question about stability of AMD XP processors

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:59:14 GMT
"chris watkins" wrote:

Hi. I am looking at purchasing a new computer, and I am trying to
decide between AMD Athlon XP and Intel Pentium 4. I've been hearing
about"stability problems" with the Athlon processors. Can anyone give
objective opinions on the pros and cons of AthlonXP versus Pentium 4.

I'm using the new computer for small business purpose...

I have a number of Intel-based machines and a number of AMD-based
machines. They are pretty much equally stable--neither presents any
real problems in that regard--I find that if either type of machine is
unstable it's telling me that something is broken, not properly
configured, not properly installed installed, not getting enough power,
or not getting enough cooling.

General advice--if you value stability above performance, don't go for
the cutting edge--go for components that have been on the market for a 6
months to a year so any problems have surfaced and so that there's been
time for the drivers and BIOS to be debugged. Don't overclock. If you
can afford it go for a server or workstation board that takes ECC
memory. Get a decent power supply and make sure it's large enough for
your needs with a good margin for growth. Airflow is your friend.
Research all your components--google and google groups help here.

Pros and cons--for some jobs Intels give a little better performance,
for some AMDs give a little better, for most there's not enough
difference to worry about. You'll hear FUD about AMD processors running
hot or burning up--they run fine with the factory heat sink as long as
you have enough airflow in the case and don't overclock--if you go for a
third-party heat sink you can get them to run even cooler--the"burning
up" FUD comes from a"test" that somebody did in which they ran an AMD
without any cooling at all and it did what you would expect. Intel has
decided to idiot-proof their chips so that they protect themselves if
some moron tries to run them with no cooling--some advocates pretend
that this is some huge advantage--personally in 24 years of working with
microcomputers I've never seen a real-world situation in which such
protection is needed. Some of the Intels have a new feature called
"hyperthreading" that lets a single processor pretend to be a
dual--advocates make this out to be another huge advantage but in the
real world it gives a percent or two on some benchmarks and takes away a
percent or two on others and in general doesn't make much difference.
Both AMD and Intel add a few new instructions with each generation--if
you make heavy use application that uses the ones in the latest AMD or
Intel to good advantage then it might be a good idea to go with
whichever one the application vendor recommends--this is rare
though.

The bottom line is that if you don't have any special requirements then
either will work fine for you.

Thanks
Chris

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

The real answer to your question is not which processor but who to buy it
from. If you are using it and depending on it for business then select a
local dealer that can support it if problems developed. Overclocking and
online games are not an option if you are depending on getting payroll
out......


"chris watkins" wrote in message
...
Hi. I am looking at purchasing a new computer, and I am trying to decide
between AMD Athlon XP and Intel Pentium 4. I've been hearing about
"stability problems" with the Athlon processors. Can anyone give
objective
opinions on the pros and cons of AthlonXP versus Pentium 4.

I'm using the new computer for small business purpose...

Thanks
Chris

And your experiences are ,.......................


Fig



"Stacey" wrote in message
...
chris watkins wrote:

Hi. I am looking at purchasing a new computer, and I am trying to
decide
between AMD Athlon XP and Intel Pentium 4. I've been hearing about
"stability problems" with the Athlon processors. Can anyone give
objective opinions on the pros and cons of AthlonXP versus Pentium 4.



What you've probably heard is people using athlon processors with Via
chipsets. While many run OK, they tend to be "flakey" with certain
hardware
mixes and people relate this to the chip rather than the real culprit, the
chipset.

Use an SIS or nvidia chipset and enjoy.
--

Stacey

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:04:39 -0400, Stacey wrote:

chris watkins wrote:

Hi. I am looking at purchasing a new computer, and I am trying to decide
between AMD Athlon XP and Intel Pentium 4. I've been hearing about
"stability problems" with the Athlon processors. Can anyone give
objective opinions on the pros and cons of AthlonXP versus Pentium 4.



What you've probably heard is people using athlon processors with Via
chipsets. While many run OK, they tend to be "flakey" with certain hardware
mixes and people relate this to the chip rather than the real culprit, the
chipset.

Use an SIS or nvidia chipset and enjoy.

Agree, Nvidia or Sis.

chris watkins wrote:

Hi. I am looking at purchasing a new computer, and I am trying to decide
between AMD Athlon XP and Intel Pentium 4. I've been hearing about
"stability problems" with the Athlon processors. Can anyone give objective
opinions on the pros and cons of AthlonXP versus Pentium 4.

I'm using the new computer for small business purpose...

Thanks
Chris


It's not the CPU, it's the motherboard and chipset that determines
whether the system will run stably without random crashes. There are
3rd party chipsets for Intel and AMD that truly suck no matter what
CPU is on them, and there are others that are superior to even name-
brand items.

CPU's themselves available today are stable. They just are... if you
run them at their rated speed on a reliable board, they just work.
There IS no stability problem inherent in the CPU's themselves, but
people blame them if there's problems. It's like saying "My Honda
has a Kenwood stereo and conks out all the time, but my Ford has an
Alpine and runs great, so don't buy Kenwood." PC's are complex and
have lots of parts that interact. The chipset really *is* the PC
as such, the CPU is the most reliable (these days) part of the whole
system. Intel and AMD simply cannot afford to let CPU's out the door
that simply die, and they don't do it. So don't think of it as which
CPU is "stable", what you want is a combination of system board with
the CPU you want which is known to provide a reliable, integrated
system as a totality.

I haven't had a single hiccup out of my Epox board with NForce2
(NVidia) chipset for an Athlon XP, in fact I've ended up with Epox
3 times in a row without actually favouring that brand when I went
shopping - they just offered the best boards at the best price with
the features I wanted and good reviews at the time.
There are some chipsets by VIA for Intel CPU's to avoid, esp. from
2 - 4 years ago, then again their latest Athlon sets are supposed
to be pretty good. I would research the system you want and post
back asking if people's experiences with those parts are good.

In the main, Intel CPU's with Intel chipsets are reliable systems,
as are Athlons with NForce series chipsets. But even the most reliable
system will give you grief if you try to run it out of spec... don't
attempt to overclock if you want a system that you can count on,
leave that to the tech's who know what they're doing. Plus, if you
try to run a CPU or board out-of-spec (eg. overclocking), you generally
void the warranty, and that won't help you if reliability is your key
point. There are boards that are intended for overclockers, and they
can play fast and loose, what you want is a good, conservative board
for office systems that won't be getting hot-rodded.
HTH