Are Intel CPU with Intel chipsets more stable?

[Xpred]

I was told that they are more stable if I was just planning to go stock rather than going with AMD (maybe not as stable?). Is this true?

 

[Atheus]

No, Intel cpus on intel chipsets _are_ quite stable, but other stuff is stable too, including athlon 64.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

AMD proc > Intel proc

Intel chipset = nVidia chipset

AMD= AMD proc + nVidia chipset

Intel= Intel proc + Intel chipset

AMD proc + nVidia chipset > Intel proc Intel chipset because if one is equal to the other part. and another part is greater than the other part, than the first whole is greater than the second whole.

Isn't Geometry fun?

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
AMD proc > Intel proc

Intel chipset = nVidia chipset

AMD= AMD proc + nVidia chipset

Intel= Intel proc + Intel chipset

AMD proc + nVidia chipset > Intel proc Intel chipset because if one is equal to the other part. and another part is greater than the other part, than the first whole is greater than the second whole.

Isn't Geometry fun?

:thumbsup:

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Xpred
I was told that they are more stable if I was just planning to go stock rather than going with AMD (maybe not as stable?). Is this true?

They are BOTH stable. AMD just runs cooler and faster for the same $.

I love AMD processors ATM, but Intel is stable, I won't contend that !

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
AMD proc > Intel proc

Intel chipset = nVidia chipset

AMD= AMD proc + nVidia chipset

Intel= Intel proc + Intel chipset

AMD proc + nVidia chipset > Intel proc Intel chipset because if one is equal to the other part. and another part is greater than the other part, than the first whole is greater than the second whole.

Isn't Geometry fun?

Geometry?

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
AMD proc > Intel proc

Intel chipset |= nVidia chipset

AMD= AMD proc + nVidia chipset

Intel= Intel proc + Intel chipset

AMD proc + nVidia chipset > Intel proc Intel chipset because if one is equal to the other part. and another part is greater than the other part, than the first whole is greater than the second whole.

Isn't Geometry fun?

Fixed.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune
AMD proc > Intel proc

Intel chipset = nVidia chipset

AMD= AMD proc + nVidia chipset

Intel= Intel proc + Intel chipset

AMD proc + nVidia chipset > Intel proc Intel chipset because if one is equal to the other part. and another part is greater than the other part, than the first whole is greater than the second whole.

Isn't Geometry fun?

Geometry?

Agreed, more like AT MOST pre-algebra.

 

[ProviaFan]

AMD Athlon 64 and Nvidia NForce4 will be just as stable. Anyone who claims otherwise either has out of date info (way out of date, as in several years), is an ignorant idiot, or is a troll.

 

[Lyfer]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
AMD Athlon 64 and Nvidia NForce4 will be just as stable. Anyone who claims otherwise either has out of date info (way out of date, as in several years), is an ignorant idiot, or is a troll.

QFTX99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.


Via chipsets, now thats another story.

 

[Pariah]

AMD and to a much greater extend, NVidia, has not proven itself in the truly mission critical server arena. Until they do so, Intel + Intel is still the proven and safer stable option. CPU's are very rarely the cause of system instability, the motherboard is a far more often culprit. So it isn't really a case of Intel being more stable than AMD. I wouldn't think twice between an Intel CPU/Nvidia chipset and Intel CPU/Intel chipset/Intel board, it would be Intel chipset all the way. Since AMD has no comparable partner in the chipset arena, they lose by default until they prove otherwise.

It's all a moot point for home users where a crash once a month isn't that big a deal. AMD platforms are just as good as Intel for home users where systems don't get punished 24-7-365. Crashes on any properly configured modern PC should be very few and far between.

 

[dexvx]

Nowadays, its not so much chipset dependant as it is parts dependant. You can have the best chipset, but use the worse parts (Caps, VRM's, Heatsinks, etc etc) and it would still be aweful under load. The thing that sets good motherboards apart from "bad" ones is the quality of components.

However, each chipset/manufacturer does have its flaws, to name a few:

- 875/865 had a bug with CH5 memory chips and the divider
- 915 has relatively bad DDR performance
- 955's aweful SLI performance
- nForce4 DMA can sometimes corrupt under stress
- Tyan's notoriously picky PSU requirements

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Pariah
AMD and to a much greater extend, NVidia, has not proven itself in the truly mission critical server arena. Until they do so, Intel + Intel is still the proven and safer stable option. CPU's are very rarely the cause of system instability, the motherboard is a far more often culprit. So it isn't really a case of Intel being more stable than AMD. I wouldn't think twice between an Intel CPU/Nvidia chipset and Intel CPU/Intel chipset/Intel board, it would be Intel chipset all the way. Since AMD has no comparable partner in the chipset arena, they lose by default until they prove otherwise.

It's all a moot point for home users where a crash once a month isn't that big a deal. AMD platforms are just as good as Intel for home users where systems don't get punished 24-7-365. Crashes on any properly configured modern PC should be very few and far between.

