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

Franklin wrote:

I came across this. Is the guy right?

Posted:
02dec2001

Sigh... Trolls these days...

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??

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

"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

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

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

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

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...

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