Intel chipsets are the most stable?

A little balance? What will balance the huge number of Intel ads that
people
are bombarded with?



What's stopping AMD from advertising like Intel does? -Dave

"JK" wrote in message
...
Experts? How do you know they are experts? Do they work for Intel?


Well YOU think they are experts, so it's odd that you'd ask me for
roof. -Dave

That is like saying that one should buy a Ford car since Ford made the model T.
There are companies that are much younger than Ford that make very high
quality vehicles.

Ruel Smith wrote:

JK wrote:

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.

I don't have any statistical data to back it up, but I can believe it. Many
technologies on the motherboard are Intel technologies, like the PCI bus.
It stands to reason that since they invented it and have honed it over the
years that they have a rock solid implementation of it. Their reputation
over such technolgies depends on it.

Dave C. wrote:

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.

Yeah, those nuclear reactor Prescotts with the flip-flop socket design that
screws up the pins really is just light years ahead of the Athlon FX CPUs
with their on-die memory controllers and unlocked multipliers... I'm just
dying to get one... NOT!

My next system will be AMD Athlon 64/FX and hopefully dual-core. I recently
built my first AMD Athlon XP system and it went smooth. Pretty fast and
stable system for about $400.

BTW... We have yet to see where Athlon 64 stands as we've yet to be able to
test it in a real 64 bit environment with 64 bit software. Expect AMD to
smoke the current P4's...

When AMD gets over 50% cpu market share, AMD might or might not
advertise the way Intel did in the 1990s. Until then, Intel's ad budget will
be very many times that of AMD.

"Dave C." wrote:


A little balance? What will balance the huge number of Intel ads that
people
are bombarded with?



What's stopping AMD from advertising like Intel does? -Dave

In article , Franklin says...
I came across this. Is the guy right?

WAS right...

Intel chipsets did enjoy a very good level of stability on WINDOWS due
to what was pretty much a marriage between Intel and Microsoft however
things have moved on.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in
desktop
performance by such a large margin.


Geez, it's gonna be a long century. -Dave

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

Yeah, those nuclear reactor Prescotts with the flip-flop socket design
that
screws up the pins really is just light years ahead of the Athlon FX CPUs
with their on-die memory controllers and unlocked multipliers... I'm just
dying to get one... NOT!

My next system will be AMD Athlon 64/FX and hopefully dual-core. I
recently
built my first AMD Athlon XP system and it went smooth. Pretty fast and
stable system for about $400.

BTW... We have yet to see where Athlon 64 stands as we've yet to be able
to
test it in a real 64 bit environment with 64 bit software. Expect AMD to
smoke the current P4's...


Ruel, meet JK. He's in the next cubicle over. About time you two finally
met. -Dave

Ruel Smith wrote:
JK wrote:



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.


I don't have any statistical data to back it up, but I can believe it. Many
technologies on the motherboard are Intel technologies, like the PCI bus.
It stands to reason that since they invented it and have honed it over the
years that they have a rock solid implementation of it. Their reputation
over such technolgies depends on it.


These days the "stability" of the chipsets is the
least of your concerns when building a system. As
far as stability is concerned, the minor differences
between the chipsets is overwhelmed by the stability
issues of many other things that go into building a
system. Improperly mounted fans/heatsinks, flaky
or inadequate PSUs, improperly chosen or seated DIMMs,
and clueless idiots who don't take the proper (if any)
anti-static measures, are just some of the more common
causes of system instability. Chipset issues rank
*way* down the list.




--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

Yes, it's true in my experience. SIS chipsets are among the LEAST stable.

--
DaveW



"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