This is half correct. AMD servers use AMD chipsets for the most part (most people forget that AMD is one of the largest manufacturers of chipsets for AMD CPUs), and they certainly have been proven in mission critical servers (which is why 80% of the Forbes 100 companies have now gone with AMD for their new servers). The NForce Pro (Nvidia's Opteron server chipset) is still being evaluated (usually takes about a year), but so far I haven't heard any negatives (though until it's been tested for at least a year, it's not "mission critical ready").
The next chipset leap for AMD BTW will be the Horus 32-way, which has been in development for several years now. We are expecting it sometime early 2006.

As to consumer use, the AMD platform is always at least as stable as Intel's...the only caveat is in an area where there is heat in the room. In that case, I would say that the AMD platform would be more stable (for obvious reasons...).

Edit: I should add that another example of Opteron's acceptance as a mission critical platform is that Cray is now exclusively Opteron on their supercomputers, and Sun has dropped Intel altogether in favour of AMD...

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
AMD Athlon 64 and Nvidia NForce4 will be just as stable. Anyone who claims otherwise either has out of date info (way out of date, as in several years), is an ignorant idiot, or is a troll.

I'm sorry but I have to say, the AMD processors are obviously the last thing that is the cause of system stability but I have to say, Nforce Chipsets are still not as good as intel chipsets. I've had too many problems with Nforce chipsets to say that they're as good as intel chipsets, now to say that nforce is down right crappy would be a lie because they're fairly decent and so much better than VIA. I'm waiting for ati's chipset which appears to already be very stable, better performing etc despite being in the beta stage...

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Pariah
AMD and to a much greater extend, NVidia, has not proven itself in the truly mission critical server arena. Until they do so, Intel + Intel is still the proven and safer stable option. CPU's are very rarely the cause of system instability, the motherboard is a far more often culprit. So it isn't really a case of Intel being more stable than AMD. I wouldn't think twice between an Intel CPU/Nvidia chipset and Intel CPU/Intel chipset/Intel board, it would be Intel chipset all the way. Since AMD has no comparable partner in the chipset arena, they lose by default until they prove otherwise.

It's all a moot point for home users where a crash once a month isn't that big a deal. AMD platforms are just as good as Intel for home users where systems don't get punished 24-7-365. Crashes on any properly configured modern PC should be very few and far between.

This is half correct. AMD servers use AMD chipsets for the most part (most people forget that AMD is one of the largest manufacturers of chipsets for AMD CPUs), and they certainly have been proven in mission critical servers (which is why 80% of the Forbes 100 companies have now gone with AMD for their new servers). The NForce Pro (Nvidia's Opteron server chipset) is still being evaluated (usually takes about a year), but so far I haven't heard any negatives (though until it's been tested for at least a year, it's not "mission critical ready").
The next chipset leap for AMD BTW will be the Horus 32-way, which has been in development for several years now. We are expecting it sometime early 2006.

As to consumer use, the AMD platform is always at least as stable as Intel's...the only caveat is in an area where there is heat in the room. In that case, I would say that the AMD platform would be more stable (for obvious reasons...).

Edit: I should add that another example of Opteron's acceptance as a mission critical platform is that Cray is now exclusively Opteron on their supercomputers, and Sun has dropped Intel altogether in favour of AMD...

Ditto

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
AMD Athlon 64 and Nvidia NForce4 will be just as stable. Anyone who claims otherwise either has out of date info (way out of date, as in several years), is an ignorant idiot, or is a troll.

I'm sorry but I have to say, the AMD processors are obviously the last thing that is the cause of system stability but I have to say, Nforce Chipsets are still not as good as intel chipsets. I've had too many problems with Nforce chipsets to say that they're as good as intel chipsets, now to say that nforce is down right crappy would be a lie because they're fairly decent and so much better than VIA. I'm waiting for ati's chipset which appears to already be very stable, better performing etc despite being in the beta stage...

Which version of Nforce are you referring to? If you mean the first or second version, then I won't disagree...but Nforce3 and most especially Nforce4 have been unerringly rock solid! There is the issue that dexvx raised about motherboard components...this is quite true, and many people wrongly blame the chipset or the CPU when it's the actual mobo manufacturer you should be wary of...

 

[Varun]

Originally posted by: Pariah
AMD and to a much greater extend, NVidia, has not proven itself in the truly mission critical server arena. Until they do so, Intel + Intel is still the proven and safer stable option. CPU's are very rarely the cause of system instability, the motherboard is a far more often culprit. So it isn't really a case of Intel being more stable than AMD. I wouldn't think twice between an Intel CPU/Nvidia chipset and Intel CPU/Intel chipset/Intel board, it would be Intel chipset all the way. Since AMD has no comparable partner in the chipset arena, they lose by default until they prove otherwise.

It's all a moot point for home users where a crash once a month isn't that big a deal. AMD platforms are just as good as Intel for home users where systems don't get punished 24-7-365. Crashes on any properly configured modern PC should be very few and far between.

I just want to throw in an anecdote here. About 2-3 weeks ago we had a server that was crashing on us. It took a bit of diagnosing, but it was actually the CPU that was killing it. I'd never in my life see a CPU go, much less a Xeon that was less than a year old.

Anyways, the point of that was even might Intel isn't free of issues.

