Intel chipsets are the most stable?

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
JK wrote:

We went through this already several times.

Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
It
was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

The 3DFX, NVIDEA days were a real hoot.

"JK" wrote in message
...


chrisv wrote:

JK wrote:

We went through this already several times.

Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
It
was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

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

A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
Intel based IBM........

AND it was JEROME (JK) that started them back then also


"chrisv" wrote in message
...
JK wrote:

We went through this already several times.

Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
It
was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

Because they are the "Kool-Aid" people. They drink it because Intel says it
tastes good.

Fact is that AMD beat Intel to the 1 GHz barrier, and in reality (whether an
AMD or Intel system does better in any benchmark test) AMD has never looked
back.

Sure, Intel has had a huge hand in creating a lot of platforms (you
mentioned PCI, so we can use that as an example), but it certainly behooves
them to do such things, as consumers constantly demand faster, smaller, and
cheaper (overall) hardware - But (if Microsoft has it's way), Intel could
very well end up licensing 64-bit technology from AMD, and IMHO, this would
be a very big concession for Intel to give, as they had their way for years,
and now they are losing market share.

Figures for Q1 2004 are Intel having 82.7% to AMD's 15.5%. To think what
AMD has done, even selling only 1 chip to every 5.5 for Intel is no less
than amazing - Even they biggest Intel shills should be able to admit that
(especially considering that compared to Intel, AMD's advertising budget is
even smaller).

The fact is that Intel used to lead the market trend in every way (of
course - easy when you're the only game in town), but now they are also
having to learn to follow trends too.

I'm not an AMD shill, I began using AMD's for the price, but I kept coming
back for the price, quality, and support. I haven't bought an Intel chip
since PII-300, and I've never looked back; Not to say that I wouldn't now,
or in the future, because they are finally learning a successful AMD
trend-setter - LOW PRICING.

Intel Inside? Don't divide! (showing my age)..

Fred



"Ruel Smith" wrote in message
...
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.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:06:50 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:

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

All of these tests vary HUGELY depending on exactly which applications
you test (and often even what settings are used within any one
application).

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

Actually usually it's within 10% one way or the other, again depending
on what application and what settings you use.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

This one is pretty much a dead tie, though one application could
easily show either chip being up to 50% faster than the other.

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

PC Mark CPU benchmarks are just as useless as every other synthetic
CPU benchmark I've ever seen, it tells you absolutely zero about
performance. For memory bandwidth, Socket 754 Athlon64 chips are
slower than Intel chips, Socket 939 Athlon64 chips are faster. For
memory latency, AMD chips are ALWAYS much faster (the built-in memory
controller ensure that much).

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

Whoa! You really don't want to be quoting Tom's Hardware around here
if you want anyone to take you even remotely seriously! That's like
quoting the National Enquirer for a "news" story!

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

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:50:35 GMT, "Frank" wrote:
"JK" wrote in message
...


chrisv wrote:

JK wrote:

We went through this already several times.

Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
It
was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

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

A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
Intel based IBM........

shudder "no fault tolerances" and they are using x86?! Surely you
jest!

There are plenty of banks and other organizations that do require very
high levels of reliability, and they do NOT use x86 for these
applications, not AMD, not Intel! IBM Power-based servers yes. Sun
SPARC systems, sure. Maybe even the odd HP PA-RISC systems or for the
very high-end something like an HPaq Non-Stop system, but DEFINITELY
not x86!

Either way though, if you want high reliability on x86, AMD's Opteron
should be your #1 choice, it has every reliability feature that Intel
has ever had and then some. Now that Intel has cut off Serverworks
(the makers of the most reliable server chipsets for Intel processors)
from making any future designs, this difference in reliability is
likely to become more pronounced (Intel's own chipsets have never
really matched up, which is why almost nobody uses their chipsets for
servers). Still, even with the Opteron I wouldn't consider the system
to be in the "very high reliability" category, *especially* not if it
were running Windows!

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

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:28:10 GMT, "DaveW" wrote:

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

Actually myself and a number of others have had pretty good luck with
SiS chipsets. The real problem is that they are used on total ****
low-end piece of crap motherboards. If you take the very best chipset
in the world and put it on a POS motherboard built using bargain bin
components, it will result in an unstable system. SiS chipsets are
the cheapest and therefore the cheapest motherboards use them.
However every once in a while you get a bit of a gem. The ECS K7S5A
was probably the best example of this, dirt-cheap board that was every
bit as stable as boards costing $50 or $100 more. The real problem is
that they are very hit-and-miss.

FWIW my current board is an ASRock K7S41GX, an SiS based board that
was super-cheap which I bought after my previous board died at about
the worst possible time (financially speaking). I've been pleasantly
surprised, it really hasn't caused me many headaches at all in either
Linux or WinXP. The biggest problem I had was that, even though this
board has the 4 holes to bolt a heatsink onto the motherboard (quite
rare these days), there were a couple of capacitor that got in the way
of my heatsink. However even with a bit of man-handling (and filling
down my heatsink so it would fit), the board has worked just fine. I
just wish I could say as much for the low-end Sapphire/ATI video card
I got with it! (note to self: back to an nVidia video cards next time)

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

A few _cheap_ corporations or bureaucracies will use AMD and off brand
chipsets....Check out the banks who need no fault tolerances....
Intel based IBM........


My wife works for a bank..
They use Dells..
Not cause of low faults..
They use dells cause they cost half of what the same spec pc cost elsewhere.

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.

Dave C. wrote:
"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


What experts? Tomshardware might as well change name to intelslapdog.com