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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel chipsets are the most stable?
Franklin wrote:
I came across this. Is the guy right? Posted: 02dec2001 Sigh... Trolls these days... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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?? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:27:44 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote: 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. IMHO still is even if lacks some newer tech support: I am doing some Net research with benching real life Ram performance of different setups (not Sandra mem bench which shows max theoretical bandwith which 99% never occurs) but using instead WinRAR3.3 mem bench The results are astonishing for BX using Sdram in my case @ 135Fsb & well tweaked BX registers; very low latencies! The only one beating me in score was some guy with s.754 Atlon64, (which has an excelent memory controller built into it onDie already!) OC-ed. Beated me for 50% in speed, but with also almost 40% higher real clock than mine ... equal was a guy with OC-ed P4 /nortW/, but with more than 50% higher real ram clock; all the others are more or less worse than mine result (even with higher real ram clock than mine!). Who says that DDR is faster! IMHO Intel guys at that time were really not aware how good northbridge they made at all ! :-) With todays technology & manufacturing process a rivival of sdram & BX chipset with added support for newer features would be a real BINGO, since sdram looks like is faster per clock than DDram !!! because of lower latencies in general & less complexity ! But they IMHO will not do it (marketing "brainwashing" costumers to retain their profits)! [even if they did it with going back from P4 arhitecture to P3 enhanced= Pentium-M] .. Like I see these days chipsets are made on "thiner" technology & capable of running on double clock speeds, but in fact are slower per clock performance than chipsets few years ago! The other problem these days with lack of time to properly program device drivers too, all practically beta stuff & less expencess made just in time to preceed competition on the market. Yep a lot of stuff is because of that not solid made like years ago used to be .. :-( Benching stuff with software that gives high numbers (max bandwith) like Sandra mem bench is a good tool for them to use for marketing purposes! Just like pass Intel Netburst arhitecture capable of high CPU clocks but equal to AMD chips (with less than a quarter less clock) performance more or less ... just my 2.c ... -- Regards, SPAJKY ® & visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!" E-mail AntiSpam: remove ## |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel chipsets are the most stable? | rstlne | Overclocking AMD Processors | 105 | October 26th 04 02:53 AM |
Intel chipsets are the most stable? | rstlne | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | October 15th 04 12:11 PM |
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment | Dave C. | Homebuilt PC's | 40 | September 27th 04 07:19 AM |
PSUs for new Intel chipsets? | John Smith | Homebuilt PC's | 14 | July 7th 04 06:45 AM |
Intel motherboards: 865PE vs 875P chipsets??? | Bob | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | April 29th 04 05:43 AM |