, speed will always have its place. But it's no longer the primary
focus. Rather,
today's PC enthusiast is shifting a critical eye toward system stability."

Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never provide statistical
proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't find any.

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


  #5  
Old October 15th 04, 03:04 PM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #6  
Old October 15th 04, 03:45 PM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.



Ya know.. I have a SiS A/AXP motherboard and there is only 1 fault with it
Windows will "pause" during startup for up to 2 mins.. Microsoft
acknowledges that it's their problem and that's all.. I guess there isnt
enough complaints for them to make a fix BUT they can send yoa a small
hotfix for it if you want to try it..

But that's the ONLY problem I have ever had with that board/setup..
I have 2 intel laptops too that Fedora will not install to, but it installs
fine to the amd boards I have.


  #7  
Old October 15th 04, 07:21 PM
dg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"JK" wrote in message
...
Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never

provide statistical
proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't

find any.

Maybe so. I don't feel a need to find statistics, but I don't claim Intel
is more stable either-I just feel like they are. I build my personal
systems with Intel chipsets and processors because in my experience, they
are more stable. I had stability issues with AMD and even further back,
Cyrix. I was turned off to the alternative chips years ago and now I just
refuse to even waste time with them. I could be wrong, I am sure times have
changes and AMD wouldn't be around if they were really that flaky.

Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
better deal, so be it.

--Dan


  #8  
Old October 15th 04, 07:38 PM
JK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dg wrote:

"JK" wrote in message
...
Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never

provide statistical
proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't

find any.

Maybe so. I don't feel a need to find statistics, but I don't claim Intel
is more stable either-I just feel like they are. I build my personal
systems with Intel chipsets and processors because in my experience, they
are more stable. I had stability issues with AMD and even further back,
Cyrix. I was turned off to the alternative chips


Alternative chips?

AMD is now the performance leader. As for you bad experience years ago,
one has to choose their system components carefully. There are low quality
motherboards for both AMD and Intel processors, as well as high quality ones.
One must choose carefully.

years ago and now I just
refuse to even waste time with them. I could be wrong, I am sure times have
changes and AMD wouldn't be around if they were really that flaky.


Unfortunately there are still some low quality motherboards being made
for AMD processors, however there are many high quality ones. One
must choose system components carefully.



Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
better deal, so be it.


Again the term alternative chips?
Do you call a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari an alternative car?



--Dan


  #9  
Old October 15th 04, 08:06 PM
Dave C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alternative chips?

AMD is now the performance leader.


Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04


  #10  
Old October 15th 04, 08:34 PM
JK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We went through this already several times.


"Dave C." wrote:

Skip the Athlon64 and go with your original plan.

According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:

P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as
hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
of their system combined.

So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
has the best bang for buck, at the moment.

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster


Not quite.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2065&p=10




Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away


Not quite. Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6




Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away


Not quite. See the Content Creation Winstone 2004 results.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6




Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away


Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6






Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04


Very funny. A $150 Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754 )beats an $815 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
in Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7

A $95 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $210 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6


http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getar...&go=0.53769656




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? Cuzman Overclocking 1 December 8th 04 08:20 PM
Ghost speed differerent in AMD & Intel Zotin Khuma General 7 November 17th 04 06:56 AM
intel board, fans on during standby. intel d875PBZ. JohnJ General 0 January 13th 04 05:14 PM
Best bang for buck CPU? Shawk Homebuilt PC's 9 October 5th 03 07:24 PM
Which is better: AMD Athlon XP 1800+ or Intel Pentium 2 GHz? Pccomputerdr Homebuilt PC's 7 October 5th 03 05:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.