Also, we have deployed many many many Dell Optiplex GX280's (well over 500 last year), which are a P4 3.2, 1GB of RAM running off the Intel 915 chipset. Well, it's quite common for these Dells to blow capacitors, and the Dell guy visits a couple times a month it seems to fix them. This is of course, no fault of Intel, but I just want to point out that even though it's Intel CPU + Intel chipset, you are not guaranteed to have a stable system.

The bad days of AMD are WAY gone, and were mostly due to VIA chipsets anyways. Right now you would be a fool not to buy an AMD for pretty much any task you would ever do on a computer.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: Viditor
This is half correct. AMD servers use AMD chipsets for the most part (most people forget that AMD is one of the largest manufacturers of chipsets for AMD CPUs), and they certainly have been proven in mission critical servers (which is why 80% of the Forbes 100 companies have now gone with AMD for their new servers).

Yep, another example would be taking a look at the TOP500 super computers. Here's #6. That's 10880 Opterons.

And speaking of chipsets.
AMD Opteron + AMD 8000 > Intel anything + Intel anything in my humble opinion

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Viditor
This is half correct. AMD servers use AMD chipsets for the most part (most people forget that AMD is one of the largest manufacturers of chipsets for AMD CPUs), and they certainly have been proven in mission critical servers (which is why 80% of the Forbes 100 companies have now gone with AMD for their new servers).

Yep, another example would be taking a look at the TOP500 super computers. Here's #6. That's 10880 Opterons.

And speaking of chipsets.
AMD Opteron + AMD 8000 > Intel anything + Intel anything in my humble opinion

Posting from dual Opteron 248's on Tyan 2885 (AMD 8000 chipset). Been up for 6 months 24/7. Ya, its not stable.... NOT !!!!!

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
AMD Athlon 64 and Nvidia NForce4 will be just as stable. Anyone who claims otherwise either has out of date info (way out of date, as in several years), is an ignorant idiot, or is a troll.

I'm sorry but I have to say, the AMD processors are obviously the last thing that is the cause of system stability but I have to say, Nforce Chipsets are still not as good as intel chipsets. I've had too many problems with Nforce chipsets to say that they're as good as intel chipsets, now to say that nforce is down right crappy would be a lie because they're fairly decent and so much better than VIA. I'm waiting for ati's chipset which appears to already be very stable, better performing etc despite being in the beta stage...

Which version of Nforce are you referring to? If you mean the first or second version, then I won't disagree...but Nforce3 and most especially Nforce4 have been unerringly rock solid! There is the issue that dexvx raised about motherboard components...this is quite true, and many people wrongly blame the chipset or the CPU when it's the actual mobo manufacturer you should be wary of...

yup, Nforce 2. Also the Nforce 4 doesn't play nice with the creative X-Fi cards which I personally think is absurd and there is no reason for this.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Viditor
This is half correct. AMD servers use AMD chipsets for the most part (most people forget that AMD is one of the largest manufacturers of chipsets for AMD CPUs), and they certainly have been proven in mission critical servers (which is why 80% of the Forbes 100 companies have now gone with AMD for their new servers).

Yep, another example would be taking a look at the TOP500 super computers. Here's #6. That's 10880 Opterons.

And speaking of chipsets.
AMD Opteron + AMD 8000 > Intel anything + Intel anything in my humble opinion

Posting from dual Opteron 248's on Tyan 2885 (AMD 8000 chipset). Been up for 6 months 24/7. Ya, its not stable.... NOT !!!!!

Why doesn't AMD produce consumer chipsets????

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: goku


Why doesn't AMD produce consumer chipsets????

Because they are (in some cases) more expensive to produce than the CPUs...that was certainly the case with the first Athlon. AMD doesn't have the size or infrastructure to go it alone on all aspects of their platforms...
For servers, things change very slowly (and cautiously), so they can afford to develop chipsets that are absolutely perfect. For the consumer market, changes happen so fast that the cost of keeping up would soon overwhelm them.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: ribbon13

Originally posted by: Viditor
This is half correct. AMD servers use AMD chipsets for the most part (most people forget that AMD is one of the largest manufacturers of chipsets for AMD CPUs), and they certainly have been proven in mission critical servers (which is why 80% of the Forbes 100 companies have now gone with AMD for their new servers).

Yep, another example would be taking a look at the TOP500 super computers. Here's #6. That's 10880 Opterons.

And speaking of chipsets.
AMD Opteron + AMD 8000 > Intel anything + Intel anything in my humble opinion

Posting from dual Opteron 248's on Tyan 2885 (AMD 8000 chipset). Been up for 6 months 24/7. Ya, its not stable.... NOT !!!!!

Why doesn't AMD produce consumer chipsets????

Why should it ? The nforce3 and 4 are great ! So what the X-FI (or whatever from creative) doesn't work good, thats creative's fault !

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: goku

yup, Nforce 2. Also the Nforce 4 doesn't play nice with the creative X-Fi cards which I personally think is absurd and there is no reason for this.

That was actually Creative's fault, and they even admitted it (a first for them!).

 

[The Boston Dangler]

They don't want to. The big money is in industrial equipment. If I had the resources to do either industrial or home/light office products, I'd follow the money and do industrial.